The Moral
Psychology of Liahona and Iron-Rod Mormons
Readers and writers of the Bloggernacle are probably very familiar
with the idea that there are two kinds of Mormons: liberal or conservative;
Fringe or “TBM”; Pants or Skirts; Free-Thinker or “Well-Behaved.” The first
popular expression of this idea was Dr. Richard Poll’s 1967 talk to the Palo
Alto California Ward, published in Dialogue as “What the Church Means to People
Like Me,” [https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/issues/V02N04.pdf,
p.107. Dr. Poll proposed that there are two distinct types of Mormons, Iron Rod
Mormons, and Liahona Mormons. He said:
The Iron Rod Saint does not look for questions but for answers, and in
the gospel – as he understands it – he finds or is confident that he can find
the answer to every important question. The Liahona Saint, on the other hand, is preoccupied with questions and
skeptical of answers; he finds in the gospel – as he understands it – answers
to enough important questions so that he can function purposefully without
answers to the rest.
Both kinds of Mormons, Dr. Poll argues, are needed. Both
have a robust historical, theological, and scriptural basis for their beliefs.
Both complement the inherent weaknesses of the other: Zion needs both the
traditionalist to maintain the structure and identity of Mormonism, and the
non-traditionalist to keep the community relevant and adaptable. This idea was popular,
especially among liberal-leaning Mormons like my dad, who recently emailed this
talk to me again.
Dr. Poll’s talk is now almost 50 years old, but the idea
that both traditional orthodox Mormons and non-traditional non-orthodox Mormons
are needed among the Saints is still appealing. Terryl Givens highlights this
idea in his 2007 book “People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture” [ The
tension between paradoxical approaches to Mormonism is the heart of his thesis.
He identifies 4 points of tension in Mormonism: “authority and radical
freedom,” “searching and certainty,”
“the sacred and the banal,” and “election and exile.” The tension and
the struggle between these conflicting ideas are what make Mormonism beautiful
and alive.
While the “Liahona v. Iron Rod” idea has been criticized as
just creating another set of trite labels that divide Mormons, [http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705381013/Liahona-Iron-Rod-Which-LDS-brand--is-best.html],
I believe that recent research into the psychological divide between modern
“liberals” and “conservatives” regarding politics and religion add scientific
merit to this idea. Dr. Jonathan Haidt’s research into the moral psychology of
liberals and conservatives in his book “The Righteous Mind” identifies 5 moral
values that liberals and conservatives hold to different degrees. He and a collaborator,
Dr. Craig Joseph, added a 6th to the menu to the Moral Foundations
Theory, and they are as follows (see footnote for more description):
1.
Care
2.
Liberty (of which Egalitarianism is a subcategory)
3.
Justice (as relating to punishment and proportionality)
4.
Loyalty
5.
Authority
6.
Sanctity
The
main difference between conservatives and liberals in this framework is that
their cocktail of moral values has a slightly different recipe. They have the
same ingredients, but in different amounts. While liberals value care, justice,
and liberty more than loyalty, authority, or sanctity, conservatives generally
rely upon all six [http://cbdr.cmu.edu/seminar/haidt.pdf]. Our personal
cocktail of moral values shapes how we view the world and judge right from
wrong. It’s worth reading Dr. Haidt’s book for the full picture, including a
fascinating backstory about his own research and the evolutionary history of
moral development.
In addition to the evidence from the field of moral
psychology, there’s growing evidence that liberals and conservatives experience
the world differently in a biological, physiological sense. Dr. John Hibbing
studies the biology of ideology, and
has found that political conservatism or liberalism are tied to hidden
biological and physiological reactions. Liberals and conservatives are
different in things from food taste preferences, cognitive patterns, physical
reactions (the fight or flight reaction), and maybe even our genes. When exposed
to the same stimuli, such as facial expressions or yucky photos, liberals and conservatives
respond and interpret the information differently.
