REVIEW: Mason, Restoration, Pt. 5

So there isn't a lot about economics in Mason's book, but what's there is good. However, there are also some areas where I think Mason sails a little too close to the prevailing winds of "enlightened contemporary Mormonism," to coin a phrase. This final post is about those areas.

There are three main areas of what we might call enlightened contemporary Mormonism. They are gender equality, sexual orientation, and ecumenism. The first of these shows up on Page 1, when Mason writes of being called as branch president that "my main qualification being my possession of a Y chromosome and hence the Melchizedek Priesthood." It is NOT the case, as implied by the word "hence," that priesthood ordination is a matter of male DNA. Many men in the world have not been ordained to the priesthood. Many men in the Church have not been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. And while it might have been intended as good-natured self-deprecation ("Ha ha, I'm not that great; the only qualification I have for being branch president is that I'm a dude"), it comes across as dismissive of the very idea of divine callings. God doesn't call branch presidents; he has district or mission leaders look around for a male and then say, "Good enough." It is reflective of the hubristic view that says, "God hasn't explained to my satisfaction why we can't have female ordination."

Now, as I've mentioned before, I don't believe that the current situation regarding female ordination is the Lord's final state of things. And I think one of the lessons of the 1978 revelation on the priesthood is that God doesn't force improved structures upon us if we are satisfied with imperfect ones. As Jesus tells the Nephites in 3 Ne. 15:16-24, His disciples at Jerusalem were left with a lesser understanding because they thought they already knew the answer. Mason writes that "one remarkable gift the Latter-day Saints could give would be to more fully reveal our Mother to her children around the world" (p. 81). In the sense of making the limited amount we know about a Heavenly Mother more-widely known, I agree. But we can't reveal something that God hasn't revealed first. We can humbly ask for more information, but we can't petulantly insist upon it. This formulation, that priesthood is male just because, is an assumption that has no doctrinal basis, as is the assumption that anything said of Heavenly Father could be equally said of Heavenly Mother. For instance, Mason writes of "a divine Mother and Father whose entire work and glory is for us to become like they are" (p. 52). While that might be a safe assumption, based on Moses 1:39, the fact is it IS an assumption; we don't know our Heavenly Mother's work and glory. We can't just read "Parents" into every scriptural reference to "Father."

Sexual orientation arrives when Mason criticizes the "nuclear family" focus, saying it can become an idol. He writes, "Our Heavenly Parents' plan of salvation was never focused on preserving your family so much as reconciling and exalting theirs" (p. 52). That's a big stretch that isn't supported by any doctrine. The 132nd section of the Doctrine and Covenants makes a lot of references to having your family, not just some random relatives. Mason's statement ignores that the extended family of God is only exalted in sealed nuclear-family relationships. As Elder D. Todd Christofferson said last General Conference, quoting President Russell M. Nelson at Sister Pat Holland's funeral, "Salvation is an individual matter, but exaltation is a family matter." We don't help our LGBTQ brothers and sisters by pretending that heterosexual sealing is just a policy decision.

Finally, Mason undermines unique truth claims in the effort to sound more reasonable and open to members of other faiths. His explanation of requiring rebaptism of early Church members completely ignores claims to priesthood authority. "This is why rebaptism was necessary for the first members of the church in April 1830," he writes. "It wasn't because God had shut his eyes to the sincere proclamation of faith as demonstrated in many centuries' worth of Christian sacraments" (p. 30). Unauthorized sacraments are not valid ordinances, irrespective of sincerity. This ecumenism is summed up by the laughingly-misconstrued quotation of the 13th Article of Faith (p. 75) that is cut down to only "We believe all things." Is that what Paul was talking about, a "you do you" Christianity that believes any sincere sacrament is valid in the eternities? When Mason writes with little explanation that "a more expansive view of the Restoration can embrace some aspects of secularism" (p. 77), he seems to belittle the heartache of Church members whose family members have followed elightened contemporary Mormonism out of their holy covenants. "What are you so worked up about? They answered the question of 'what does the Restoration mean for you' (p. 34) and decided that sincere sacraments binding their non-Proclamation family unit were just as valid. If you have a problem with that, maybe you've let your nuclear family 'become an idol that blinds and alienates' (p. 52)."

