Guest Post: The Limits of Orthodoxy

 

By Lindsay Hansen Park

 

When I’m not running a non-profit that gives platform to marginalized Mormons or podcasting about Mormon fundamentalism, I’m usually online talking about Mormonism. Hey, who says I’m not an active Latter-day Saint? 

Actually, plenty of people. There isn’t a day that goes by where I’m not labeled an apostate in some corner of my world. Saints and sinners alike find a sort of wicked communion arguing about Mormonism online, as if it is the only thing that matters in this big world. This self-centeredness that many of us participate in is the mother-tongue of a very dysfunctional fyyamily, one that never really learned how to communicate well in conflict and one with a limited awareness of our own importance.

At any given time, Church on the Mormon internet blurs the lines on which “side” I am actually on (sometimes even I don’t know). In some spaces I am too angry about the church, in others I am too affectionate. Mormons of all stripes can’t seem to get away from loyalty tests and all seem obsessed with whose god we perform ritual obedience to. Proximity to orthodoxy is old-hat idolatry and it’s a game too many in my community still take very seriously. 

Can I still be a Mormon if I shun orthodoxy, wherever it shows up for me?

For some, the answer is a resounding no. For them it is precisely an allegiance to orthodoxy that establishes a legitimate Latter-day Saint.  It’s not inventive, but it’s a common religious impulse and who am I to get in the way of religious compulsion? I’m not dismissing orthodoxy, obedience and loyalty entirely. It works great in business, but it gets a little more messy where spirituality is concerned. It’s an outdated model to faith and an archaic response to modernity.

This boundary-policing is one I know well, from lived experience but also from working with Mormons in marginal spaces for the last decade. My podcast opened me up to many Mormonisms and Sunstone woke me up to my own. I understand the latest demarcation “Latter-day Saint,” is an important signal of obedience right now, so I will be intentional about how I use the term Mormon.

I’ve been asked to blog at you today to explain how I believe the Radical Orthodoxy manifest, which was published a week or so ago has parallels to other Mormon fundamentalism movements.

This is, of course, quite a claim considering the document purports itself to be drawing a distinction between orthodoxy and fundamentalism. It takes great pains to distinguish itself from fundamentalism, while simultaneously repurposing the same tools that present themselves in fundamentalist movements. It presumes a stereotype about fundamentalists that are inaccurate and deeply hypocritical.

I’m left asking this: If manifestos of this nature are supposed to be staking out a middle ground, what then defines the edges of center? And what do the signatories public positions say about  where the manifesto is positioned in the larger Mormon diaspora?

After some public facebook comments critiquing the manifesto’s use of fundamentalism, someone asked me if my concerns were because the term “manifesto” was used and that word is so often tied to polygamous sects and breakoff fundamentalist groups.

The answer is no. I don’t think this latest project from some faithful Latter-day Saint academics reminds me of a fundamentalist document because it uses the word manifesto. To me, manifesto isn’t a pejorative, it’s just a descriptor.  I really don’t have a problem with manifestos. 

Religious manifestos are a sort of theological poetry. They romanticize religious conviction. In my work with many different Mormon fundamentalist sects, I’ve seen plenty of documents like this. It doesn’t mean they are all alike and most aren’t very interesting. That is to say, there are some really elegant and inventive theologies that exist. This is not one of them. There’s nothing new, radical or interesting about this. It’s just a standard loyalty oath with fancy words.

It is not unusual, (or sadly, radical) to get a group of Mormons together to sign a shared statement. Hell, I’ve done it several times in Mormon feminism. It is simply an embodied expression of how Mormons organize, and this is no different. Also not radical is the very old, very tired, very evil idea that our understanding of gender is fixed and not still unfolding. It equates the existence and humanity of our trans and LGBT brothers and sisters as political fantasy. It’s clear they spent a lot of time on ornate phrasing.

My critique regarding the fundamentalism wasn’t about what they called it, but rather what they were signing their names to. The problem for me is two-fold: This particular manifesto seeks to separate itself from fundamentalism (while using the same system, tools and strategies that fundamentalism employs and throwing our fundamentalist friends under the bus) and it claims take a middle position in the Latter-day Saint tradition, which it clearly isn’t.

I’m likely more familiar and sympathetic to Mormon fundamentalism (both within, and outside of the mainstream branch) than many of the Saints who put their names to this. Still, my viewpoint is limited. I write this with a recognition of those limitations. 

Whenever I’m down in the fundamentalist community of Short Creek I like talking religion with the FLDS and exFLDS. It’s a common tongue I share with those folks and it’s always a lot of fun to engage my own faith as an outsider.