It would be great if everyone dropped everything to go read
The Righteous Mind [
http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777]
or listen to Dr. Hibbing in an interview here [
https://soundcloud.com/inquiringminds/28-john-hibbing-the-biology-of].
But for now, I want to focus on how these psychological (and potentially
biological) divides are linked to the Liahona/Iron Rod theory, and how this
tension has played out specifically in the Church’s disciplinary actions
against Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and Alan Rock Waterman. Dr. Haidt’s and Dr.
Hibbing’s research findings have helped me have a better understanding of my
friends and loved ones who see the world differently. It is in this spirit of
expanding our capacity for empathy for those who disagree that I offer this
analysis.
Without access to the time and resources it would require to
accurately test it, I will take for granted that Mormon liberals are similar to
secular liberals in the way that they relate to Mormon and secular conservatives.
Namely, Mormon liberals probably place those first three moral values (Care,
Justice, and Liberty) higher than the latter three (Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity)
compared to their conservative Mormon peers. Mormon liberals are probably more likely
to identify with the more “universalist” theology of Joseph Smith, the doctrine
of a Heavenly Mother, and personal revelation over strict obedience. Mormon conservatives
are likely to identify with the logical syllogism of Moroni’s Promise: If the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph was a
prophet. If Joseph was a prophet, the Church is true. The Book of Mormon is
true, therefore the Church is true. They feel comfortable trusting the
Church’s stance on social, doctrinal, or other issues, while Mormon liberals
are more likely to question the Church’s stance on issues like homosexuality,
marriage equality, or gender equality.
Someone could probably do a more careful analysis of tweets,
Facebook or Reddit comments, and blogs in response to the current controversy
and map which value each appeals to. But I think it’s clear enough from a
cursory reading of the blogs and comments in the Bloggernacle that support or
criticism of the disciplinary action falls along somewhat established
conservative/liberal delineations. Those who defend the Church’s actions
against Kate, John, and Rock appeal to values of Loyalty, Authority, and
Sanctity. Those who criticize the move tend to appeal primarily to Care or Liberty.
What follows are some examples of people responding
differently to the disciplinary actions against Kate, John, and Rock. In almost
every example it was easy to identify the “moral value(s)” appealed to by the
author. I found that with a few exceptions, appeals to liberal values were made
in known liberal Mormon spaces and in support for Kate, John, and Rock and against the pending disciplinary
actions. Appeals to conservative values were made in known conservative Mormon
spaces in support for the Church and
the pending disciplinary actions.
Loyalty. In these
examples, loyalty to the Church means avoiding bringing embarrassment to the Church
or its leaders. While public expression of doubts or concerns is a betrayal,
the public direct actions taken by Ordain Women are seen as especially disloyal
to the Church. Many commenters said it’s fine to believe or think whatever you
want, but it is not acceptable to
express it publicly and gather support for changes you’d like to see. Instead,
doubts and concerns should be dealt with within the approved structure – in
private meetings with your local bishop or stake president. Mormon scriptures
provide no better example that sowing doubt among the Church membership is unacceptable
than the story of Korihor, the Anti-Christ, who took advantage of the land’s
laws of freedom of religion and preached against the existence of God (see Alma
Chapter 30).
Kathryn Skaggs (Well Behaved Mormon Woman) “For
me personally, the issue with the OW sect has never been about members who may
struggle with understanding the doctrine of the Church, question it, or might
even disagree with parts of Mormonism; certainly some do, in private ways.
