On the Origin of Mormonism by Means of Natural Selection
Some of our most cherished Mormon practices and traditions are valued nearly as much for their “unintended” results as for their stated objectives. A couple of examples:
1) Full-time LDS missions were and are intended to fulfill the commandment to preach the gospel and grow the kingdom. They have become at the same time a rite of passage into Mormon manhood, and a time of preparation and protection from temptation. These latter purposes may have become as important as the missionary work itself; they are at least in that ballpark.
2) Someone who has occasionally commented on this blog has written (UPDATE: it was this post by Wm Jas) that one of the underestimated, and perhaps unintended, strengths of the LDS Church is the existence of a two-tiered structure of membership: baptized and endowed/sealed. You can attend the Church regularly and in full fellowship, and not feel like an outsider just because you aren’t quite living up to the temple-worthy standards. At the same time, those who are capable of doing more will feel an obligation to do so. Thus we avoid the predicament of being too hard, or too easy, to follow. Everyone finds the level of activity that they are capable of sustaining, but without having an excuse to do any less than they are capable of.
Now, I think it’s unlikely that this handy arrangement is “the reason” for requiring one standard for baptism and another for temple attendance. But it is a beneficial structure, and if it weren’t it might very well have been done away with by now. Those practices which stand the test of time are essentially those which are “selected-for” in a Darwinian* sense, even if accidentally.
Of course, we can’t know if it is accidental at all, given who leads the Church. That’s why I put the word “unintended” in quotes in the first sentence. But I think it’s no blasphemy to say that some of the best parts of Mormonism have arisen out of trial-and-error.
There’s another long-standing Mormon practice whose “accidental” virtues I think are just now, in our insane day and age, becoming apparent: unpaid ministry.
Unpaid ministry is hardly mandated by Mormon doctrine, and there are General Authorities and mission presidents who draw an income for their service. But that’s a tiny percentage; our almost complete reliance on unpaid ministers sets us apart from other churches. Why do we do it? Some of it is historical contingency; we began as a poor people on the run, with no labor to spare. Some of it arises naturally from the structure of the priesthood; if every worthy man is a priest, then we can hardly have a separate professional priestly caste.
Now if you were to tally up the benefits of unpaid ministry, what comes to mind first? The immense amount of money saved, of course. Next you might point to the more diverse and practical life experiences of our Church leadership. It doesn’t hurt to have the former Dean of the University of Chicago Law School doubling as a apostle in times like these. Then there’s the small-d democratic virtue of having a financial titan serving in council with a policeman.
But I’ll propose here that perhaps the greatest benefit of unpaid ministry, which gives us the biggest leg up on other Christian denominations in our culturally Marxist age, is the prevention of Entryism.
The recent conflicts within the Catholic Church about all the same old left-wing hobbyhorses made me wonder: Why does Catholicism have such a problem with men in its highest levels of leadership who clearly don’t like Catholicism in anything like its traditional form? And why don’t we seem to have that same problem? The conclusion I came to is that any church which allows for the possibility of ministry as a chosen “career” is vulnerable to entryism by leftists hell-bent on “change.”
Suppose you’re a bright young SJW with a grandiose vision for bringing Catholicism into the 21st Century. There’s a very clear path for you. Go to a liberal Catholic school like Georgetown, then to a seminary known for liberal sympathies. Find a bishop with liberal sympathies and obtain employment in his diocese, where he can shelter you from accusations of heresy. Wait long enough, and work hard enough, and you or one of your allies will be running the diocese and helping to pick the next Pope.
Now suppose you’re a bright young SJW with a grandiose vision for bringing Mormonism into the 21st Century. You have to find a job…not in ministry. Maybe you could become a seminary or institute teacher? But there’s no ecclesiastical authority there. For that you have to wait…for a call that may never come. There are no job applications for Bishop or Stake President, and anyway you’ll likely be somewhere between 35-50 before anyone thinks of you as “bishop” material. Even if you can fake adherence to Gospel doctrine long enough to become a bishop or stake president, you can be released in a single Sunday, no protests, all those who wish to thank Bishop Entryist for his service, please indicate by the raise of the right hand.