The one thing I’ve come to know well is Mormonism. I’ve lived it. I’ve loved it. And it continually breaks my heart. Its most famous and current export are prohibitions against homosexual and trans members. The church continues to hold positions that are damaging and harmful, not only to its own people but to larger communities. Put whatever pretty words you want around it, the impact is undeniable. Embracing the shadow sides is an imperative for anyone who claims to understand the faith and yet, most of the signatories seem dedicated to defending and dismissing those sides, not embracing and engaging them with integrity.

This is why the claim the document makes in carving out a middle space is perplexing. The signatories aren’t folks who engage with all the Mormons I know, (unless they are condemning them). These supposed thoughtful thinkers pretend themselves as the arbiters of a pure Mormonism. I wonder how much time they’ve spent listening in the margins? It certainly reads like if they have, they didn’t listen. Which is weird, because Jesus didn’t say, “Be ye therefore orthodox,” but he did advocate for the Least of These. If this truly is a centrist document, wouldn’t the appeal extend to other corners of the Mormon universe? I would expect to see a wider range of signatories in such a space.  I would at least expect to see the signers themselves working in corners of Mormonism that extend beyond apologetic reaches.

Does it not? Pay attention to that. It’s a response to a dying brand of religion that not just Mormonism faces. If this document is so radical, give us a response we can use to confront the challenges this tradition is facing. Right now it seems the best we have are #Deznat hashtags, appeals to read scriptures, and terrible youtube ht. Consider this quote that labels a new threat and outsider, modern intellectual discourse:

“Radical orthodoxy is not a faction, nor a label intended to set forth boundaries for any particular group or organization. It is rather a rallying point, and invitation to embrace conviction and fidelity. It is also an invitation to reject fundamentalism and embrace the possibility of change, innovation, and progress in how we understand the Gospel. It is an occasion to reinforce our loyalties to the Resurrected Christ and the Church that bears His name and to strive to be “lower lights” burning as an example to others who are also navigating the treacherous waters of modern intellectual discourse.”

The manifesto claims it is an attempt to separate itself from extremist alt-right expressions even though several of their signatories have been involved with and support some of those expressions like Deznat, and FAIR TITS (hey, I didn’t name it). What I don’t see is signatories who are doing work in the other direction. 

To be in the center means looking outside the boundaries of your own righteousness. It requires an awareness of more expansive expressions, rather than seeking limitations around one’s own belief system. It is because the manifesto honors the limitations of Mormonism that it becomes a fundamentalist text. This is simply an LDS fundamentalist expression, nothing more. I don’t even think it’s even that interesting, except we are all bored and stressed out right now.

For me, the wrestle of defining true Mormonism is this: I take Mormonism very seriously.I take Mormons at their word. In this way, my belief is unwavering. I am faithful to the faith of our people. I believe Mormons when they say they want to do good and be good. I can’t tell if it’s adorable optimism or just really sad.  I’m not sure that it always deserves our loyalty. Certainly the bleak portrait of Mormonism this document paints, doesn’t deserve such trust.

“Hope. We are deliberately optimistic about the Church and its role in the world. We reject negative, cynical attitudes toward the Church, its leaders, and its teachings. We avoid nitpicking and murmuring.” 

And yet. one can still engage faith with fidelity and affection without pledging allegiance to whatever defining orthodoxy the current man in charge sets out. Is the Gospel of Jesus Christ a gospel for all, or for the righteous few? If we lay orthodoxy on the altar of sacrifice, what does it mean for the boundaries of a faith community? And if doing so threatens the faith, what does that say about our theology? 

One-true-church-orthodoxy is a concept I won’t participate in again. It nearly killed me as a perfectionist Laurel, and it aggravated my OCD. There is a poisonous derivement when obedience is height of religious expression. I’ve met too many groups of people, too many fundamentalists and radical extremists that are so certain of themselves. Their orthodoxy is the gold star of their identity. After interacting with FLDS trauma, I won’t ever swear loyalty to a singular prophet. I won’t weaponize God’s word in the name of righteousness. I cannot adopt a, “sorry if this dehumanizes, you but it’s true attitude.”  If I see it happening, I will say something because there’s no harm like God’s love expressed through it’s most devout. It’s the worst kind.

Engaging with the FLDS is personal for me. It is a religious practice. My friends from that community are a constant reminder of how the good will of individuals can be exploited in the name of God. Some of the most fragile and most vulnerable have put their trust into a simple orthodoxy and the results ended up being some of the darkest evil I have ever come to learn about. 

