You can read the manifesto at https://latterdayorthodoxy.org .

You can also read more about it in this news article published by the Salt Lake Tribune last Sunday: https://sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/05/theres-new-manifesto/

Even though I am not actively blogging at the moment so I can focus on finishing my book, I’d like to pop in to share a few insights about what we mean by radical orthodoxy within the context of the restored gospel.

First, let me say something about the title. We explored a lot of different options before settling on the words “radical orthodoxy” to describe the ideas we have tried to articulate.

The word radical is complex, with a rich, symbolic etymology. It has deep roots– in fact, it is derived from the Latin word rādix which literally means “root.”

Over time, words evolve meanings beyond their etymological origins, and in Modern English, the word radical usually refers to a desire for change— not just superficial change, but change at a fundamental, root level. Radical can also refer to something basic or intrinsic. Sometimes it means far-reaching or thorough. In chemistry it refers to atoms, ions, or molecules that have unpaired electrons, which makes them highly reactive. When it is paired with an ideology, radical can sometimes mean extreme. And most people also recognize it as a popular slang term roughly equivalent to “excellent!” or “awesome!”

The word orthodoxy comes from the Ancient Greek roots ὀρθός (orthós), meaning “correct,” and δόξα (dóxa) meaning “way or belief.” So it literally refers to correctness in doctrine or belief. In a religious context it usually refers to conformity to established or accepted beliefs.

By putting these two words together, we intentionally create a paradox. How can you desire deep change while still conforming to established doctrines?

Throughout our lives we encounter this struggle between extremes: change vs statis, conformity vs nonconformity, progress vs conservation. Radical orthodoxy is about navigating the space in between.

G.K. Chesterton famously wrote about the conflict between change and tradition in an analogy that is often referred to as “Chesterton’s Fence”:

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’ This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

When we talk about the restored gospel in online forums, we find various competing voices in addition to the official communications from the Church.

On the one side we have those who say that because the fence exists it therefore must always remain the same. No changes or adjustments are necessary or allowed.

On the other side we have those who want to tear down the fence because it imposes limits on them that they don’t like, regardless of whether those limits might serve a good purpose that they don’t know about or may not have considered.

Radical orthodoxy sees the great value of tradition, and the potential dangers of change. But it also sees the necessity of change and improvement, and the potential dangers of traditions that become an end in themselves.

Radical orthodoxy looks to the roots. It encourages us to not only examine the fence, but also explore the reasons why the fence exists in the first place, the purposes it served when it was put there, as well as the purposes it continues to serve. And it is open to the possibility that the fence might need to be changed, updated, or moved– though never cavalierly or recklessly, and always with an eye toward the roots of why it exists.

However, in addition to the principle of Chesterton’s Fence, latter-day saints have an additional variable that they must consider: Living Prophets. One of the fundamental tenets of the Church is a deference to those whom God has chosen and authorized to represent Him and to speak on His behalf.

Being a faithful member of the church does not require you to believe that the prophets are infallible or to agree with everything they have ever spoken. But it does mean that you intentionally allow their teachings and directions to weigh more heavily than your own opinions. And it means that you are willing to reconsider or change your views when they conflict with what the prophets teach. Faithful members avoid contradicting or undermining the authority, programs, and policies of the Lord’s authorized servants– especially those teachings that are proclaimed by all fifteen of the apostles and prophets who comprise the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church.

However, apostles and prophets also have personal opinions and personal interpretations. They sometimes speculate. They are not always acting in the capacity of a prophet or apostle. That means that, for example, the content of a private letter written by an apostle to a family member or a friend ought to be considered inherently different than what they teach over the pulpit in a general conference of the Church or when they are otherwise acting in their official role and giving apostolic teachings. Furthermore, some counsel is context-specific and meant for a specific audience, circumstance, or time. Some teachings are meant to address local problems and were not necessarily intended to be generalized into a principle for the whole Church.

A personal opinion expressed privately by an apostle should not necessarily be given the same weight as something taught in a stake conference, which in turn should not be given the same weight as a discourse given in a general conference, which in turn should not be given the same weight as the teachings that have been taught by many apostles and prophets over time.

An idiosyncratic idea expressed a few times by one or two apostles that has not been taught by any of the subsequent prophets or apostles should weigh far less among the factors of your testimony than those precepts, principles, and doctrines that have been taught repeatedly by multiple prophets and apostles from the time of the restoration until the present. The doctrine of the church is not found in a popular quote or some obscure sentence from a single discourse. And the teachings and guidance of the current, living prophets, who relay the will of the Lord regarding present circumstances, should always carry more weight than those of the past.

It can be difficult to disentangle official teachings of the Church from cultural ideas and traditions. Some traditions and cultural concepts are wrong and should be abandoned. Some are good and useful and should be preserved. But the relationship between tradition, culture, and doctrine is complex, and changing tradition and culture can have unexpected consequences. There are always tradeoffs. So just because something is traditional or cultural does not mean it can or should be discarded.

Radical orthodoxy seeks to navigate these considerations while continually defending and following the living prophets. It can recognize the need for change and improvement, and it can acknowledge mistakes and misinterpretations of the past, while still recognizing the value of tradition and culture, and at the same time trusting in the Lord and the prophets and apostles He has chosen to lead His Church.

Radical orthodoxy sees that there is great complexity, beauty, and infinite wonder to be found within the framework of the Church. There are infinite opportunities for intellectual exploration and discovery within the constraints of faithfulness. We do not need to cross lines, break barriers, and deconstruct truths in order to find intellectual fulfillment. In fact, choosing to work within the limits and constraints of the gospel can be the catalyst for profound discovery and invention.