In short, it's tricky. Christ wouldn't have us be too restrictive and live in what Mason calls the fortress church, but neither would He have us too permissive and reduce "the only true and living church" to our idiosyncratic faith tradition. Probably no one is ever going to completely agree with someone else's perferred mix of restrictiveness and permissiveness. Where Mason advocates more permissiveness in economic thinking, I agree. Where he delves into gender equality, sexual orientation, and ecumenism, I think he is not restrictive enough. Loosening our views enough to allow both views in the same Church without loosening them so much that the Church disolves is the challenge of our times.

REVIEW: Mason, Restoration, Pt. 4

From my area of interest, the core of Mason's book is the two pages where he details Church members' current baggage with respect to economic inequality (pp. 65-67). This is more applicable to Millennial Social Thought (MST) than the later section recommending action on refugee and immigrant issues, social justice, and community (pp. 83-7), because those are Zion-adjacent projects that can only be approached once the average member's aversion to consecration is addressed.

Mason begins with the observation that "one of the most consistent targets of divine condemnation throughout Restoration scriptures is inequality" (p. 65). In the Book of Mormon this is mostly tangential--if you don't want to see the economic aspect of the pride cycle, you can pretty successfully ignore it. Even the Zion society built in 4 Nephi can be viewed as a result of the Savior's preceding visit. The reference to the Zion society built by Alma by the Waters of Mormon is a blink-and-miss-it moment (Mosiah 18:29). The only explicit discussion of economic inequality and its evil nature is in Jacob 2.

The Doctrine and Covenants, however, contains many sections with strong condemnation of inequality. Section 38 of the Doctrine and Covenants, received in January 1831, introduces the topic of economic inequality to the Church. It is in this section that we get the repeated instruction to "let every man esteem his brother as himself" (vv. 23-4). We can think of the rare instances that the Lord immediately repeats himself as Tyler Durden verses (from the man who devised the second rule of Fight Club). Another example of Tyler Durden verses is contained in Ezra Taft Benson's April 1989 General Conference talk "Beware of Pride," when he first says, "Pride is the universal sin, the great vice. Yes, pride is the universal sin, the great vice," and later says "Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion. I repeat: Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion." When the Lord or His prophets immediately repeat themselves, you can bet it is important counsel that is widely ignored.

Mason writes, "Jesus was not a capitalist" (p. 65), which to many (too many) members of the Church is fighting words. Perhaps recognizing that, Mason walks it back a little when he adds, "It may be that free market capitalism is the least bad economy that humans can devise and implement in a telestial world" (p. 66), but I disagree. Scriptural Zions were built by mortal people in this, the telestial world. I used to think Zion was something Jesus would bring back with Him, and all we had to do was be ready to enter it. The reality is that Zion is something we are to build that will be here to welcome Him. We can't cling to capitalism until Jesus shows up with its replacement. We must get over our capitalism fetish on our own. That is going to require us to acknowledge that it is NOT the least bad economy that humans can devise. We can do better. Mason mentions an 1875 denunciation of capitalism by the First Presidency (which will be my next project here), wherein the Church leaders called for "an alternative economic system based on the principle of cooperation, not competition" (p. 66). Mason recognizes this duty when he writes later

While the Restoration eagerly anticipates the return of Jesus, it also impels us not to wait until he comes to renovate the world. At the heart of the Restoration message is the clarion call to build Zion--here and now, not tomorrow and somewhere else. [p. 78]

When we adhere so tightly to American capitalism is it any wonder, then that "we picked up America's allergy to talking about inequality" (pp. 66-7), as Mason writes? He adds

At times we have even verged dangerously close to embracing a Latter-day Saint version of the "prosperity gospel," the operating assumptions of which are that God wants us to be rich and comfortable, and that wealth is a sign of his favor. [p. 67]

I will look later at how Jacob 2:19 and Doct. and Cov. 67:2 might support or refute the prosperity gospel. But let's start with an honest assessment of the responsibility we face. We aren't asked to be good capitalists until Jesus arrives with a better system. Recently we've heard more reminders in General Conference that the Restoration is an ongoing process, not something that happened in the 1820s. Mason writes it "will remain ongoing and incomplete so long as there are any poor or 'any manner of -ites' among us" (p. 20). Marion G. Romney once said

This welfare program was set up under inspiration in the days of President Grant. It was thoroughly analyzed and taught by his great counselor, J. Reuben Clark, Jr. It is in basic principle the same as the United Order. When we get so we can live it, we will be ready for the United Order. You brethren know that we will have to have a people ready for that order in order to receive the Savior when he comes.