And can you really make it a goal to become a General Authority? If Russell M. Nelson knew that the way to get into the Quorum of the 12 was to become a nationally-renowned heart surgeon, then become a personal physician of the Mormon prophet…well, then he was already a prophet and seer, and the call to the Twelve was merely a formalization.
In sum, there is no dependable “career path” to give an SJW entryist any sustainable hope of infiltrating the highest ranks of the Church. And that is one of the many “accidental” attributes of Mormonism that contribute to its continued strength.
One last note in conclusion: I began writing this before the most recent news came out about the Church policy treating children of gay couples the same as children of polygamous families. I recently read Rod Dreher’s comments about Christian schools rejecting the children of gay couples, and how it almost certainly arises out of the legal necessity not to permit anything that might look like even partial acceptance of homosexual behavior within their ranks. I suspect this new LDS policy is mostly legally-driven as well. However, I think it may end up having a significant but “incidental” effect in preventing entryism by those with a homosexual agenda. “OK, maybe we can’t participate in your ordinances, but our kids will be baptized members, and their loyalty will be to us gays.” Not so fast.
By the way, no baby blessings for the kids of gay couples? Tough, but necessary. Score one for the military model over the schoolhouse model.
*Look, I’m using a layman’s poor definition of “Darwinian” here. Unlike Clarence Darrow, I’m a lawyer who knows the limits of my understanding.
Filed under: Deseret Review | Tags: gays of intolerance, lay ministry, missionaries, Mormonism, SJWs
G.
November 6, 2015
Funny, I was just thinking Darwinian selection effects could apply to the gospel.
there must be something important about the trial and error process itself, since God does not just shortcut us to the final answer.
I have seen some pretty good arguments that having an established church is more or less inevitable. Certainly, we went from having the establishment of mainline Protestantism to the current establishment of progressivism. It seems there is vacuum for an official belief system that the political nature abhors. At the same time, there are benefits to the Darwinism of America’s religious landscape. Churches that thrive, thrive. Failing churches fail. The ways of the Lord are true and just altogether.
I hope your excellent post does not get derailed into a discussion of the churches SSM announcement. I do note, however, these are the same rules we had for polygamy after we ended the practice. Children in polygamous marriages were not blessed nor baptized.
Andrew
November 6, 2015
It’s hard to fake having a solid family, a decent paying job, and heartily fulfilling the expectations of your calling.
Vader
November 6, 2015
Excellent, excellent post.
I am not sure of the reason for fearing a discussion, here, of the SSM announcement. We are not afraid to moderate ruthlessly if folks show up for the discussion we’ve never seen before.
The announcement is, after all, dynamite. And, in my opinion, a regrettable but absolute necessity.
Bruce Charlton
November 6, 2015
Excellent and fascinating post!
“Someone who has occasionally commented on this blog (I regret that I do not recall who) has written that one of the underestimated, and perhaps unintended, strengths of the LDS Church is the existence of a two-tiered structure of membership”… That would be me (to quote Howard from the Big Bang Theory).
wrt LDS missions. That is my impression too, as a semi-outsider. Compare today’s missionary experience with the first missions to England when they seemed to average two or three baptisms *a day*, with a substantial minority of these coverts emigrating to Deseret.
wrt Entryism – A superb insight.
Another factor than money is status. Being a Mormon in authority does not get you social status in the way that being an Anglican/ Episcopalian priest (or a Roman Catholic priest in a Catholic area) does – quite the opposite, in fact.
(Same would apply to being a Jehovah’s Witness.)
Low status among the elites is a strong protection against SJWs. But the nearest thing to a career path to being an authority is to come from an old, multigenerational Mormon family with General Authorities among your ancestors – perhaps that would be the most likely route for a determined LDS entryist.
@G “Churches that thrive, thrive. Failing churches fail.”
They fail *as churches* but, here in the UK and also in Europe, they often become de facto offices of the government bureaucracy, living off grants and subsidies as quasi NGOs. e.g. Methodism is like that nowadays – no congregations to speak of, but running cafes, clubs, housing, various social services.