Radical Orthodoxy is orthodoxy with deep roots. It is orthodoxy that is far reaching and thorough. It is orthodoxy that embraces change– but change that is rooted in fundamental ideas and truths– not in the hasty or superficial, not in change for the sake of change itself, and not in change in order to conform to societal pressures. Radical orthodoxy is about letting the gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His prophets change and reform us.

Some might even say that radical orthodoxy is awesome orthodoxy.

Now, back to focusing on my book…

Recently critics and dissidents have been clamoring for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to abolish the common practice of having lay bishops hold private interviews with youth in which they ask them questions about sexual morality and the Law of Chastity.

Many of these critics are concerned about the propriety of having a bishop talk about sexual issues with young men and women alone as well as the potential for abuse. And they point to legitimately tragic anecdotes from people who feel that the practice had a negative effect on them as youth. Some even claim that it facilitated abuse by a bishop.

Earlier this year, the church announced that it would update its policies to optionally allow youth to have a parent attend the interview with them. The church provided bishops with standardized questions to be asked. And parents and youth were also to be given information about the kinds of questions and topics that would be included in the interview beforehand.

But the changes do not seem to have appeased the critics, who will not be satisfied until they have pressured the church to abolish the interviews completely and with them any enforcement of the Law of Chastity.

I just wanted to raise a point in support of the interviews that I have not seen made elsewhere, and that I hope the critics will seriously consider:

What about youth who are being sexually abused by their own parent?

A private interview with the bishop in which questions about sexual morality and the Law of Chastity will be raised poses a great risk to a parent who is sexually abusing their own child. It is an opportunity for the youth to reveal the abuse to the bishop without the abuser there to control the conversation. The bishop can be a trusted adult and authority figure that youth may feel can provide them help and safety from their own abusive parent. Sexually abusive parents must feel terrified that they will be exposed every time their son or daughter meets with the bishop alone.

Wouldn’t it be a shame if, in the name of protecting youth from abuse by bishops, we inadvertently undercut an important avenue for youth to potentially escape from abuse at home?

It is important to realize that these kinds of policy changes always include tradeoffs and unintended consequences. We should be circumspect and cautious and consider the potential drawbacks as well as the perceived benefits.

The vast majority of bishops in the church are good, honest, moral men who put in an immense amount of work to serve the people in their congregations without any compensation. They hold authority and priesthood keys that give them stewardship over the members of their wards and the right to oversee their spiritual welfare. They sometimes make mistakes. But they also often receive amazing inspiration and revelation to bless the lives of their ward members.

For every anecdote critics share about an inappropriate bishop’s interview, there are literally hundreds of others where bishops have helped young people repent from sin and find happiness in the gospel. And I suspect that for every story of an abusive bishop, there are others where a bishop has been instrumental in saving youth from an abusive situation at home.

We should take great care that in our zeal to pluck out the tares, that we do not accidentally destroy the wheat too.

Today we are writing about the Friday Afternoon Session of the April 1975 Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In December of 1974, Sister Virginia Perry passed away. She had been privately fighting cancer for four years. When she was first diagnosed, the doctors told her she would likely only live for six months. She told her husband, L. Tom Perry, “Don’t tell anyone about this. I don’t want it to change our way of life or have anyone treat us differently.”

She quietly underwent three serious surgeries, going to great lengths to keep them secret:

“With her careful planning, she would attend church on Sunday, the operation would be performed early Monday morning. By Tuesday, she was trying to get out of bed. By Wednesday she would be up moving around, trying to regain her physical strength. Thursday would find her helping the nurses assist others who were in the hospital. Friday she would spend trying to convince the doctor that she was ready to go home. By Saturday morning the doctor would give up in despair and discharge her. Sunday she would be back in church looking radiant.”

Throughout her hidden illness, she continued to lovingly serve those in need.

Two years into her struggle, her husband was called to be an Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Then, in April of 1974, eight months before she passed away, he was called to be an Apostle. I can hardly imagine how difficult it must have been to take on all of the burdens and travel associated with these new responsibilities on top of an ongoing fight with cancer. Elder Perry was often away from home for months at a time. But she appears to still have kept her illness private.

“Her last acts were so typical of her. She was up preparing breakfast for her family. I heard her drop a dish and give a little moan. As I rushed from my study, thinking she had injured herself, I found that she was suffering from a stroke that was causing her to lose the use of her right arm. […] There was terror in her eyes as the paralysis started to spread down her side. I told her I was going to rush a call to the doctor. She said, “First, give me a blessing.” As I laid my hands on her head that morning, the Lord in his great mercy let me know that her time had come.”

In the April 1974 conference of the church, Elder Perry dedicated his entire talk to his dear departed wife, entitled simply “A Tribute.”

“She placed her illness entirely in the hands of the Lord, and he blessed her with enough strength to endure and just enough energy to live the kind of life she wanted to live. […] The Lord blessed her with four additional years that medical science could not promise her. How grateful we are for those years, for it was during this period that she was able to stand by my side as we were honored in these present positions. She was able to see, at least in some degree, what she had tried to make of me.”

I encourage you to read the whole thing:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/a-tribute

In our modern era of social media, Sister Perry’s insistence on keeping her illness private seems utterly foreign. Our culture has undergone a major shift in attitudes about privacy, propriety, and pain. We now broadcast our struggles and our pain, not only to family and friends, but to the world.

Being open about the difficulties we face allows others who are struggling to know that they aren’t alone, and to draw strength from the examples and counsel of those with similar challenges.  But reading about Sister Perry makes me wonder if perhaps we have lost something. There is something noble and inspiring about her private pain and her efforts to serve and bless others while she suffered in secret.

I can see virtues as well as drawbacks in both being open and in being private. Perhaps it comes down to pride vs. humility:

We can publish our pain out of pride and anger. We can also keep our pain private because of pride and anger.