Rather it's the ongoing, blatant disregard under the guise of faithful
membership to advocate publicly and contrary
to the official position/doctrine of the Church and its leaders whom we sustain
as prophets, seers, and revelators. In my opinion, such actions do nothing for
the building up of the kingdom of God and instead serve as an attempt to
publicly shame the male leadership of the Church in hopes of submission and to create division among members.” [http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com/2014/06/ordain-women-founder-kate-kelly-apostasy.html]
Beau Sorenson. (Millennial Star) “Doubts aren’t
the problem. I have listened to Mr. Dehlin and Ms. Kelly say that they are
being punished for their doubts. That’s not the case. These Bishops and Stake
Presidents who have convened their disciplinary councils have certainly had
their own crises of faith. Instead, the
problem is the way they have expressed those doubts. They have done so
publicly, in a way that demands everyone look at them.” [http://www.millennialstar.org/some-thoughts-on-excommunication/]
Ashley Woolley (in an Op-Ed to the Salt Lake
Tribune) “I do not support the creation of any outside organization to publicly
agitate on internal Church matters. As a member of the Church, I have committed
to sustain its leaders. ‘Sustain’ need not mean ‘always agree with,’ but to my
mind, surely it means not creating a publicity-seeking organization in direct
opposition to the Church’s position, inviting members to openly oppose both the
Church’s policies and its reasonable requests. It is possible to air concerns in a productive, straightforward, and
private (rather than divisive, symbolic, and purposefully public) manner.”
Authority. Appeals
to authority emphasize the role that priesthood stewardship plays in revelation
and dissemination of policy. Kate Kelly and members of Ordain Women seek a
specific answer to their requests for revelation, and this goes against the
established order of the Church: God speaks through his Prophets, who then share
with the world. Scriptural authority to this idea is expressed in Amos 3:7,
memorized by Seminary students everywhere: Surely
the Lord God will do nothing save he revealeth His secret to His servants the
Prophets.
Ashley Woolley (again, in her Op-Ed to the Salt
Lake Tribune) “I have neither the divine calling nor the necessary perspective
to resolve complicated doctrinal issues for the Church. Intellectual discussion
and questioning of doctrine is the privilege of all members. But to claim that my own interpretation is
right for the whole Church is beyond the scope of my authority. That is, I believe,
what prophets are for.” [http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58064931-82/church-leaders-members-ordain.html.csp]
J. Max Wilson (Millennial Star) “The last step I want to mention is that you
need to reconsider the notion that the living apostles and prophets of the
Church are ignorant, uninformed, or insulated from criticism. The highest
authorities of the Church are intelligent, strong willed, educated, and
experienced. They are aware of the issues. They know the history. They know
what is going on. They are familiar with the arguments and criticisms. They
have spoken to people just like you. They have friends and family members who
have struggled with the same things that you have. They don’t need you to inform them. They already know.” [http://www.millennialstar.org/an-invitation-to-those-lds-members-who-are-wondering-how-did-i-get-here/]
Sanctity/Purity. People
appealed to the idea of sanctity or purity in two ways. First is the idea that
doctrine is pure, and an important role of Church leaders is to keep doctrine
from being warped or changed by the world. Second is the idea that disciplinary
action is an effort to keep the members of the Church pure. Both of these ideas
have plenty of precedent in scripture, from Jesus throwing the impure
moneychangers from the Temple (Matthew 21), and the allegory of separating the
wheat from the tares in Matthew 13:24-30.
Neyland McBaine “What is it specifically about [Kate
Kelly’s] tactics that separated her participation in the conversation from
those many others of us who also care about women in the Church? I believe the
answer comes from understanding that our
prophet and apostles take very seriously their calling to keep our doctrine
pure. The scriptures are rife with examples of what happens to communities
when they do not have checks in place to keep their belief systems from
modulating in different directions. In one extreme example from the Book of
Mormon, the Zoramites, who had once honored the Nephite truth, went so far as
to pray on the Rameumpton. Having a
centralized body responsible for keeping doctrine pure is at the very heart of
what makes us different from so many other denominations today and why
saying we have a living prophet on the earth actually means something. Trying
to change that doctrine and recruit others to a vision of changed doctrine goes
against one of institution’s central purposes.” [http://www.neylanmcbaine.com/2014/06/how-the-conversation-about-women-can-go-on.html]
Laurent Motte (Commenter on Millennial Star) “We
have seen the words “inclusive/inclusiveness” and “diversity” so misused
lately. There is a difference between
corrupting something that is supposed to remain pure, like pure water in an
experiment or a covenant based on a clearly outlined doctrine, and being
inclusive or accepting racial/cultural diversity in our daily lives. Letting
the wolf of genderlessness and sexual impurity into the barn in the name of
inclusiveness and diversity is foolish, and in the case of a bad wolf
unacceptable.” [http://www.millennialstar.org/some-thoughts-on-excommunication/comment-page-1/]
Neal Larson (Op-Ed to Twin Falls Times-News) “Kelly
and Dehlin are not being excommunicated for their genuine doubts and sincere
questions, and no member ever should. They are being ousted because they have
turned their doubts into causes, developing communities that simply can’t be
compatible with a church that’s led by Christ through a prophet of God. We
could call it sin, if we wanted. But perhaps it’s more instructive to just call
it plain incompatibility. Oil and water.