Vader
November 6, 2015
“But the nearest thing to a career path to being an authority is to come from an old, multigenerational Mormon family with General Authorities among your ancestors – perhaps that would be the most likely route for a determined LDS entryist. ”
I thought about this for a few moments, because it certainly sounds plausible. I think in almost any other social organization, it would be expected.
But in my experience, this is practically nonexistent outside of Utah. I’ve never lived in a regular Utah ward, so my impressions there are from brief visits with acquaintances, but I sense there is a stronger social tendency that way there — which somehow still doesn’t take much hold. I wonder why that is. I think part is the fact that even a great-grandson of Brigham Young still has to be called by inspiration, but I think there may also be a deeply rooted skepticism in Mormonism for anyone who appears to be campaigning for a calling. I’ve not seen this in any other social network, except perhaps at Death Star, Incorporated, where the scientist who appears to be bucking for management is regarded as perhaps not the sharpest theorist in the department.
Yes, the entryism is the best insight in this piece. I am sorely tempted to link this to acquaintances who are in a lather over the announcement, but I think I will hold back; my gut tells me this is not a good idea for some reason which I can’t yet articulate.
G.
November 6, 2015
No problem per se with addressing the SSM issue. but not to the neglect of this excellent post. so far, that has not happened.
el oso
November 6, 2015
Entryism,
I know the families of several former stake presidents around this area. The children and children-in-laws of these high officials have about the same distribution of callings of any other active families of the same size and longevity in the church.
The place I have seen family and other close ties have the most influence is the more temporary callings like YSA wards. The family member, neighbor, close friend, etc. of a stake presidency member get called to a YSA unit leadership calling a lot more. The prestige of these callings is lower, and the pool of potential leaders is larger. This is more cronyism that entryism, but still a potential route for that.
The increased use of ward councils will allow more SJW comments to be brought up, but not many more independent SJW actions.
Daniel Ortner
November 6, 2015
This is a really thoughtful post. I think policies such as the new SSM policy act to sift out members who are more committed to seeing social change than to the teachings of the living Prophet. And there is some value in that. I am grateful that the church is more concerned about divine doctrine than keeping members from becoming disaffected.
Jacob G.
November 6, 2015
The examples in this post might give the impression that the cursus honorum is to pick a field, become outstanding in it whilst taking the hits for being orthoprax, orthodox.
I don’t think this is true except trivially – in that the Lord will call capable men to represent him. However someone who followed that path would probably have a lot of experience with SJWs – and not a high regard for them.
Children as smokescreen | The Millennial Star
November 6, 2015
[…] And go read this post on “entryism” at jrganymede, especially the last paragraphs – this is about the long term struggle for the soul of the church: “I think it may end up having a significant but ‘incidental’ effect in preventing entryism by those with a homosexual agenda. ‘OK, maybe we can’t participate in your ordinances, but our kids will be baptized members, and their loyalty will be to us gays.’ Not so fast.” […]
Geoff B
November 6, 2015
MC, great post!
Wm Jas
November 6, 2015
The person you allude to in #2 is me. Here is the post in question: https://wmjas.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/two-things-the-mormons-are-doing-right/
John Mansfield
November 6, 2015
Just last night, my wife and brother-in-law were discussing the need bishops have now to not accidentally call someone who has his sights on becoming the first homosexual scout leader of a Mormon troop.
Ben Pratt
November 6, 2015
Bruce and Vader: I wrote a bit about the effects of a strong multigenerational family on the individual back in 2009: http://www.millennialstar.org/the-weight-of-heritage/
G.’s obedience post from this week is very relevant here. Even my most worldly relations haven’t become SJWs; they are too honest. They are also too familiar with their ancestry to shame them publicly.
James
November 6, 2015
Funny, I thought of the same issue (entryism) in a narrower issue when I first saw the SSM announcement. I thought, “maybe this will help prevent BYU from becoming more and more liberal in the future.” If the children of same-sex couples and SJWs feel disenfranchised by the church their entire lives, will they be as dedicated to vindictive pseudo-involvement in the church for another four years? While not a professional clergy, the closest thing the Church has to paid theologians is CES, and I could see this seriously offending the left-wing of it enough to make more of them cut ties.