We can publish our pain in humility and faith. And we can also keep our pain private because of humility and faith.

Sometimes we hide our pain from the people who can help us the most while broadcasting our pain to virtual strangers on the internet. Other times we hide our pain from people who could benefit from our example and help.

Sister Perry lived a life of service and selflessness. She put her illness in the hands of the Lord and He blessed her. Elder Perry recommends her as an example of faith:

“Even though there is great loneliness without her, her passing was sweet because of the way she had lived. In tribute to her today, I recommend to you her way of life. I watched service consume pain. I witnessed faith destroy discouragement. I have seen courage magnify her beyond her natural abilities. I have observed love change the course of lives.”

Other bloggers writing about the Friday Afternoon Session of the April 1975 General Conference today:

• Profoundly Worth It by Nathaniel Givens
• More Practical Mormonism by G
• Her Finest Hour by Daniel Ortner
• Using My Agency Wisely to Receive His Blessings by Jan Tolman
• We all suffer another loss by Marilyn Nielson

My previous contributions can be found here. Posts by other bloggers writing about the April 1975 General Conference today are linked at the end of this post.  You can also visit the project group on Facebook.

Today we are writing about the Friday Morning Session of the April 1975 Conference.

In 1975, Elder Marion D. Hanks was an Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He had previously served in England as mission president. Serving under his direction in England were young Elders Jeffrey R. Holland and Quentin L. Cook, both of whom are now Apostles.

In April 1975, Elder Hanks gave a wonderful sermon on trusting the Lord through affliction. He taught that “Faith is confidence and trust in the character and purposes of God.”

He recognizes that there is a “siren song of invitation to ‘curse God and die’—die spiritually, die as to things pertaining to righteousness, die to hope and holiness and faith…” But Elder Hanks emphasizes that he is not just speaking abstractly. He points to the inspiring examples of goodness, courage, and kindness in our own communities and neighborhoods that go unsung and unreported by a media the focuses on the sensational. But the unsung heroes he cites are not those who escaped suffering through faith, but those who “have met difficulties with courage…who had little but ingenuity and will and courage and faith” even as they continue to suffer.

Where does their strength to endure, rather than escape suffering come from? He declares that “as life supplies its store of tribulation we need the consolation that comes with knowing that God is good and that he is near, that he understands, and that he loves us and will help us and strengthen us for the realities of a world where sin and affliction exist. […] Comfort came to them in the quiet knowledge of the nearness of a Savior who himself had not been spared the most keen and intense suffering, who himself had drunk of the bitter cup.”

The Jews looked for a Messiah that would save them from the oppression of Roman rule. But Christ came to save them from sin and death while still leaving them under the control of their oppressors. Sometimes we do the same thing when we look for a savior from our suffering. Elder Hanks recognizes that the “solutions that we wish and pray for do not always come about.” But he points that that the“power that remade Paul, that poured in love and washed out hostility and hate, did not save him from the great travails, from Nero’s dungeon or a martyr’s death. Christ lived in him, he said, he had found the peace of God that passed all comprehension. Nothing, not tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword, death, life, angels, principalities, powers, things present, things to come, height, depth, nor any other creature, could separate him from the love of Christ…” Paul was not saved from tribulation, but from sin and hate.

That does not mean, however, that God will not help us in our afflictions. Small miracles will happen when we follow the promptings of the Spirit. Elder Hanks relates the story of a farmer who wanted to be able to help his daughter serve a mission. As he prayed, the Holy Spirit prompted him to plant onions:

“He thought he had misunderstood. Onions would not likely grow in this climate, others were not growing onions, he had no experience growing onions. After wrestling with the Lord for a time, he was again told to plant onions. So he borrowed money, purchased seeds, planted and nurtured and prayed. The elements were tempered, the onion crop prospered. He sold the crop, paid his debts to the bank and the government and the Lord, and put the remainder in an account under her name—enough to supply her wants on a mission.”

Elder Hanks reminds us of the Old Testament prophet Habakkuk who in anguish felt that he could bear anything if he could only understand the divine purpose in what was happening. We all may feel like him in our difficulties. But, said Elder Hanks, “the ancient prophet learned that the righteous live by faith and that faith is not an easy solution to life’s problems. Faith is confidence and trust in the character and purposes of God.”

“Our religion … can carry us through the dark times, the bitter cup. It will be with us in the fiery furnace and the deep pit. It will accompany us to the hospital room and to the place of bereavement. It can guarantee us the presence of a Captain on the rough voyage. It is, in short, not the path to easy disposition of problems, but the comforting assurance of the eternal light, by which we may see, and the eternal warmth, which we may feel.”

If we will submit to the Lord as a humble child, he will captain us and comfort us through the storms. But it requires trust in His goodness and purposes.

Other bloggers writing about the Friday Morning Session of the April 1975 General Conference today:

• The Lord Delights by Nathaniel Givens
• Canning Jar Mormonism by G
• Like a Ringing Bell by Daniel Ortner
• Testimonies Are Like Holding Onto Our Cat Tails! by Jan Tolman
• Our Interest must be Intensified by Marilyn Nielson

When Jesus enjoined his followers to love their enemies, he didn’t simply mean that they should stop demonizing those who they wrongly perceived as enemies because they were different; He wasn’t suggesting that conflict is the consequence of misunderstanding, and that if we would just try to understand those who we perceive as enemies we would discover that they are not enemies after all. He actually requires us to love those who really are our enemies; those whose ideas, desires, and actions truly are incompatible and in conflict with our own.

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:43-45)

We must see the worth of the souls of those who are not just different or weak, but who really are wicked and depraved. We must recognize those who mock that which is sacred as God’s own beloved children. We must sincerely pray and ask God to be merciful to those who truly do hate us and who try to destroy us.