The welfare program is the training ground. Capitalism is not.

REVIEW: Mason, Restoration, Pt. 3 [EDITED]

[The first version of this stopped after two points because I planned my day poorly.]

So Patrick Mason wants Latter-day Saints to sally outside the fortress church and pursue goal he calls re-enchantment, human identity, religious freedom, refugees and immigrants, social justice, and community, as covered in the previous parts of this review. But before outlining those six goals, Mason identifies six areas where our historical baggage hinders this:

1. racism
2. patriarchy
3. nationalism
4. cultural colonialism
5. inequality of wealth
6. fundamentalism

Now this is where things get even shakier, in terms of keeping everyone on board. The six goals Mason proposes are close to running foul of some members' cherished political views, but these baggage items run foul of some members' cherished doctrinal views. That's because these members have doctrinal understandings that are not doctrine itself, but that's a lot bigger of an argument to undertake. And one foul step in the attempt can wreck the whole enterprise.

Nevertheless, I think Mason is right in all six of these items. But being right isn't enough when you're trying to change someone's mind about what they think are the principles of their religion. You have to have flawless arguments, because if there is any error in your logic, the target audience will latch onto that error as proof that the entire premise is flawed. And this is where I start to find the little particulars that I think are bad.

RACISM (pp. 59-60): Early Church leaders were wrong to be so accommodating to the racism of their day. Later theologians were wrong to gin up "doctrinal" rationalizations for that racism. The Book of Mormon itself seems to indicate the same types of racist pseudo-doctrines were held by some ancient Nephites. The overwhelming whiteness of many US wards and branches can lead to behaviors and cultural practices that would make many of our neighbors uncomfortable to worship with us. My ward has about 100,000 people within its boundary. Probably half of those are non-white. But we have a very small number of non-white attenders, and they often have to deal with obtuse comments and behaviors. We had two Congolese brothers move in about a year ago and many older ward members still cannot tell them apart, and aren't particularly ashamed of that. That's not a great look. The defensiveness of some white members when the discussion turns to racism is keeping us from honestly accessing what we could be doing better. It can be true that you aren't racist and that people from a different background aren't comfortable around a group of people who are all like you. Nobody is calling you racist when they point out that we could all do better welcoming others.

PATRIARCHY (pp. 61-2): Just as Church members of the past were sure their racist cultural heritage was doctrinally based, today we have a lot of sexist views that we calmly accept because we think they have a doctrinal basis. Personally, I am convinced that the true role of women in the Church is far from clearly understood today, but until we have a desire to learn the truth we won't receive it. But can we at least start with the simple things? Stop assuming women are for childcare and food preparation, stop referring to men as "the priesthood," stop creating any explanations for the absence of female ordination beyond "that's our current understanding of the Lord's direction," and stop trying to "even things up" through the creation of a cult of motherhood.

NATIONALISM (pp. 62-3): Someday I might relate the stir I created in my ward when I didn't stand during the national anthem. Let me just say here that a calm explanation of the difference between patriotism and nationalism fell on deaf ears. Since the 1950s Church membership in the United States has identified more with the Republican Party, and since the nomination of Donald Trump in 2016 the Republican Party has been more nationalist than perhaps ever before. There are good signs regarding our rejection of nationalism, such as Trump underperforming for a Republican in LDS-heavy states like Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. There are bad signs regarding our embrace of nationalism, such as Trump still winning LDS-heavy areas easily. Jesus isn't coming again to be an American.