@BC, “Being a Mormon in authority does not get you social status…” Perhaps you mean that it does not get you social status as a derivative of your LDS position, but being a Mormon in authority AND a social cause of the left does. Take for example the gay bishop’s second counselor in San Francisco or Kate Kelly for that matter. Both of them received national news coverage for their heroics, and their Mormon credentials were given great gravity to the uninitiated, despite the fact that members are well aware of their non-powerful status and the impermanence of church authority generally. If any general authority were to come out as a SJW, he would be hailed by the press as Next Generation of LDS Church Leadership and Maybe the Next Mormon Prophet, regardless of his position.
@MC, on your “one last note” whole-heartedly agree. It wasn’t the socialists of the early 20th century that shifted America left, it was the red-diaper babies that succeeded in entering the establishment without being loyal to it.
Dave A.
November 6, 2015
“The place I have seen family and other close ties have the most influence is the more temporary callings like YSA wards. The family member, neighbor, close friend, etc. of a stake presidency member get called to a YSA unit leadership calling a lot more.”
I wouldn’t attribute that to cronyism, I would guess that those people with a close relationship to the stake presidency are the least likely to turn down such a calling. Presiding over a bunch of YSAs is very demanding of one’s time and it doesn’t carry with it much prestige, since no one in their home ward even gets to see them in the act of serving. One of my family members used to be a bishop and he said that in his ward, those serving in callings often weren’t the first to be called — they were the ones that actually accepted the calling when it was finally extended to them after the others had refused.
MC
November 7, 2015
Wm Jas,
Yes, thank you, that was the post I had in mind; I’ve added the link above.
MC
November 7, 2015
Andrew,
“It’s hard to fake having a solid family, a decent paying job, and heartily fulfilling the expectations of your calling.”
Yes, it’s hard enough to accomplish those things out of a sincere conviction, let alone as part of a ruse. I suspect that more than a few SJWs leave BYU with the intention of really shaking the Church up, only to find that they can’t really fake that kind of emotional commitment their whole lives, which is pretty much what it would take.
And perhaps some of them really believe that they are just as committed as any other Mormon to the Gospel, at least according to their hipstery interpretation of it. But in the end they’re like a wife who only loves the vision of what her husband COULD be if he ever got his act together and changed himself into someone else entirely.
Bookslinger
November 7, 2015
I can’t imagine same-sex partners even wanting their children to be blessed or baptized in the church.
In a thread over on M*, someone did come up with a possible situation that could get sticky. Rare, but there have been and will be examples.
Suppose a married heterosexual couple in the church has kids, the husband comes out as gay, they get divorced, and the father then marries/cohabits with another man, and the mom and her ex have shared/joint custody. The mom wants the kids to stay in the church, but because the kids live part-time with their father, they can’t have any further ordinances until age 18, etc.
I still support and see the wisdom in the church’s policy, even in this situation.
Marilyn
November 7, 2015
bookslinger–
I agree, and (I think someone eventually brought this up on that post at M*) wanted to point out that for those situations that are exceptional, the first presidency can and will make exceptions. Just as with temple divorces and joining the church after an abortion and so forth. The individual cases will be considered and approved, if they should be. Although, as you said, there is wisdom in the policy even for some potentially exceptional cases.
Vader
November 7, 2015
books,
In the scenario you describe, there is an excellent chance that if the mother tries to have the kids baptized, the gay father will sue for and be awarded full custody of the child for custodial interference. He would claim that the mother taking the kid to a church where they teach that gay marriage is a mortal sin is interfering with his shared custody of the child.
Yeah, we generally require permission from both parents to baptize. But these new rules make it crystal clear that we are not to risk legal jeopardy in any such scenario.
Vader
November 7, 2015
In watching the reaction to this policy — which is upsetting even some people I thought were good citizens of the Kingdom and knew better — I find myself thinking of the prophecy that in the last days even the elect would be deceived, if that were possible. (The implication, fortunately, is that it isn’t.)
I find myself pondering on what position or action of the Church could take me to the edge as this has for some folks I thought were solid. Giving women priesthood office, maybe? Dunno. I hope I don’t have to find out, but I suspect that’s part of the plan, eventually.