It has taken a toll. Through this, I’ve somehow miraculously managed to maintain a faith in God, but I’ve absolutely lost my faith in Satan. The reality of this life is that real sins don’t need a Satan, hiding in the reeds, waiting to deceive. The worst sins I’ve ever seen are ones that depend on God. These are the sins that allowed FLDS mothers to give their teenage daughters away in marriage to an adult male leader. These are ones that allowed faithful men to strike their own conscience to break the law in pernicious ways. The worst sins in the FLDS were never done in the name of the devil, they were always done in the name of God. Obedience in Mormonism only works well for a sacred few and it’s more dangerous than it is transformative when put in the wrong hands. Why then, other than pride, would anyone want to centralize this practice, when we already have so many examples of where that has gone terribly wrong?

Through all their pain and horrific survival, I still love talking shop with our fundamentalist cousins from the FLDS. Like me, we both know how harmful taking our faith so seriously can be. My favorite FLDS term for a Latter-day Saint is a “Nelson-ite.” They were Warren-ites, and Rulon-ites, and Barlow-ites and we are Nelson-ites. It’s been fascinating to engage my faith as an outsider like this. It’s a gift to be able to see my church through their eyes. It helps me remember my lens isn’t the only way to look at things.

The Salt Lake Tribune recently published an article  about that manifesto where Mormon scholar Kathleen Flake was quoted as saying, “No one needs more ‘-ites,’ or divisiveness,” she says. “You don’t need the Book of Mormon to tell you that anymore. The wisdom of it is manifest everywhere today.”

This is perhaps why I had the reaction I did about fundamentalism and this new manifesto. It wasn’t spurred on by polygamy. That’s not the common denominator for me. The correlation is hierarchical priesthood loyalty. It’s a pattern that’s replicated over and over in Mormon fundamentalism and absolutely seeded by its presence in LDS communities. Which explains why the majority of fundamentalists in the nearly 500 expressions of Mormonism started first as LDS. It doesn’t mean that LDS inherently drives people towards fundamentalism, but it certainly doesn’t equip them to resist it.

The truth is, many Western scholars like these signatories, have the benefit of interacting with their faith in a way that others do not. Those of us who sit and talk about this all day on the internet live a different Mormonism than most. I’d argue it’s the biggest mote in the eye of Mormon academia in their own ability to intellectualize lived practice. Too often we are blinded by our own faith. A lot of  time is spent talking about potential and theoretical beauty in Mormonism, but little work producing the change.

The manifesto has been argued to me as an activist document, but I don’t see it moving anything forward. It only replicates what has been done, over and over again. It reaffirms texts, it pledges loyalty oaths to an institution, it swears fealty to priesthood. There is nothing radical or revolutionary about expressing loyalty to Mormonism, even if you rewrite it in academic language. Extremism in Mormonism has always depended on loyalty. Fundamentalism relies on the same fidelity. 

The worst part about this manifesto is it puts its arm to the square for texts like the Family Proclamation and describes its tent pole as supporting the church’s stance on gender and sexuality. Hear me on this: There’s a wholesomeness about Mormonism that’s worth protecting and this is the very opposite of that. I don’t even try to speak “nice Mormon” about this anymore, I just have to call it for what it is: it is homophobia. Wrap it up in whatever theologic trappings you need, but we all know this. We can no longer deny that we don’t know that this doesn’t have a devastating impact on our trans and LGBT youth. I don’t care how you make sense of this, it hurts people. Look me in the eye as I say this to you. It hurts our people. It hurts our very own, and scholars who have access to theories and resources should know better. They don’t have the excuse of others who aren’t afforded opportunities to explore their bigotry. This document confuses intellectual prose with spiritual violence. Poison in a pretty package is more pernicious, because it is pretending to be something that it isn’t.

To write a document swearing fealty to this only further idolizes static documents while continuing to trample the marginalized. It assumes a god that is small and limited by human bigotry. It identifies those who don’t agree as cynical, and yet this document is one of the most pessimistic views of Mormonism I’ve read in a while. We have this expansive Restoration tradition to mine from and this endeavor preserves the old testament parts. That’s fundamentalism. 

If this manifesto was an attempt to move away from fundamentalist thinking, it failed. For many reasons, but mostly because it misdiagnoses the borders of Mormonism, and that’s precisely the trap of orthodoxy. It turns faith into ritualistic performances rather than radical action like that of Jesus and blinds us to all the beautiful possibilities that still exist in a tradition as radical as Mormonism. 

Lindsay Hansen Park is the host of the Year of Polygamy podcast and executive director of the Sunstone Education Foundation.