A cancer. Insert your favorite analogy.” [http://magicvalley.com/news/opinion/columns/larson-a-pair-of-lds-apostates/article_ea4527fa-f5dc-11e3-a3e8-0019bb2963f4.html]
Letters sent to John and Kate from their Church leaders appeal
to those traditional moral values, as well.
Sanctity/Purity. This
time, the implication is that Kate herself is “impure,” and denied the title of
“in good standing.”
Scott M. Wheatley (Kate Kelly’s Stake President)
“Because of this informal probation, you can no longer represent that you are
in good standing in the Church. While you are on informal probation you are encouraged
to attend public Church meetings so long as your conduct is orderly, but you may not partake of the sacrament,
hold a Church calling, give a talk, offer a public prayer, or participate in
the sustaining of Church officers. If you are invited to pray or read a
passage or comment in a class or other Church meeting, you must decline. ... It
is important that you understand that you are not required to change your
thinking or the questions you may have in your own mind regarding the
ordination of women, but you need to
make it a private matter and work through this issue with your bishop or
branch president.” [http://ordainwomen.org/?attachment_id=4989]
Loyalty. John’s
stake president questions John’s loyalty to the Church because of John’s own
admission that he doubts many of the Church’s truth claims. In addition, he
also touches on the idea that John’s public expression of doubt would lead away
other, which therefore makes his actions a betrayal.
Brian King (John Dehlin’s Stake President) “Because of the
love I have for you I have become concerned about some of your recent
statements and actions regarding the Church and your place in it. That includes
your recent public posting from earlier this month that you ‘no longer believe many of the fundamental LDS Church truth claims...’
I am greatly concerned about the impact
these and other statements and actions are having upon the members of the stake.”
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/229280355/Stake-president-letter-to-John-Dehlin]
Meanwhile, people sympathizing with Kate, John, and Rock
appealed to liberal values: Care, Justice, and Freedom. Many also de-emphasize the moral value of authority.
Care (Avoiding Harm).
Appeals to care and avoiding harm predict that this action will bring harm
upon Kate, John, and Rock specifically, but to liberal Mormons and the Church
in general. Many of these appeals accuse Church members of unfair judgment and
unkindness toward Kate and John and other liberal Mormons. Scriptural precedent
for valuing care and avoiding harm are the words of Jesus in 3rd
Nephi 12:43-44: And behold it is written
also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy; But behold I say
unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that
hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you. Other
beautiful examples of kindness being taught by the Savior are the Parable of
the Good Samaritan and His commandment to “Love one another,” a scripture that
Primary children sing all around the world.
