Uninteresting. Unsurprising. Uninspiring.
I don’t mean to be flippant or offensive, only honest—and those three words honestly sum up my impressions about this past weekend’s LDS General Conference. I could probably leave it at that, but I’ll expound a bit. Brevity isn’t my style.
Last October, I attempted to blog conference and failed. There was so much to address in that conference that I felt a short response was too inadequate, and an appropriately long response too overwhelming.
In contrast, I’m finding this most recent conference rather easy to blog, because it was devoid of depth and substance. If I may, it put the general in General Conference.
To be fair, it wasn’t all bad. I had hoped—in the aftermath of the Senator Reid controversy—that a church official would stress the importance of political civility, and Bishop David Burton’s talk did just that. An answered prayer, perhaps. And like most conferences, this one had some heart-warming stories of kindness and charity.
But frankly, I expect more of prophets and apostles than heart-warming stories. If that’s all I wanted, I’d go read Chicken Noodle Soup for the Soul. (What would the atheist equivalent be? Organic Vegan Soup for the Inducement of Dopamine in the Brain?)
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was among the only speakers to deviate from this feel-goodery. His Saturday talk concerned pornography, a topic that—among Mormon males, at least—evokes more a “sinking in the bosom” than a burning.
Holland consistently delivers powerful and impassioned talks. This talk was no exception. It was also the one slight surprise of this conference. The issue of pornography was a fixture in conference talks when I was growing up in the church, but it has been largely (and curiously) neglected in the past few years. So it was interesting to hear the sticky subject explicitly mentioned again.
President Thomas S. Monson is another person who can generally be counted on for a good talk. But this conference, I was sorely disappointed. In both his Saturday and Sunday addresses, I swear Monson simply rehashed previous talks he had given. And I wasn’t alone in experiencing déjà vu. Ben Clarke, a friend of mine, also noticed Monson’s penchant for “recycling”:
I estimate that President Monson has a corpus of about twelve sermons and about twenty stories. For the past few decades, Monson has generated his addresses to the church essentially by tweaking his past talks; I would call it ‘variations on themes,’ but variation is too strong a term. Some of his sermons are a kind of pastiche of his previous talks, but most are mere retellings, often word-for-word quotations of them. Thus, President Monson holds the rather dubious distinction of being the least creative prophet in the past twenty years.
This isn’t to suggest that Monson is lazy. The man is just getting old, and that fact is becoming increasingly apparent.
Ben then perfectly articulates my larger frustration with conference in particular, and the modern LDS Church in general:
Ultimately, I suppose, it is in Thomas S. Monson that the LDS church has found its paragon of leadership in the 21rst century. Gone is the doctrinal daring of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, along with the willingness to speculate or even to generate new interpretations of the scriptures. Of the 2,478 pages of canonized LDS revelation, only 9 pages (.03 %) have been added in the past century. A religious movement with the audacity to produce three new books of scripture has grown silent, matching the muted quality of the traditional Christianity it now so earnestly strives to become reunified with. In the age of ecumenicism, the church has attempted to assimilate without assimilating. While refusing to revise traditional understandings of church doctrine, the leaders of the church have covered arresting potential of continuing revelation with a patina of platitudes, with endless repetitions of the fundamentals, at the expense of doctrinal growth. Last year’s fateful move to change the Priesthood and Relief Society curriculum has been emblematic of the theological dilution of the church, well over a century in the making. President Monson embodies this very dilution; his sermons are Music and the Spoken Word without a tune, polished reflections of an aborted revolution. Churches don’t change by spontaneous irruptions of divine revelation, but by thinkers willing to bend the heavens to their purged understandings.
Maybe this devolution is just the price of becoming a worldwide church. I don’t know. Nevertheless, I find the trend upsetting. Like Ben, I want to see Mormonism back on the “theological frontlines” it once occupied. I mean, why even have prophets when all you’re going to do is trot them out twice a year to give a pep talk?
To my LDS friends: There are deeper reservoirs of Mormon thought and spirituality than General Conference. I think you really stunt your spiritual development by staying within the confines of conference.
You would be better served by engaging the works of Eugene England, Philip Barlow, Blake Ostler, and other thoughtful Mormons. They’ll introduce you to a Mormonism with a greater fidelity to reason. A faith that admits error and is comfortable with doubt. In short, to quote St. Anselm, a “faith seeking understanding.”