We do not stop considering their actions wicked or their words blasphemous. We do not capitulate in the face of their persecution of us. But despite their wickedness, their blasphemy, and their persecution toward us, we are required to love them and to hope that one day they will cease to be our enemies.

We must boldly stand for that which is right. But the desire of Christians is to persuade our enemies, not punish them; to convert our enemies, not crush them; to save our enemies, not subdue them.

Today we are writing about the Thursday Afternoon Session of the April 1972 Conference.

Over the years, President Ezra Taft Benson’s political views have been a topic of some controversy, and I believe that many people have developed a distorted, dismissive idea of President Benson that creates an incomplete, oversimplified concept of a more complex man. Our culture has become addicted to out-of-context soundbites and easily consumable memes, and so it is easy to see only quotes from President Benson that reinforce our stereotype. When that happens, there is even a danger of imposing our expectations upon anything he says, so that we see what we expect to see when we read anything from him.

As the United States in 2016 works its way through yet another brutal presidential election year, it is interesting to look back more than four decades and read the political thoughts of apostle Ezra Taft Benson, given in the April 1972 General Conference. There are a number of things that he addressed that could seem outdated and foreign today, and yet there are many ideas and concepts that he taught that seem more relevant now than ever before.

President Benson would have been 18 years old when Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized control of the Russian government in October of 1917. Their Communist Revolution would culminate in the establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922. During his lifetime he had watched the devastation of the rise and eventual defeat of the National Socialists in Germany and the National Fascists in Italy. During his lifetime he watched as communism spread throughout the world and the USSR became the chief political and philosophical rival of the United States. Communist control of the USSR collapsed in 1991, and President Benson passed away in 1994. In other words the rise and fall of communism happened entirely during his adult lifetime.

In April 1972, Elder Benson gave an excellent discourse titled “Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints.” While a large portion of the discourse was not about conspiracies, it is inevitable that some people will be dismissive of his words because of his talk of atheist conspiracies and secret combinations. So I want to briefly address that topic first.

Elder Benson said:

“Now undoubtedly Moroni could have pointed out many factors that led to the destruction of the people, but notice how he singled out the secret combinations, just as the Church today could point out many threats to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God’s work, but it has singled out the greatest threat as the godless conspiracy. There is no conspiracy theory in the Book of Mormon —it is a conspiracy fact.

[…]

This scripture should alert us to what is ahead unless we repent, because there is no question but that as people of the free world, we are increasingly upholding many of the evils of the adversary today. By court edict godless conspirators can run for government office, teach in our schools, hold office in labor unions, work in our defense plants, serve in our merchant marines, etc. As a nation, we are helping to underwrite many evil revolutionaries in our country.”

This kind of language is likely very grating and distasteful to our modern ears. Talk of conspiracies and paranoia about atheists in society is definitely looked down upon today, and it is easy to retroactively judge Elder Benson by modern standards. But our modern attitudes are also shaped by our distance from the reality of communism. Communism was an explicitly atheist political philosophy that used government power to actively suppress religious belief, outlaw religious organizations, and persecute religious believers.

So when Elder Benson speaks about “godless conspirators” infiltrating society, he is speaking as a man who has seen real governments overthrown by revolutionaries with the explicit intent of squashing religion and imposing atheism. Conspiracies were not just theory to him; they were facts. And many of the educated, intellectual elites of the United States had been supportive of these communist governments even as they brutally suppressed freedom of speech and religion– essential rights for the spread of the Restored Gospel.

Sure, we can take conspiracy thinking too far, and people get stuck in mental loops about secret societies and clandestine operations. But we should read Elder Benson’s with greater context and circumspection.

It is also interesting to look back then at how Elder Benson opens his talk, relating how he had been invited to visit Iran in the previous year:

“Last fall I was invited by Baron von Blomberg, president of the United Religions Organization, to represent the Church as a guest of the king of Persia at the twenty-five hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. Advised by the First Presidency to accept the invitation, I left immediately following the October conference to join with representatives of twenty-seven world religions, some fifty monarchs, and other notables at this historic celebration in Iran.”

Seven years later, in 1979, there would be a revolution in Iran, overthrowing the Shah and establishing an Islamic theocratic constitution. And the church ceased any official operation in the country at that time. I doubt that Elder Benson considered the theocratic revolution in Iran any less terrible than the atheistic communist revolutions . He was concerned about men conspiring to take away freedom that permitted the gospel to be taught and that allowed men and women to unite themselves to the church of their own free will and follow its precepts. His focus on “godless conspirators” was most likely because communism had been so successful in his lifetime, and was a more real threat world-wide, and not because he felt differently about conspiracies to establish theocracy.

In his talk, he uses his trip to Iran as a starting point to discuss good people of the world who do not join the church but who use their influence to do good, and whom the Lord uses to accomplish his purposes, by comparing them to the biblical account of King Cyrus of Persia, who facilitated the return of the Jewish people to Israel and the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity.

He quotes apostle Elder Orson F. Whitney who said:

“Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.”

Elder Benson adds: “We honor these partners because their devotion to correct principles overshadowed their devotion to popularity, party, or personalities.”

Related to the sentiment, Elder Benson also relays some principles that it would be good to keep in mind during this presidential election year. Quoting J. Reuben Clark saying :

“God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this ‘land of liberty’ from other countries.”

He also quotes former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt:

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. … Every man who parrots the cry of ‘stand by the President’ without adding the proviso ‘so far as he serves the Republic’ takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the King could do no wrong. No self-respecting and intelligent free man could take such an attitude.”

Elder Benson encouraged us to “pray for our civic leaders and encourage them in righteousness.“

I have focused on specific parts of Elder Benson’s 1972 discourse, but his primary message was about four “civic standards” that latter-day saints should consult in their civic and political efforts. I encourage you to take some time to read the whole talk.