CULTURAL COLONIALISM (pp. 64-5): Many years ago I had the realization that a lot of the Church's culture can be explained by Joseph Smith growing up in Protestant 19th-century America. God told Joseph to start a church and Joseph said, "I know what church is supposed to look like," and God said, "Sure." But if the Restoration had begun in Africa or Asia our meetings would be drastically different today.

INEQUALITY OF WEALTH (pp. 65-7): This is the only one of these six projects that lines up with my area of interest, millennial social thought (MST). As such, I will write a separate post dealing just with this.

FUNDAMENTALISM (pp. 67-9): I think we've come a long way in a short time with rooting out personal opinions masquerading as dogma. We have men in bishoprics and stake presidencies with facial hair. We have boys in plaid shirts passing the sacrament. You can buy caffeinated drinks at BYU. But like the old saying about science advancing one funeral at a time, this process seems to be moving at the speed of generational replacement. Which is ironic considering that at the forefront of this change is a prophet who must be among a very small group of oldest Church members. We still have work to do, though. The Church contains a large number of members who view science and religion as foes. I had a Seminary teacher who taught against evolution and radiocarbon dating.

Next I will review in-depth the section on wealth inequality, and finally I will address the small bits that undermine the valid arguments.

REVIEW: Mason, Restoration, Pt. 2

In my previous post, I began a review of Restoration: God's Call to the 21st-Century World by Patrick Q. Mason. I ended with Mason's six areas of focus for the future. They are

1. re-enchantment
2. human identity
3. religious freedom
4. refugees and immigrants
5. social justice
6. community

Here's what he means by each of these.

RE-ENCHANTMENT (pp.79-80): Mason means returning a sense of the supernatural to a secular world that rejects all aspects of it. "Anytime we increase faith in the world, or encourage others to do the same, we are doing the work of restoring enchantment in a disenchanted age." Personally, I think the "I believe in science" crowd is ill-informed and thinks they are signaling advanced learning when they are really marking themselves as middling intellectuals. I'm no great scientific mind, but even in my limited reading in this area I have come across enough to know that there is more that surpasses our understanding than is commonly understood. Just in the past year I've read Stephen Hawking calmly claiming that there are around 11 or 12 dimensions and Govert Schilling's book summarizing the latest thinking in dark matter. "I only believe what I see" takes a major hit when science says we can't see most matter. The calm reversal of conventional wisdom on UFOs since early 2020 should help loosen up the disenchantment that held most "learned" people for the past 100 years.

HUMAN IDENTITY (pp. 80-1): In a world more willing to believe in unseen things, we can increase society's understanding of our origin as spirit children of Heavenly Parents. Mason claims that our theology is radical (it is) and that it deeply resonates with people (it does). Assuming when he writes "one remarkable gift the Latter-day Saints could give would be to more fully reveal our Mother to her children around the world" that he means just making this teaching more broadly known, I agree. However, there is not much we know TO reveal than that. Given our Church's cultural tendency to embrace speculation as doctrine, I worry that too much exposure of this doctrine will result in more confusion than clarity. But could it be appropriate for the general members of the Church to humbly but persistently ask for more information to be revealed? What's the worst that could happen? Get told "trouble me no more concerning this matter" (Doct. and Cov. 59:22)?

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (pp.81-3): This has been an area of increasing focus for Church leadership. If we view this from the perspective of "whatever Church leaders spend a lot of time on is what will be society's main problem in 20 years" it is pretty disconcerting. But let's leave that alone for now. Mason writes our actions on religious freedom are "a model of how Latter-day Saints can ... mobilize in the service of others."

REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS (pp. 83-5): Mason begins from Elder Patrick Kearon's fantastic General Conference talk from April, 2016. I fear that many members of the Church whose politics leave them inclined to xenophobia decided to reduce their cognitive dissonance by just ignoring Elder Kearon. That is a terrible shame. This is an area where agreement should be easy.

SOCIAL JUSTICE (pp. 85-6): Here is another area where the political ideas of most members might cause some problems. (As an aside: do these people think Jesus is going to join their political party when He returns? They DO know He plans to come as King, right? That is a role currently absent from the American Constitution.) I was recently at a meeting where our stake's one Black member of the High Council suggested our stake create a community event to commemorate next year's Juneteenth. I think it's an excellent idea, but I'm afraid I don't know how a majority-white church can pull off something like that without seeming pandering or condescending. On the other hand, I've had family respond disparagingly when I've told them my work will be closed for Juneteenth. I said, "Slavery is wrong, so I can get behind a holiday that celebrates its end." There might not be room for the leadership of the Church to do much with a "political" issue, but there's plenty of room for each of us to do so as individuals.

