Plenty of Room at the Table: The “Real” Radical Approach to Discussing Mormonism

           

            I read an article this morning that quite frankly, I thought was awful. What I found more disturbing was that LDS Living decided to make it the key subject in the mass email they sent out today. The article comes from examiner.com, a blog conglomerate in which contributors can post stories about a wide range of topics. The topic of course was Mormonism. Kelly Foss contributed a short blog titled, “CNN’s Radical Approach to Discussing Mormon Faith.” Foss was apparently overjoyed because on Wednesday night a CNN show had a discussion about Mormonism and “they actually invited a real live member of the Mormon Church to the segment to talk about it!” Yep, “a real live” Latter-day Saint.

            Foss continued, “What a revolutionary idea! No pundits, no outside observers, no disaffected Mormons, no academics who have studied the church from a distance for years, but someone who actually knows what they are talking about because they live and practice the faith.” As I read this statement, I could not help but think that many Latter-day Saints (but not all) need to transition from such perspectives. I admit I understood the message that Foss was trying to convey. In discussing Mormonism in proper fashion a Mormon needs to be at the table detailing what they believe and how it interacts with their life, etc. Unfortunately, at the heart of this statement comes something that is more damming to the understanding of Mormonism-blocking all others from the table of discussion where genuine questions, struggles, and issues can be openly discussed.

            As I prepared myself to study religion at Claremont Graduate University back in 2009, I remember sitting in the foyer of my church building in Boise Idaho waiting for an activity to get ready to start. As I sat down on a couch I started reading Jan Shipps’ phenomenal work “Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition.”  Eventually, I was engaged in a conversation with a fellow Latter-day Saint about the book I was reading. It was not long before I was asked, “Is Jan Shipps a Mormon?”  I responded that indeed she wasn’t, and could already anticipate the potential reaction that would follow. I tried to explain how wonderful the book was, stressed how Shipps had been studying Mormons for years, and emphasized that she was quite good at the work she did. I have had numerous similar conversations since then, and I always worry that I come off lecturing believing Latter-day Saints about why it is so critical for non-Mormons to publish books and articles on Mormonism. So, if I have offended any in this process I apologize. But please note, I am not attacking you as an individual- you are my friends and are wonderful! However, Latter-day Saints really need to get out of this paradigm. For lack of any better explanation, I will simply state that we need to get out of a “persecution complex” in thinking that any non-Mormon that discusses us collectively is going to be slinging mud at us as if he/she was a nineteenth century reporter.  Yes, there are many of those today, but let us not close ourselves in. We already appear to those outside of Mormonism as “secretive” as it is.

            I use Jan Shipps only as an example, because she is known as one of the great outsider historians of Mormonism. But there are many more Jan Shipps out there doing wonderful things, which push the discussion of Mormonism in polite, analytical ways.  A perfect example of this is my good friend Christopher Smith, who started a new Mormon Studies blog called Worlds Without End. The effort behind the creation of this blog was to bring together both insider and outsider perspectives in the discourse of Mormon Studies in which differing viewpoints could be discussed. What is even more amazing about such a blog is that the contributors are well aware of proper edict involved in such a discourse (and if you don’t believe me, please see their comment policy).  Such a venture, which Smith discusses as following after the spirit of Claremont Graduate University, is essential to a complete understanding of Mormonism.  If Mormons keep the historical discussion of Mormonism to themselves, saying that we indeed are the only ones that can discuss adequately Mormonism because we live and believe in it, Mormons are only asking for trouble. Such a setup does not provide a roundtable of a discussion, but only makes those outside of Mormonism adamantly believe that we are secretive insiders with something to hide. We need outsider historians, pundits, and even disaffected Mormons (if performed in a conducive spirit) to be at the table. One doesn’t correct understanding of their own group if they are the only ones allowed to speak. In fact in Mormon culture, we often speak in a completely different language, and approach our religion from a different worldview. In cases like this it becomes quite refreshing when we dialogue enough with outsiders (pundits etc) to which they actually come to understand what we are saying and then turn around and help us convey our own history and culture to those that are otherwise clueless. To understand Mormonism, the table needs to be full of diversity- not a members-only club.

            Why am I so passionate about this? Because I have been spending the last three years of my life inviting others to the table and not pushing them away. I do Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University- one of the best things about a Mormon Studies program at a graduate level is that non-LDS academics can become versed in Mormonism in such a way that when they go off and teach religion at the university level they will have a good understanding of Mormonism and will be able to discuss it when news pundits need to bring up the subject (This is something which at the graduate level has been unprecedented).

            Also, this is not the first time a “real live” Mormon has been brought before media pundits to discuss Mormonism. A prime example of this is when BYU professor Spencer Fluhman and Joanna Brooks both spoke on MSNBC back in June about the topic of Mormonism. Yes, we need more Mormons to do this (Joanna Brooks says so), but we must not push non-Mormons out of the conversation.  More pertinent to my discussion here is the fact that in this very MSNBC conversation Melissa Harris-Perry (a non-Mormon) has her own Mormon heritage. This means the conversation is as much involved with her life as it is for Mormons themselves. There is an interaction which must take place.

In conclusion, you can’t create understanding about Mormons if you push all non-Mormons away. The way we do this is to open up the conversation to pundits, disaffected Mormons, and outsider historians while at the same time balancing this with the Mormon voice (and there are many of those Mormon voices: Mormons that struggle with leader statements regarding Proposition 8, Mormons who struggle with LDS leaders stance on immigration, Mormons who believe fervently but struggle with Word of Wisdom issues, the history of polygamy etc).  This is the real “radical” approach that we need to be using when we discuss the Mormon faith. If we go to Kelly Foss’ extreme we will not be doing any better than the approach he is attacking. We will only be damming understanding of Mormonism. Unfortunately, the media use of this roundtable approach created under terms of genuine understanding and dialogue has been heavily uncharted by the media. Let’s just make sure in our critique we don’t go to extremes.

The more non-Latter-day Saints enter the discussion, the better us Mormons will be. Especially if they have been trained at the university level with a great academic understanding of Mormon history, and a discourse of respect regarding the beliefs of Mormons. My last three years of life have been focused on opening up the table- not closing it. This is why I am writing this blog. Kelly Foss’ opinion cannot match with the perspective that I see in this.  I really wish LDS Living did not propagate such a perspective in forwarding this story.

PS- For my “outsider” historian friends reading this: I often feel you understand Mormons more than we sometimes understand ourselves. I learn much more about my deep personal convictions from your evaluation looking in at my faith. You also enable me to respectfully laugh at myself. Please, keep on trucking! I know there are many people who look at you studying Mormonism and wonder what the hell you are doing. It takes some serious guts- especially when some Mormons are ready to cast you into outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth- without so much as to listening to what you say. Oh, the irony in that situation.