In Defense of “Mottramism”

I.

“Mottramism” is a term that Rod Dreher has periodically employed to denote an unreflective acceptance of eccesiastical authority. The term was coined by Mark Cameron, who describes it thus:

I would like to propose a name for this phenomenon of inveterate support for any and all Papal actions, imputing to him wisdom and spiritual insight beyond all the Saints and Popes of past ages: Mottramism.

This takes its name, of course, from Rex Mottram, Julia Flyte’s husband in Brideshead Revisited. At one point, Rex decides to convert to Catholicism in order to have a proper Church wedding with Julia. But the sincerity of his conversion becomes suspect when he is willing to agree with any absurdity proposed in the name of Catholic authority, and shows no intellectual curiosity into its truth or falsehood. As his Jesuit instructor, Father Mowbray describes his catechetical progress:

“Yesterday I asked him whether Our Lord had more than one nature. He said: ‘Just as many as you say, Father.’ Then again I asked him: ‘Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said ‘It’s going to rain’, would that be bound to happen?’ ‘Oh, yes, Father.’ ‘But supposing it didn’t?’ He thought a moment and said, “I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.’”

If there’s a villain in Brideshead Revisited, it’s Mottram. Not only is he an adulterer and an upper-class twit, he lacks any of the amusing eccentricities of the other twits in the book, like Anthony Blanche. He’s just a self-centered void of humanity who ruins other people’s lives out of expediency and indifference. So nothing in this post is meant as a defense of Rex Mottram himself.

With all that being said: Is Mottram’s “raining spiritually” answer really so bad?

I see what Father Mowbry is getting at with his question. There’s a complicated interplay of obedience to rightful ecclesiastical authority versus abdication of personal conscience. It can be difficult to discern which prophets are false prophets. If an ecclesiastical leader tells you something directly contrary to what you observe, that’s not something to be batted away with a pat answer.

But it’s entirely possible that after a prayerful struggle of faith, the correct answer might be no more sophisticated than Mottram’s. In fact, it might be the same answer.

II.

Consider the journey that Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery took to Salem, Massachusetts in 1836. They were led there by the promise of money that could save the Church from its debts, and the Lord seemed to ratify this ambition when He told them, “I have much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion, and many people in this city, whom I will gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion, through your instrumentality.” D&C 111:2.

The money never materialized. However:

Elder Erastus Snow wrote of his own later experiences in Salem: “[…] President Hyrum Smith and [William] Law who had been east as far as Salem, Massachusetts and just returned through Philadelphia on their way home again [counseled] that I should not return to Nauvoo in the fall but that I should go immediately with Brother Winchester to Salem Mass. and try to establish the kingdom in that city. They left with us a copy of a revelation given about that people in 1836 which said the Lord had much people there whom he would gather into his kingdom in his own due time and they thought the due time of the Lord had come.[…]”

Later entries in his journal show that Elder Snow baptized over one hundred people from the time he arrived in Salem until he returned to Nauvoo on 11 April 1843. For example Elder Snow indicated that there were ninety members in the Salem Branch on 28 May 1842.”

Of course, the souls converted in Salem, and their descendants, matter much more to the Lord and to the Church than any sum of money could have. The “treasure” was not literal, but spiritual.

“Aw, that’s just you crazy Mormons making excuses when prophecies don’t turn out like you say they will.” Maybe. But remember this?

And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.

Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Matt. 16:5-12

Not literal leaven. Spiritual leaven.

Or this?

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3.:1-6

Not literal rebirth. Spiritual rebirth.

Notice a pattern?

III.

I wonder if one’s amenability to “Mottramism” is as much a matter of personality as it is of religious devotion. Rod Dreher and Evelyn Waugh were both adult converts to their respective churches. Not only converts, but converts of an intellectual shade. Such people demand rigorous theology. They are often a little less willing to accept certain matters on faith.

By contrast, I’d be disappointed if an LDS Church leader prophesied rain and it didn’t happen. But it would hardly be something to lose a testimony over, a testimony built upon decades of life experience, study, prayer, and miracles. I would want to reconcile the prophet’s words with what I knew to be true. Perhaps the promise of rain had been a conditional one, and we had not done what was needed to make it happen. Perhaps the fulfillment of the promise was merely delayed. Or perhaps… it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.

This may not be the most intellectually honest approach to faith. I wouldn’t want my testimony to be dependent on epicycles of religious rationalization. But neither should one’s loyalty to Church leadership be readily discarded at the first apparent failure of prophecy, a prophecy that our mortal ears may be too dull to hear as it was intended.

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Matt. 13:13