Other bloggers writing about the Thursday Afternoon Session of the April 1972 General Conference:

• The Family, The Family, The Family by Nathaniel G.
• Personal Dispensation by G.
• Fitly Joined Together by Daniel O.
• Skip My Commentary and Read President Benson’s Talk by John H.
• The Restoration and Western Humanity – Triumph or Crisis? by Ralph H.
• “This We Can Do!” by Walker W.
• Not Belief: I Know It by SilverRain
• Oh, To Be Excommunicated! by Jan T.

]]> https://www.sixteensmallstones.org/lds-conference-april-1972-godless-conspirators-gentile-partners/feed/ 1 3517 https://www.sixteensmallstones.org/lds-conference-april-1972-common-consent-sustaining-vs-non-opposition/ https://www.sixteensmallstones.org/lds-conference-april-1972-common-consent-sustaining-vs-non-opposition/#comments Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:30:55 +0000 https://www.sixteensmallstones.org/?p=3499 Continue reading →]]> This post is an entry in the ongoing General Conference Odyssey project. My previous contributions can be found here. Posts by other bloggers writing about the April 1972 General Conference today are linked at the end of this post.  You can also visit the project group on Facebook.

Today we are writing about the Thursday Morning Session of the April 1972 Conference.

First, a bit of trivia: As I mentioned in a previous entry,  in the recorded conferences of 1971 through 1976 there were more sessions of conference than the Saturday and Sunday sessions we are accustomed to now. But before today I did not understand why sometimes they held sessions on various weekdays instead of on Friday.

Prior to 1977, the church held three-day conferences. In April conferences,  one of the three days was April 6th (the anniversary of the organization of the church). In 1971 April 6th fell on Tuesday, 1972 on Thursday, 1973 Friday, 1974 Saturday, 1975 Sunday, and 1976 Tuesday. So October Conferences were always Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, as were April Conferences in years where April 6th fell on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday (1973-1975). But in 1971, 1972, and 1976 the conference was held on April 6th plus Saturday and Sunday. That is why we sometimes have Tuesday or Thursday sessions, like we do in this week’s reading.

The conference report of April 1977 makes particular mention of the move from three-day to two-day conferences under the direction of President Kimball. So there you go.

I’d like to draw particular attention to the talk given during this Thursday Morning Session titled “We Are Called of God” given by Elder Loren C. Dunn, who at the time was a member of the First Council of the Seventy.

Throughout the church, from individual congregations to the church-wide conferences, it is common for members to be asked to “sustain” individuals who have been called to serve in the church. Members indicate their sustaining vote by raising their hand. They are also given a chance to oppose.

In recent general conferences, we have seen instances of individuals who have expressed opposition to the leadership of the church when given the option to do so.

Elder Dunn provides a reminder that the church does not operate by democratic vote:

“Sustaining, however, should not be confused with voting into office.

Joseph Smith made it clear how a person is called to a position in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In the fifth Article of Faith he says: ‘We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.’

When we sustain officers, we are given the opportunity of sustaining those whom the Lord has already called by revelation.

[…]

To sustain is to make the action binding on ourselves and to commit ourselves to support those people whom we have sustained. When a person goes through the sacred act of raising his arm to the square, he should remember, with soberness, that which he has done and commence to act in harmony with his sustaining vote both in public and in private.“

Sustaining in the church happens so regularly that, for me at least, it can come to feel rather routine and mundane. It does seem to carry more gravity during conferences when we are asked to sustain the president of the church, his counselors, and the twelve apostles as “prophets, seers, and revelators.” But in the regular shuffle of responsibilities and assignments in our congregations, it doesn’t often carry the weight of a “sacred act” which is remembered “with soberness” as Elder Dunn suggests.

It is easy to fall into a perfunctory hand raised merely in non-objection. But non-objection is not what is being asked of us.

Raising our arm to the square to sustain a calling should be an expression of faith– not necessarily faith in the person who was called, but in the authority of those who made the call, and in God who inspires and directs them through the Holy Spirit regarding who should be called. In other words, a sustaining vote is an acknowledgement of the reality of priesthood authority and of revelation. And that really should be a sacred and sober act, whether it is for the prophet, or for someone to play the piano for children in Sunday School.

What about dissenting votes? If sustaining is not like democratic voting then what is the purpose of asking for any opposed?

The current Handbook 2 for the church gives the following direction concerning dissenting votes:

“If a member in good standing gives a dissenting vote when someone is presented to be sustained, the presiding officer or another assigned priesthood officer confers with the dissenting member in private after the meeting. The officer determines whether the dissenting vote was based on knowledge that the person who was presented is guilty of conduct that should disqualify him or her from serving in the position.”

In other words, dissenting is an opportunity to make authorities aware of information or concerns that they should consider. It is not meant as a venue for opposing either the authority or the revelation of priesthood leaders. Once necessary information or concerns have been communicated, we still seek to sustain their authority and revelation.

Elder Dunn suggests:

“If for any reason we have a difficult time sustaining those in office, then we are to go to our local priesthood leaders and discuss the issue with them and seek their help.”

Throughout the history of the church, as people have joined they have brought with them ideas and practices from their previous churches or from the cultures and societies they come from. Some of these ideas are compatible and consistent with the restored gospel. But others are foreign and incompatible, and when they are imported into the church they can cause confusion and apostasy.

In our modern, egalitarian societies it is easy to import democratic notions into the church.

Elder Dunn explains that because the church is not democratic, the accountability of the leaders is not to the members. He quotes President Brigham Young who explained:

“Had the people gathered together and appointed one of their number to be a prophet, he would have been accountable to the people; but inasmuch as he was called by God, and not the people, he is accountable to God only and the angel who committed the gospel to him, and not to any man on earth. The Twelve are accountable to the prophet, and not the Church, for the course they pursue.”