COMMUNITY (pp. 86-7): Mason thinks our Church's "you get what you get and you don't get upset" approach to ward membership and leadership is a good model for building community with anyone around. I would caution that many Latter-day Saints have discovered how to game that system by aiming to live in wards they like. My ward shares a building with the "good" ward of the stake, and our stake as a whole is the poor relation of the next stake to the north of us. In his April 2013 General Conference talk, Elder Stanley G. Ellis shared this tale of "community building":

For 16 years I served in the presidency of the Houston Texas North Stake. Many moved to our area during those years. We would often receive a phone call announcing someone moving in and asking which was the best ward. Only once in 16 years did I receive a call asking, “Which ward needs a good family? Where can we help?”

We can do much better on this issue.

So those are Mason's six goals for the Church in its third hundred years. From my perspective of millennial social thought (MST), the last three seem directly related to my area of interest. Building Zion will definitely involve elevating our thinking and behavior on issues of refugees and immigrants, social justice, and community. What is standing between us and meeting these challenges in a "higher and holier" way? Mason identifies six items of cultural baggage the Church must address. They are

1. racism
2. patriarchy
3. nationalism
4. cultural colonialism
5. inequality
6. fundamentalism

In my next post, I will look into these stumbling blocks in more detail.

REVIEW: Restoration: God's Call to the 21st-Century World, by Patrick Q. Mason

I read this book six months ago and I have been literally carrying the physical book with me since then, figuring I would be more likely to blog my review if I always have the book available. (Don't feel bad for my back; it's a very light 100-page book--Amazon says it weighs 5.6 ounces, whereas my back is usually carrying around more than 4,000 ounces.) So if I've had the book with me night and day for six months why haven't I already blogged about it? Let me just say this: my church calling is hard. Like, really hard. I wouldn't recommend this calling to anyone.

So here's my review: There's one big idea to this book, and I think it's a good one. There are a few little particulars related to that idea, and I think they are bad. The book is bright yellow, and weighs 5.6 ounces. The end.

First, the good big idea. Mason sees a greatly expanded role for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the world, not in a proselyting sense, but in a humanitarian one. He starts by identifying the Church's historical withdrawal from society as a defensive response to persecution. He calls this idea the "fortress church" (p.2). He reviews early Church statements and teachings to find what the original generation of Church members thought the word "restoration" meant. Mason argues that what was being restored wasn't necessarily Christ's church or priesthood authority, but Israel (p. 13). "God's great restoration project seeks to unite all generations of the human family from the beginning to the present and onward all the way to the end of time" (pp. 16-7). God wants to restore people, not things.

This is my understanding of the idea of God having a covenant people. Not that some people are better in the sight of God--we're all His children and he is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11). Rather, God's house is a house of order (Doct. and Cov. 132:8), and He only called Abraham His son for the purpose of using Abraham's seed to bless the rest of His children. This is what Jesus meant when he said God was able to make children of Abraham from stones (Matt. 3:9): being God's chosen people is an assignment, not an honor. From my reading, it seems Mason would agree with these points. He writes, "The purpose of the Restoration is to fulfill the ancient promises that all of God's children, regardless of the nation or clan they find themselves born into, can and will be 'heirs to the kingdom of God'" (p. 18).

This is where Mason's book crosses path with my interest in millennial social thought (MST), and my main reason for reviewing this book in this space. Mason calls Jesus "the Messiah of the marginalized" (p. 19), and writes, "any restoration we claim to participate in must therefore be primarily oriented toward those who have suffered on the margins of history and currently suffer on the margin of society." Here he's starting to get pretty bold--we tend to think of socioeconomic issues as political issues. "I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old age assistance," right? But I agree with Mason. After all, if our task is to build Zion we aren't going to do that without some large socioeconomic changes among us. Some Church members who are most opposed to taxation plans they would call "socialist" are in for a shock when they realize what it means to "have all things common" (4 Ne. 1:3). I've had temple-endowed members tell me before, "We aren't being asked to live the Law of Consecration right now." Elder Dale G. Renlund has said, "In the endowment, we covenant ... to dedicate ourselves and everything the Lord blesses us with to build up His Church" (Renlund, Apr. 2023). We've not only been asked to live it, we have accepted the challenge.