I disagree with this more reflective faith still, but it’s preferable to the comparatively empty and blind faith on display last weekend.
That’s this apostate’s sincere and humble advice. Take it for what it’s worth.
I have watched a few conferences (though watched none of this one, it being Easter weekend). My impression of them is that they are intellectually very thin. I’ve had some LDS students protest that claim and argue that there is a lot of “meat”, but I just don’t see it.
I do not think this is a consequence of being a global church. I think it is a consequence of two things. (a) there are pockets of intellectual mormonism, but they remain pockets. For the most part, Mormonism has not seriously dedicated itself to philosophy and theology. Its focus is on missionary zeal, not on faith seeking understanding. The LDS faith is, at least at this point, an intellectually thin tradition. (b) It is hard to avoid chicken soup for the mormon soul when you have such a “democratic” annual meeting. When every member is listening, it is difficult to not race to a lowest common denominator.
What is too bad about is that people would listen even if they were being challenged. My faith tradition – Roman Catholicism – has an extremely robust intellectual history (some of the best philosophy being done today is being done by Catholic phenomenologists like Marion and Girard). But what pains me is how incredibly ignorant of the intellectual rigor of the faith most Catholics are. I would love it if we had an annual meeting where everyone felt obligated to listen to Church leaders and the Pope and bishops gave substantive talks on the theology of the body, christology, the dictatorship of relativism, moral theology, etc. Maybe have scholars read short passages of the Bible and the Summa (the two texts on the altar at the Council of Trent!) and do some exegesis. Trouble is, most Catholics would not tune in. Point is, the LDS church is squandering an opportunity to feed their flock (who are voluntarily captive audiences for this) with serious theology.
By the way, Sherlock told me yesterday that scholars at BYU will be putting out soon, in a multi-volume set, a serious scholarly work on the New Testament. It will include a brand new translation from the Greek along with scholarly articles on each book. It is meant to be a serious work of biblical scholarship and Sherlock expects it will be. One interesting note: they are specifically excluding any reference to McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine – it is Sherlock’s view that McConkie has not only been outed as a completely unqualified scholar but his views are becoming non grata within LDS scholarly circles generally (this does not mean he was not a pious mormon – in fact Sherlock says one of McConkie’s talks at conference just a few months before he died, 1985 I think, was the most moving conference talk Sherlock has ever heard).
Disclaimer: I know this is going to sound snobby.
Monson and Benson are both about the same age (both born in 1927), so I don’t know that age is much of an excuse (Benedict is still operating an extremely high intellectual level). Perhaps Monson’s powers are failing faster than Benedict’s, though.
I think most of it is a difference of pedigree, so to speak. Ratzinger / Benedict has a Phd and was a widely regarded academic for many decades. He held a very distinguished chair at Tubingen and has published (quite prolifically) academic work at the highest level. He has publicly engaged the brightest philosophical lights (the Jürgen Habermas engagement being the most famous). Same story can be said of John Paul II. Compare Monson, who has an MBA and has, as best as I can tell, next to no formal training in philosophy or theology. Now I understand that the Presidency of the LDS Church is more about prophecy than it is about academic credentials. From the point of view of prophesy and revelation, I understand that lots of academic credentials are not required. But my point is that the chosen LDS leadership is not particularly well equipped to engage philosophical theology at a very high level. This is not true of Catholic leadership, which tends to be occupied by persons of the highest academic (typically philosophy) caliber. LDS leaders tend to be groomed more for corporate leadership. (Note: the lack of corporate leadership grooming does not always serve the Catholic Church well – see the tin public relations ear the Vatican has exhibited throughout the sex scandal crisis). Anyway, I think this has a lot to do with why the General Conference is intellectually thin. I guess part of Jon’s point is that it is even thin on the revealed prophesy side (which would not require robust academic credentials).
For what it’s worth, I think you’ve nailed it.
Agreed many times over.
On the other hand, when there is exciting and different doctrine, people protest about the weridness and “cultishness” of it. I think the church leaders would find value in being seen as mainstream.
So, even though, for example, the easter sunday morning conference session was rather generic, I think it was refreshing in that it allows members to rest easy and note that the church leaders can fit in with other Christian leaders and give familiar Easter talks
Not sure if it really helps the LDS church “fit in”. There is a reason why Mormons who convert to Catholicism have to be rebaptized (while a protestant does not). The Protestant baptism is considered valid because Catholics and Protestants share the same basic faith. Mormonism is an entirely different faith altogether.