And he extends this principle down to the Bishop of an individual congregation who is therefore “not answerable to the members of his ward, but instead is answerable to the Lord and to those priesthood leaders who preside over him.”

Democratic ideas in secular government are generally good and compatible with the gospel in that context, but that is not the way that God has decided to organize and govern his church. So in the context of church government democratic notions can be incompatible and inappropriate. In societies where democratic principles are considered an unqualified good, the fact that the church is not a democracy and that its leaders are not accountable to the members can be difficult for some people. That is why it is essential to gain a testimony of the priesthood authority of the leaders of the church, and that God does lead the church through revelation.

It is interesting that Elder Dunn mentions that by raising our hand to sustain the calling of someone else, we are committing ourselves to act in harmony with that acknowledgment “both in public and in private.” That suggests that our sustaining vote not only binds us to public support, but also to not privately oppose or undermine them. He knows that “there are many in the Church who may not be as attentive to their duties as they might be,” but he reminds us that the fact that they may fall short of their duties does not mean that they haven’t been called of God by revelation. We avoid not only public, but private opposition and undermining, even if an individual falls short, because they were called through revelation, by God who is well aware of their shortcomings.

Elder Dunn suggests that, on the flip side, those who fall short in their calling need to receive reassurance and confirmation that their calling does come through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

“A calling in the Church is both a personal and a sacred matter, and everyone is entitled to know he or she has been called to act in the name of God in that particular position. Every person in this church has the right to know that he has been called of God. If he does not have that assurance, then I would suggest he give his calling serious, prayerful consideration so that he can receive what he has a right to receive.”

I am thankful to have read the words of Elder Dunn from so many years ago. I do know that God guides his church through revelation, both to his living prophets and apostles, as well as to local leaders. I sustain their authority and know that they are accountable to God. I feel a desire to not simply give a vote of non-opposition, but to sustain the callings of my ward members and neighbors with greater solemnity and commitment.

Other bloggers writing today about the Thursday Morning Session of the April 1972 General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints:

• Our Lines of Communication by Chastity W.
• On Repetition and Lines of Communication by Nathaniel G.
• Restoring our Lines of Communication by Daniel O.
• A Peculiar People Aims for Respectability by Ralph H.
• No Success Can Compensate by SilverRain
• More Profound Than Words by Jan T.

Today we are writing about the Sunday Afternoon Session of the October 1971 Conference.

It is always interesting to read talks given by future presidents of the church that were given long before they became president. I sometimes wonder if we read these talks differently in retrospect than those who received them at the time did, because we know that the speaker will someday be the prophet of the church. While I haven’t necessarily focused on them, during the course of this project we have read from all of the future prophets.

In the Sunday Afternoon session of General Conference, I was impressed by the sermon given by Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, entitled “If Ye Be Willing and Obedient.” President Hinckley was a marvelous speaker. I encourage you to read the whole talk. However, I will focus on a story he relates about when he was a young missionary in England:

“Nearly forty years ago I was on a mission in England. I had been called to labor in the European Mission office in London under President Joseph F. Merrill of the Council of the Twelve, then president of the European Mission. One day three or four of the London papers carried reviews of a reprint of an old book, snide and ugly in tone, indicating that the book was a history of the Mormons. President Merrill said to me, ‘I want you to go down to the publisher and protest this.’ I looked at him and was about to say, ‘Surely not me.’ But I meekly said, ‘Yes, sir.’

I do not hesitate to say that I was frightened. I went to my room and felt something as I think Moses must have felt when the Lord asked him to go and see Pharaoh. I offered a prayer. My stomach was churning as I walked over to the Goodge Street station to get the underground train to Fleet Street. I found the office of the president and presented my card to the receptionist. She took it and went into the inner office and soon returned to say that Mr. Skeffington was too busy to see me. I replied that I had come five thousand miles and that I would wait. During the next hour she made two or three trips to his office, then finally invited me in. I shall never forget the picture when I entered. He was smoking a long cigar with a look that seemed to say, ‘Don’t bother me.’

I held in my hand the reviews. I do not know what I said after that. Another power seemed to be speaking through me. At first he was defensive and even belligerent. Then he began to soften. He concluded by promising to do something. Within an hour word went out to every book dealer in England to return the books to the publisher. At great expense he printed and tipped in the front of each volume a statement to the effect that the book was not to be considered as history, but only as fiction, and that no offense was intended against the respected Mormon people. Years later he granted another favor of substantial worth to the Church, and each year until the time of his death I received a Christmas card from him.

I came to know that when we try in faith to walk in obedience to the requests of the priesthood, the Lord opens the way, even when there appears to be no way.”

It is fascinating to get a glimpse into these kinds of personal experiences of future prophets; experiences that helped prepare them for the responsibilities that the Lord had in store for them. Even if his verbal response was “Yes, sir,” his internal reaction to Apostle Joseph F. Merrill’s assignment was “Surely not me.” I can imagine the anxiety such an assignment would have given me had I been in young Elder Hinckley’s shoes.

But for me, the important message of his experience was his reaction when he was told that the president of the publishing company was too busy to see him. He could have given up then and reported back to Elder Merrill that the publisher wouldn’t see him. But instead, he insisted on staying and waiting. And then after he persisted through multiple rejections during the next hour, he was finally invited in.

Faith requires persistence.