Cynthia L. (Blogger at By Common Consent) “What kills me is the
thought of the thousands upon thousands of microaggressions this will unleash
in chapels, foyers, family reunions, carpeted cultural halls, and RS Park Day
moms’ groups. It is emboldening those
who would divide our wards and wreak havoc on Zion in our in-person,
flesh-and-blood religious lives. As Rosalynde perfect stated, “Our worst
fears about each other seem to be confirmed — ‘See, they really are dangerous
apostates!’ ‘See, the Church really is out to squash independent thought!’” This will infect our meetinghouses with
distrust.” [http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/06/13/this-will-have-no-effect-on-internet-mormonism-its-much-worse-than-that/]
Liberty. Appeals
to liberty generally assert that Church members should be free to think or
believe differently, and do so publicly without fear of retribution. President
Oaks speaks often about religious liberty of religious adherents within the
United States. But these appeals referred to the liberty of Mormons to believe
differently. Many shared this quote by Joseph Smith: “I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he
erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day
Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of
their Church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not
to be trammeled” (The Words of Joseph Smith, 183-84).
Arctic Rameumptom (Blogger at Feminist Mormon
Housewives) “... [The] real message of their disciplinary letters is to tell
those who think or believe differently, those who have doubts, and those who anxiously await revelatory
changes in the Church that they are not welcome. And that kind of message
is directly contrary to what Pres. Uchtdorf told us last October: “Regardless
of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your
testimony, there is room for you in this Church.” I want to believe Pres.
Uchtdorf’s message.” [http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/06/on-members-disagreeing-with-power/]
Liberty (Egalitarianism).
Appeals to egalitarianism, which is classified as a subset of Liberty
according to Dr. Haidt, speak to the inequality of power and authority in the Church,
especially regarding gender. The idea that the Lord is “no respecter of
persons” is echoed in 2nd Nephi 26:33 “...he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and
he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and
female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
From a blogger at Feminist Mormon Housewives. “This is the
problem we face in Church. We have a structure of discipline in the Church that does not create a safe environment to
bring up concerns. It cannot, because of the inequality in power and authority.
I don’t think it has much to do with how well-trained a Bishop is, or how
kind/unkind he is, or how willing to listen. It’s simple the nature of the system. And members abusing this
system. They abuse it by tattling on their fellow Saints. They do it for Jesus.
But it’s something Jesus has spoken out against, asking us instead to resolve
conflicts directly with our brothers (and sisters – see Matthew 18:15 ). They
tattle, because of the power structure in place. They know who can do something
to put another member in place. Which is why they don’t tattle to the Relief
Society President usually, or go to the member they find issue with. They turn
to the source of power.” [http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/06/tattling-for-jesus-or-how-our-structure-of-discpline-creates-a-culture-of-fear/]
Ronan (Blogger at BCC) “If you wanted to somehow prove that women’s voices are not fully
appreciated in the Church, you could do nothing better than to have an all-male
panel try a woman in absentia.
Again, the reverberations of any censure are what concern me, although
the personal hurt Kate will experience is of course also a bother. People
inclined to sympathise with Ordain Woman will obviously take it as a blow; but
the fall-out — in the form of an emboldening of those in the Church who try to stigmatise and
marginalise those who waver – will make
Mormon life increasingly intolerable for many members, women especially. Once
again, where is the benefit here for the body of Christ? I fear that division
and protest will only get worse, to everyone’s shame.” [http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/06/12/on-excommunication/]
De-Emphasizing
Authority. Many liberal bloggers or commenters explicitly de-valued
authority in comparison to liberty, egalitarianism, and care, as Dr. Haidt’s
model predicts. Liberal Mormons have basis for this in statements like the
following from Brigham Young, “I am more
afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will
not inquire for themselves of God whether
they are being led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind security, trusting their eternal
destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of
God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give their leaders
if they know for themselves by the revelations of Jesus Christ that they are
led in the right way” (Eternal Punishment, Journal of
Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 12 January 1862, Vol. 9, 150.)
DKL, (Blogger at Mormon Mentality) “One thing that the
church is clearly “about” is teaching its members to seek inspiration and practice the gospel according to the
dictates of their own conscience — not out of deference to authority.
Continuing revelation is a lagging moral indicator. Whether it’s Heber J.