I am supportive of ecumenical efforts and I expect to see increased cooperation on social morality issues, but not much more. The theology of Mormonism is so radically distinct from creedal Christianity (ie, the rest of the Christian world) that Mormonism will never be accepted into mainstream Christianity. Mormonism is quite simply an entirely different religion with entirely and essentially different claims about the nature of God and man. As such, I think Mormons are better off emphasizing their uniqueness rather than playing the charade that Mormonism is “just another denomination of [mainline / historical / creedal] Christianity”.
It doesn’t have to *succeed* in helping the church “fit in” for the church still to attempt it in the hopes.
While I would probably agree (in the end) that the church should stress its uniqueness, I can see that the leaders probably want to tread the fine bushman angel-and-beehive line
@ Jon,
I was surprised that you enjoyed Holland’s talk so much. He’s probably my favorite, but his talk seemed hamstringed by his inability to talk about lust and such openly. I was asleep half the time, however; maybe I’d do well to reread it.
I didn’t enjoy the content of the talk, I just appreciate Holland as a speaker. I don’t have to ward off sleep when listening to him ha ha.
Simple things confound the learned. We turn to our prophets, but our scripture study will continually reveal precious truths to . The Savior taught in simple terms, I guess that we are above this now? To expand our minds is good, this is done with greater results at home, in our priesthood meetings, if we want dialogue. If we want doctrinal expansion or expression, go help someone in need, then you will grow and the simple things will become great things. Talk is cheap. The classroom is sitting with the hopeless and comforting them. The classroom is in visiting the sick. I can’t help but to recall the critics of the Lord because he spoke in a simple manner to all not just the chosen or the well versed. Too much judgment, especially because of their inspired call as special witnesses of Christ. To be compared to other religions, we are not the same. We will not fit in unless we lose our shape and conform to man’s views.
Well, the mormon church relies more heavily than other churches on an appeal to authority. The prophet said it is true, so it is true. In mormon theology, Adam prayed to God, but Lucifer answered him stating that he is the god of this world. Adam told Lucifer that he wanted messengers from heaven to teach him, and Lucifer replied, “Oh, you want someone to preach to you. You want religion, do you? There will be many willing to preach to you the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.” Adam resisted, saying that he was waiting for messengers from his Father. So I think many mormons are skeptical of philosophy and human reasoning. Therefore, when the mormon leaders tell heart-warming stories, many members ‘feel’ that the holy ghost is confirming their authority. And authority trumps reason.
Sam makes some good points. Yes, talk can be cheap and real “witness” occurs out with the poor, needy and sick (Vince’s point about “predicational theology” and the focus on the godly instead of god). And yes, Christ tended to teach in “simple terms”. But the LDS authorities are talking. The question is – is there talk “cheap” or is it substantive?
The focus on godly action does not require anti-intellectualism. Yes, Christ taught in simple terms. But what he was teaching was not simple. If it was all so simple, then why did his disciples rarely understand? His disciples were not the “learned” who are confounded by the simple, they were fishermen. Oddly enough, the simple is quite complex. Point is, that Jesus taught in simple parables is not a justification for anti-intellectualism. If the meaning of the teachings was plain, then why are there some 25,000 denominations?
But Sam has done us a favor – provided another possible cause for they the General Conferences are intellectually thin. It is my opinion that Utah Mormon culture is profoundly anti-intellectual. This is not unique to Utah, I think America is pretty anti-intellectual. But it seems particularly pronounced here. I don’t recall the passage, but the “natural man” and “philosophies of men” passages in LDS scriptures are a big part of this, in my view.
1 Cor. 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Wait, wait. I want in on this too. It is not just the Mormons and Catholic cultures that have profoundly anti-intellectual crowds of believers. We Evangelicals and Protestants embrace fideism over “faith seeking understanding”. American Evangelicals are particularly well known for their egregious anti-intellectualism.
There always seems to be the deep thinkers that place faith on a ‘reasonable’ foundation, but they are an erudite crowd. Catholics have their thinkers — Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, Pascal, Anscombe, JPII, etc, etc, etc. Protestants have Luther, Calvin, Scheiermacher, Schweitzer, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Tillich, etc, etc,etc. It seems that Mormon Scholars are beginning to up their intellectual level. USU’s own Philip Barlow and Richard Sherlock included.