Earlier in his talk, Elder Hinckley related an experience that had prepared him to act in faith:

“I recall sitting in this Tabernacle when I was fourteen or fifteen—up in the balcony right behind the clock—and hearing President Heber J. Grant tell of his experience in reading the Book of Mormon when he was a boy. He spoke of Nephi and of the great influence he had upon his life. And then, with a voice ringing with a conviction that I shall never forget, he quoted those great words of Nephi: ‘I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.’ ”

Once invited in to speak with the publishing president, his words to his already-annoyed host were guided by the Holy Ghost to say the right thing to soften the man’s heart. Not only did he accomplish the thing that Elder Joseph F. Merrill had asked him to do, but it set up a relationship that, years later, would result in another favor for the church (though he never mentions what it was).

Elder Hinckley taught:

“What marvelous things happen when men walk with faith in obedience to that which is required of them! […] I believe that if we will walk in obedience to the commandments of God, if we will follow the counsel of the priesthood, he will open a way even where there appears to be no way.”

I think it is helpful to point out here that Elder Merrill’s assignment to Elder Hinckley was to protest the publication of misleading material about the church. Had the president of the publishing company reacted differently, and thrown Elder Hinckley out into the street, it would not have negated his faith. Acting in faith doesn’t mean that you will get the results you expect every time, if you are just persistent enough. But it does mean that the Lord can act to accomplish what He wants through your faith and persistence.

Other bloggers writing today about the Sunday Afternoon Session of the October 1971 General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints:

• On the Inevitability of Worship by Nathaniel G.
• If Ye Be Willing and Obedient by Chastity W.
• Worshiping the True and Living God by Daniel O.
• “Go, Do, Become” by Michelle L.
• On Worship, Practical, Contemplative, and Aesthetic-Humanitarian by Ralph H.
• Emulating the Great Exemplar by Walker W.
• Living by Power—A Woman of God by SilverRain
• “The World Needs a Bath in Christ’s Pure Religion” by Jan T.

Today we are writing about the Sunday Morning Session of the October 1971 Conference.

There were a number of excellent talks given in the Sunday Morning Session of October 1971 that I wish I had time to talk about, but I am going to focus today on a talk titled “Where Art Thou?” in which President N. Eldon Tanner spoke extensively about the scriptural account of Adam and Eve.

He noted that after Adam and Eve had eaten of the fruit that God had forbidden and hidden themselves, God’s called to Adam asking, “Where art thou?” President Tanner observes:

“When God said ‘Where art thou?’ he knew where Adam was. With his omniscience he knew what had taken place, but he was calling Adam to consider the seriousness of his actions and to report to him. But Adam had hidden himself because he was ashamed.

We are all like Adam in that when we partake of ‘forbidden fruits’ or do the things we are commanded not to do, we are ashamed, and we draw away from the Church and from God and hide ourselves, and if we continue in sin, the Spirit of God withdraws from us.”

Interestingly, the words “shame” and “ashamed” derive from Indo-European roots related to “covering” or “shroud.” So when Adam and Eve attempt to cover their nakedness, you might say that they are “ashamed” in a very literal way.

It is difficult to draw a bright line between the concepts of shame, guilt, regret, and embarrassment. Some people have tried to impose more strict definitions in which shame is specifically a feeling caused by others, while guilt is a feeling arising from self evaluation. Others suggest that shame arises from violating socially imposed norms, but that guilt comes from violating one’s own norms. Others suggest that shame involves an evaluation of a person (I am bad), but that guilt is an evaluation of a actions (I did something bad).

I’m not sure that it is possible to even identify what is purely social and what is strictly personal; or where the line lies between who one is and what one does. It is complex, and reducing them to distinct, atomic definitions feels artificial to me. Self and society are always interacting in a complex feedback loop.

For some people, the very idea of shame has become very controversial in recent years. It is not uncommon for people condemn various kinds of “shaming.” But the universal condemnation of shame seems to often depend on the kinds of reductive, artificial definitions mentioned above. Because they consider shame strictly an externally imposed attack on identity or self, their solution is to reject the external norms.

As President Tanner mentions in his talk, it is true that shame often drives a wedge between those who have partaken of “forbidden fruits” and the church, God, and the Holy Spirit. But the solution is not therefore to reject all norms or rules that appear to be externally imposed so as to not cause shame. Some rules really are merely cultural and can be changed for abandoned. But commandments given by a loving God are based upon our fundamental identities as His children and are intended to guide us to act consistent with our true selves. (See my previous thoughts here: Authenticity vs Your Best Self.)

When God asks Adam and Eve, “Where art thou?” He knows the answer. As President Tanner says, it was a chance for Adam to overcome his own fear and confront himself. God already knows exactly what we have done and how far we have fallen short. Hiding is not going to help. The antidote to shame is not defiance, abolishing norms, or rewriting the commandments; the antidote to shame is humility.

Later on in his address, President Tanner mentioned something else that stood out to me:

“I was impressed the other day when I read an article on the family. The author said that juvenile crimes of the times do not reflect on the great body of the young people involved as much as they reflect on the manner in which the adult population is discharging its responsibility. This observation was voiced recently by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Ontario, Canada. The group that is causing most of the trouble, he contends, is the product of the undisciplined homes and irresponsible parents.”

At the time when President Tanner was speaking, the sexual revolution and the drug culture were still in full swing. But these observations cited by President Tanner suggest that the moral upheaval of the late ’60s and early ’70s might have roots in the ’40s and ’50s. Even though the ’50s are sometimes looked at as a kind of ideal time of family stability and cultural morality, I sometimes wonder if the ’50s might have really been a kind of “Potemkin Village.” I could be wrong. But it seems like something must have gone wrong in the late ’40s and through the ’50s with families that laid the foundation for the sexual revolution and rise of the drug culture in the ’60s and ’70s. Perhaps it is related to a deferred effect of World War II.

In any case, President Tanner did seem to agree with the notion that those who were most involved with the trouble were the consequence of “undisciplined homes and irresponsible parents.”