Grant’s admonition to German Mormons to be loyal to Germany’s Nazis regime or
Harold B. Lee’s attempts to keep blacks out of BYU or Ezra Taft Benson’s belief
that the civil rights movement was a communist conspiracy or the LDS church’s official
stance discouraging interracial marriage, the
church leadership has repeatedly relied on courageous members of good
conscience to help it come to terms with the need to change church policy,
church doctrine, and church activities.” [http://www.mormonmentality.org/2014/06/17/the-argument-against-labeling-kate-kelly-an-apostate.htm]
This event has encapsulated the tension between liberal and
conservative approaches to Mormonism. For less eloquent responses on both
sides, I encourage you to go to twitter and search the hashtag #ordainwomen.
In a conservative Church, liberal-leaning Mormons will feel
some degree of alienation depending on their local ward, their personality,
etc. There is some evidence [http://whymormonsleave.com/] that the pervasive
conservatism of the Church leads many Mormon liberals to sever ties with the
Church completely. It can’t help but be concluded that an action like this to
again purge notable liberals from the Church (while ignoring conservative
rebels like Cliven Bundy) will further alienate the “Liahonas” within the
Church, at least temporarily.
Dr. Haidt and Dr. Poll both agree that a community will
benefit from both voices: the liberal and the conservative. This idea that the
Church needs both voices, the Iron
Rodders and the Liahonas, appeals to me personally. To a certain extent, I
think many members and Church leaders believe this too, hence the inclusive and
diverse image of the “I Am a Mormon” campaign. Notwithstanding, the Church is
undeniably conservative. The Church is unlikely to consider care, justice, or
liberty as more important than loyalty, authority, and sanctity. The conservative
moral arithmetic implies that the harm this may do to some liberal Mormons
generally, and Kate, John, and Rock specifically, is worth the benefits in
maintaining the sanctity and authority of the Church, and ensuring loyalty from
its members.
I am a liberal Mormon, and I (no doubt selectively) read the
mission of Christ as a liberal
mission. I think the Church should incorporate and validate the voices and
beliefs of people like me, and that this would only help the Church. But it’s
important for me to remember that I’m completely biased. Maybe my version of a better Church is anathema to the members
and leaders, who are also completely biased toward conservatism. (Of course,
I’m assuming that leaders are fallible to this degree, another sign that I’m a
Liahona!)
So what do we do, fellow Liahonas? Is it time we give up? Do
we try another tactic to foster inclusiveness in our Church, one that
explicitly considers the conservative values of sanctity, authority, and
loyalty? What would that look like? To the Iron-Rod Mormons reading, do you see
faithful agitation for change from rank-and-file members as a good thing in
certain circumstances? What would that look like to you? Is promoting positive
change an altogether impossible task when we can’t agree what positive looks like?
Footnote:
Care (or avoiding
harm). This value is characterized by compassion and kindness. It is triggered
by suffering, distress, or neediness. Important to liberals, less so to conservatives.
Liberty. For
liberals, liberty is about egalitarianism and protecting those who are
vulnerable. For conservatives, liberty is focused on the right to be left
alone. Important to liberals,
less so to conservatives
Justice. This
value is characterized by anger, guilt, or gratitude. Fairness, justice,
proportionality, and trustworthiness are related virtues. It is triggered by
cheating, cooperation, or deception. Important to conservatives, somewhat
less so to liberals
Loyalty. The
opposite of betrayal, this value is all about “group pride.” Patriotism,
self-sacrifice, and rage at threats or challenges to a group are
characteristics of this value. Important to conservatives, not so much to liberals
Authority. Respect
for tradition, this is the value that solidifies a hierarchical system.
Dominance and submission, obedience and deference are the corresponding virtues
of this value. Important to conservatives, not so much to liberals
Sanctity. This
value encapsulates the feelings of disgust associated with certain social
taboos. Temperance, chastity, piety, and cleanliness are also virtues of
sanctity. Important to Conservatives, not so much to Liberals