We could probably place a large number of agnostics (atheists?) in the category of being agnostics without much thought. Perhaps atheists on a whole are more thoughtfully intellectual than other groups, but anti-intellectualism is a typical situation for any faith and non-faith decision. It is not limited to Mormons.
So I speak out, “Me too!”
Great point, Vince. But I must pause over something.
With all due respect to my colleagues Dr. Sherlock and Dr. Barlow, let’s look again at the list:
Aquinas, Luther, Sherlock ? No offense to my dear friend Richard, but one of these things is not like the others.
But I get Vince’s point – there is a crop of rising intellectualism in Mormonism. Sherlock and Barlow, Ostler, etc. There is a seed here. Whether the plant flourishes, we have to wait and see.
Sherlock and I often talk about Mormonism and the role of philosophical theology within it. Sherlock points out, quite rightly, that Mormonism is a very young faith. And it is a faith that has a missionary zeal that has taken away focus that would otherwise be put on the intellectual development of the faith. So it deserves to be given some time to mature. Catholics have a mighty intellectual tradition, but they have been at it for 2000 years.
But I do think it is reasonable to ask about the trajectory of the LDS church. Is Mormonism watering its intellectual soul, or are those lands largely parched because energy and efforts are directed elsewhere? Will a substantive intellectual tradition grow out of the faith? In 1000 years, will we speak of the “Mormon philosophical tradition” in the way we now speak of the “Catholic philosophical tradition”? That is, to say the least, an open question.
There are two issues:
a) Is the slow lift-off for substantive philosophical theology in Mormonism due to its youth as well as prevailing cultural tendencies (a general anti-intellectualism in America along with the very practical cultural disposition of most Mormons)?
or
b) Is there something inherent to the Mormon faith that will continue to handicap intellectual development? Some potential suspects here include: (i) What seems to be a negative view of the “philosophies of men”, (ii) A view of prophesy that trumps or negates the value of reason and (iii) a voluntarist rather than an intellectualist understanding of the divine (I actually have a paper in draft on this topic, comparing Mormonism with Islam from the point of view of Benedict’s critique of Islam).
I am not judging one way or the other. We are all just trying to read the tea leaves here. It is a live question for Mormons, and it will be interesting to see what role reason is given as the LDS tradition matures.
I would just like to say something concerning general conference. People who say that the conference is thin intellectually need to remember that everyone is on a different intellectual playing field then those who contribute to this blog. I would also put myself in a lower playing field then those who post on this blog, in other words you people are smart! One big tenet of Mormonism is that the Holy Ghost teaches truth and that knowledge is gained through faith and study and when knowledge is given it is piece by piece. I can listen to a general conference talk and the Holy Ghost can teach me something that I have questions about, whether it is about philosophy or whatever it is that I am trying to understand.God teaches people according to their own intellectual capacities. So there can be meat found in the talks, but one must be spiritually in-tune to receive it. At face value the speeches my seem like heart warming stories, and there are a lot that are, but if you approach the conference talks with an inquisitive attitude and with a prayerful heart, things of a deeper nature can be revealed. I know that might seem silly to a lot of people on this blog, but I can honestly say I have seen this happen to me. I am not anti-intellectual and I like to be challenged about my beliefs and I think that my faith can be enriched from other faith traditions as well as the beliefs from atheists! I do agree that overall, America has as in the words of John Sexton “an allergy to thought”.
Thanks for your thoughts, Jake. Are you a frequent reader, or did you just humble upon our little blog?
Jake sells himself really short here – he is a USU grad and philosophy major who was an excellent student. I’m still waiting to hear from him about law schools (go Irish?!).
Perhaps I am not spiritually in tune with what is being said at conference (that is likely true). But I must admit it seems much more plausible, instead of saying there is hidden substance, to just say that general conference is for everyone so the talks are necessarily basic because many “lay” are not capable of operating at a higher level. That would not be a particular knock on Mormonism, as Vince and I have both pointed out there is plenty of anti-intellectualism to go around!
There is a debate right now in the Catholic Church that is relevant. They have recently moved to final approval of a retranslation from the Latin to the English of the liturgy. This will be an enormous change for your everyday Catholic because the prayers we say every week at Mass will be altered, and in some cases rather dramatically.