Jumping forward from the era when President Tanner spoke these words to our own decade, during his address to the Colloquium on the Marriage at the Vatican in November of 2014, President Henry B. Eyring, in explaining how to bring about a “renaissance of happy marriages and productive families,” suggested that the process was generational. He quoted the late President of the church, Gordon B. Hinckley, who said:

“We cannot effect a turnaround in a day or a month or a year. But with enough effort, we can begin a turnaround within a generation, and accomplish wonders within two generations.”

Elder Eyring said that in the mean time, “such a renaissance will require people to try for the ideal—and to keep trying even when the happy result is slow to come and when loud voices mock the effort.”

The leaders of the church seem to be operating on a larger time scale than most of the rest of us. When we are thinking in terms of years or maybe a decade, they seem to be thinking in terms of generations.

What we are doing today as mothers and fathers may not result in visible fruits for two or three generations. It takes faith to follow the direction of the prophets now when the full consequences of our actions may not be evident until the end of our lives, or even after.

President Tanner explains:

“Sometimes we do not understand why it is necessary for us to keep the commandments and do certain things to receive certain blessings, except that the Lord commanded it. […] But if by faith we obey his commandments, we will receive the promised blessings. Jesus said that unless we become as little children, who have such great faith, we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. We must learn to have explicit faith.”

We must look forward with faith and think generationally, especially as fathers and mothers. As President Hinckley said, we can begin a turnaround in a generation, and accomplish wonders within two.

Other bloggers writing today about the Sunday Morning Session of the October 1971 General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints:

• Glimpses of Heaven by G.
• The True Gift by Michelle L.
• Lost People by SilverRain
• Where Are We and Where Are We Going? by Daniel O.
• Strategies for Seeking the Lost by Nathaniel G.
• The Starry Heavens and the Moral Law by Ralph H.
• Life, and Living, With Simple Purpose by Jan T.
• And, Behold, Thou Art My Son by Walker W.

Today we are writing about the Priesthood Session of the October 1971 Conference.

This session of conference included a number of interesting sermons.

It is the first session of conference to include a talk by Dallin H. Oaks, who was at the time the newly called president of Brigham Young University, and would later become a Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, and eventually one of the apostles of the church.

It is not surprising that Elder Oaks spoke about education and the intersection of secular knowledge and spiritual knowledge. He contrasted the famous aphorism suggested by philosopher Thomas Hobbes, that “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” with the teachings of the restored gospel that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”

Elder Oaks emphasized that he was grateful to have been exposed to philosophies of men, like that of Hobbes, but he is also thankful that he was simultaneously being taught the truths of the gospel.

As the new President of BYU, he emphasized that he believed that it is wise to join spiritual and secular instruction:

“At Brigham Young University and in the other institutions of the Church Educational System, we are concerned with teaching the fundaments of spiritual and secular knowledge and with bringing those teachings into harmony in the lives of men and women in order to prepare them for a balanced and full life of service to God and fellowman.”

One thing that I find interesting here is that this combination of secular and spiritual education has a very specific purpose: to prepare men and women not just to have what Elder Oaks calls a “balanced and full life” but a balanced and full life of service, first to God and then to their fellowmen.

I am not an academic by any means, but I do have many friends and family members who are. Academia can be brutal and sometimes the the “ivory tower” characterization can be uncomfortably accurate. Any career or pursuit has built in spiritual dangers. Businessmen can sacrifice integrity for profits and status. Politicians can pursue power at all costs. Performers can prefer fame over all else. It is easy to get lost in the localized controversies of one’s vocation and lose perspective of the big picture, including, or maybe even more especially, the spiritual perspective. Academia is certainly not immune, and some might say is especially prone to certain spiritual pitfalls, even if they are different from the businessman.

By linking secular and spiritual learning to the specific objective of preparing people to serve God and His children, Elder Oaks provides a remedy to the natural dangers. When learning is undertaken with that objective in mind, it makes the pursuit of knowledge subservient to that greater vision.

Elder Oaks outlines four specific suggestions to accomplish this objective in education:

1. Strive for excellence: use the talents that the Lord has given you, meet and master the learning of men.
2. Seek learning, even by study and also by faith: Your faith will sustain you and give added meaning and increased accomplishment to your secular studies if you will live to deserve the blessings of the Lord.
3. Cherish and nourish your spiritual life: Nourish your spirit just as regularly as you nourish your body or mind. Don’t neglect study of the gospel and activity in the Church during the period of your schooling.
4. Live so that you can be guided and taught by the Spirit: honor your parents; be true to the teachings of the Church; be clean and faithful in all things; and be loyal to the leaders of the Church

To me, suggestion four is especially interesting. The importance of living worthy of the Spirit to achieving the spiritual purposes of education cannot be overstated. Without the spirit, we cannot avoid the built-in pitfalls.

Elder Oaks ends his short address with this moving testimony:

“I am thankful to my Heavenly Father for the testimony I have of the truth of the gospel. I have measured its requirements by reason and found them satisfying. I have put its precepts into practice and felt their good effects in my life. I have seen the gospel work good in the lives of others. I have observed miraculous things. But these signs follow them that believe. I know that the gospel is true because my Father in heaven has answered my prayers and borne witness to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. I am devoted to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am loyal to the chosen servants of the Lord, whom I sustain with all my heart.”

Other bloggers writing about the Priesthood Session of the October 1971 Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today:

• The Way Back into Love by Chastity W.
• Yes, you can get there from here by Daniel O.
• Becoming a Male Mother by SilverRain
• Mormon Privilege by Nathaniel G.
• Don’t Do Acid by John H.
• Our Virtue – Faith and Education by Ralph H.
• Commandments and Compassion by Michelle L.
• The Need to Belong by Walker W.
• It Takes Men and Women by Jan T.