Mason identifies six areas of focus where Latter-day Saints should focus on changing the world, and six items of baggage we must address to allow us to do so. I don't even think these 12 things are where Mason goes wrong, but it's in the presentation of some of them that he errs, and I fear that members of the "fortress church" who are already distrustful of calls to do anything except live like a 1950s white middle-class American will ignore the good when rightly identifying the bad here.

But first the focus items and the baggage we should acknowledge. His six areas of focus for the future are

1. re-enchantment
2. human identity
3. religious freedom
4. refugees and immigrants
5. social justice
6. community

My next post will detail what he means by each of these.

Upcoming Reading and Reviews

I recently finished reading Restoration: God's Call to the 21st-Century World, by Patrick Q. Mason (Faith Matters Publishing, 2020). I will share some notes and thoughts later this week.

Books I am excited to start soon which will be at least somewhat related to Millennial Social Thought include the following:

• This Could Be Our Future: A Manifesto for a More Generous World, by Yancey Strickler (Viking Press, 2019)
• Poverty, by America, by Matthew Desmond (Crown Publishing, 2023)
• Stealing from Each Other: How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit, by Edgar K. Browning (Holtzbrinck Publishing, 2008)

Later this week I'll write about my current framework for this effort.

A New Start

Every time I thought my life was about to get calmer in the past year, it instead got more not-calmer. In January 2022 I accepted a job that moved us from Florida to Ohio. In March I moved, and a month later my family moved. (I recommend moving in shifts because it makes everyone speculate that you're separating, and then they go out of their way to be nice to you, and when you finally "reconcile" everyone thinks it's such a happy ending. If you had just all moved at once everyone would be, like, "Fffftht.") The next few months were busy with learning a new job and getting all our stuff sorted. (I have too much stuff, and you have too much stuff; when the Beverly Hillbillies moved they managed to fit all of their possessions AND all the family into one car, but when we move it looks like Napoleon's baggage train.) Right when I was ready to begin my serious blogging about Millennial Social Thought, in September 2022, I was called as a counselor in our bishopric, and right when I was going to start new at the first of the year, I was called as bishop.

I will be the first to tell you that I am the worst bishop in the Church, and most of my ward's members would verify that claim without a moment's hesitation. There are two main reasons for this: one is my being terrible, and the other is my work.

An aside, for comparison's sake: 22 years ago, I interviewed for a job stocking shelves at Staples. In the interview the manager asked about a "hypothetical" situation where someone had smeared feces all over the restroom and asked what I would do. I thought, "That's a really weird hypothetical." Only after I took the job did I learn that it wasn't a hypothetical question AT ALL.

Similarly, when I interviewed for this job I was told that some people dislike the work demands during budget time, and did I have a problem with working extra when required. I've had a few experiences with overtime in my career, and they were fine, so I said I could handle it. Then we got to January 2023 and it turned out that "when required" meant "all the time for six straight months." I told my boss I now run a church congregation that meets on Sundays and she made the helpful suggestion of, "Don't make any plans for the weekends."

Well. The biennial budget cycle ended this weekend. I have a more-reliable computer situation. My Fitbit says I had my best night of sleep ever last night. In short, things are looking up for the first time in over six months. So I am recommitting to this Millennial Social Thought blog project, combined with the stories of my foolishness that the serious student of my blogging has come to expect. (Remember when I just let myself into a high school, changed into my swimming suit in the locker room, and swam laps in the pool until the PE teacher asked what I was doing? Or when I accidentally asked a coworker out on a lunch date? Or when I told my doctor I was a professional hostage negotiator? Or when I had a random pair of underwear fall out the leg of my pants...TWICE?) This is the content my public demands.