If you know anything about the Latin, it is pretty easy to see that the current English translation takes considerable liberties. There are clear subtractions, for instance. The idea with the current translation was to put the liturgy and creeds in as ordinary a language as possible. For example (and this is one of the changes that some Catholics are most upset about): the Latin reads that Jesus Christ is “consubstantialem Patri”. This is currently translated as “one in Being with the Father”. The new translation with read “consubstantial with the Father.”
The most common complaint about the new translation is that it is too technical. People argue, ‘no one knows what “consubstantial” means!’. And they are right, most don’t. But do people know what it means to say “one in Being”? No. In other words, “dumbing down” the theological language has not led to any noticeable increase in lay Catholic theological understanding. If anything, the opposite has happened.
My general point is this – even when you are dealing with the broadest possible audience, I don’t know that reducing expectations is a great idea. When you expect and offer little, you will get little in return. I think people are capable of more than we usually think (I say this with a bit of a gulp, having read Jon’s most recent post on the silly things some people believe). Give people the opportunity to rise up to greater understanding instead of reducing what there is to be understood right out of the gate. This is certainly my philosophy of teaching, and is why I read only great books even in my Intro courses.
By the way, I fully approve of the translation changes. With Benedict, I’d also like to see Catholics celebrate the Mass in Latin more often (like it was always done until the 60s). Catholics have lost a considerable amount of their unique character by moving away from the Latin, and since lay Catholics no longer learn Latin (as many did a few generations ago) there has been a general “dumbing down”. And since lex orandi, lex credendi (as we pray, so we believe) I think it is wise to be as theologically precise in our prayers as possible, even if lay Catholics will need to be lifted up to handle the more technical language.
For Religious Studies readers or for those that are curious, here are some examples of the changes:
http://usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml
And here is the current translation side by side with the Latin:
http://www.latinliturgy.com/id18.htm
I am a frequent reader. I enjoy the discussion on this blog. I found out about the blog from the usu philosophy blog. Once again I enjoy the discussion that takes place on the blog.
BYU Professor Millet has been in a conversation with Evangelical Professors of Fuller Theological Seminary. His willingness to converse helped him formula some very thoughtful Mormon positions. He is interviewed by Krista Tippet of ‘Speaking of Faith’ here:
Inside Mormon Faith
One of the great comments he makes is that compared to Christian history, Mormonism is only in the second century of development. The distillation of early Christian thinking is crystallized with the Nicene Creed formulation in the fourth century. Christians had produced only Justin Martyr (103-165 AD) as the only philosophical thinker by the middle of the second century. The others were more dogmatically inclined (Tertullian, Irenaeus, etc.). It wasn’t until Origen (185-254 AD) that Christianity had a real scholarly thinker.
I would say Paul of Tarsus puts a very early theological and scholarly stamp on what Jesus’ life and death meant, but it takes a boat load of bishops and a few bright stars to answer a few more questions.
Professor Millet requests some time for Mormonism to wrestle with its understanding as a new religious tradition.
I must say I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. I agree with most of it. As a person who has been watching conference since I was born I can say that the heart warming stories can get old. I like when the apostles come out and say what needs to be said like Elder Holland. I appreciate the tip on reading more from other authors I plan on doing so.
This Mormon blogger shares my assessment of the most recent General Conference:
http://swearingelders.blogspot.com/2010/04/flip-vs-flop-my-review-of-general.html
I think he rightly excoriates church leaders for making things like “dont wear flip-flops” the take-home message of conference, instead of drawing attention to the real ills of the world.
Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
You complain when it’s ‘boring’. You complain when you don’t like what you hear. Why don’t you pick a position and be honest about it.
There’s nothing inconsistent about those two (honest) positions.
Criem Vergonha na Cara de Vocês e procurem se arrependerem rapá!! Onde já se viu um um monte de palavras sem um gota de intelequitualidade de sua parte. Por que você Busca o Extraordinário nas obras de Deus? É por meio de coisas pequenas que as grandes são realizadas, e as palavras que vc ouviu na conferencia são tão simples que confundem sua cabeça, que parece, que não tem nada, apesar de mostrar-se inteligente. BURRO!! INSENSATO, NEGLIGENTE… Espero mais um pouco, só mais um pouco… Você verá então o verdadeiro significado do que os profetas disseram nessas conferencias gerais.
Adeus irmão, espero encontrar-nos no inevitável tribunal de Deus.