Agency, obedience, and testimony

Neriya-Ben Shahar (2017), in her comparison of Amish and Ultra-Orthodox communities, noted that “obedience and unquestioning faith in religious authority” is one of the most important boundaries between devout and nondevout communities. This characteristic seems equally true in Mormonism. Church members are supposed to use their agency to obey the commandments and their church leaders. Especially in the religious sphere,

“obedience” is a key concept, because of the combination with eternal consequences. The following three sections each discuss a well-known Mormon phrase that highlights the issue of agency and obedience.

4.2.1. “I know not, save the Lord commanded me”

The following scriptural example is regularly quoted in sermons and lessons as an illustration of unquestioning obedience to a commandment, even if its purpose is unknown. In the 1830s Joseph Smith produced the “Book of Moses”—a rewritten version of part of Genesis. Chapter 5 describes how Adam built an altar and offered animal sacrifices. Then, “after many days,” an angel appeared to Adam and asked him why he offers sacrifices. Adam answered: “I know not, save the Lord commanded me.” The example is readily used to reprove members who question certain commandments or directives: even if you don’t know why, trust and obey.

The prominent place given to obedience in scriptures, lessons, and sermons has triggered the criticism that the church demands an absolute submission to commandments and an immediate response to sudden requirements and mobilization.

This criticism is also voiced from within Mormon circles (Campbell and Monson 2007;

England 1984; Gordon and Gillespie 2012). In recent decades, when confronted with critical intellectuals and feminists who still claim allegiance, some church leaders have insisted on strict obedience without any resistance. “In the Lord’s church there is no such

136

thing as a ‘loyal opposition.’ One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of God’s prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed,” apostle Ballard stated.¹ Church leaders even hint at “blind obedience,” recalling Adam’s reply in the Book of Moses that understanding “why” one obeys is not necessary. Church leader Workman expressed it in these terms: “Obedience is essential to realize the blessings of the Lord, even if the purpose of the commandments is not understood.”²

Apostle Maxwell, however, understood the fallacy of that reasoning, precisely because it could foster blind obedience. Such a position would undermine the very agency which the doctrine of agency underscores. He explained Adam’s response “I know not, save the Lord commanded me” as follows:

Obedience springs from intellectual integrity in that it causes us to be honest and to own up to the validity of precious experiences. Studied closely, the episode involving Adam and his sacrifice will suggest to us that the quality of Adam’s previous experiences with the Lord (and probably with angels) was so reliable that when he was asked why he sacrificed, he could reply, “I know not, save the Lord commanded me” (Moses 5:6). For Adam to have excluded his previous experiences from his decision to be obedient would have been dishonest.³

This means that unquestioned obedience is defensible when it stems from confidence based on one or more earlier occurrences that provided certainty. From a similar perspective apostle Packer taught: “Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God . . . We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see.”⁴

Church leader Schultz built the argument differently to make blind obedience acceptable:

One of the sneaky ploys of the adversary is to have us believe that unquestioning obedience to the principles and commandments of God is blind obedience. His goal is to have us believe that we should be following our own worldly ways and selfish ambitions. This he does by persuading us that “blindly” following the prophets and obeying the commandments is not thinking for ourselves. He teaches that it is not

1 M. Russell Ballard, “Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers,” Conference Address (October 1998), Ensign (November 1999): 64.

2 H. Ross Workman, “Beware of Murmuring,” Conference Address (October 2001), Ensign (November 2001):

85.

3 Neal A. Maxwell, “All Hell Is Moved,” Devotional address at Brigham Young University (November 8, 1977).

BYU Speeches. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell_hell-moved/. Accessed October 17, 2018.

4 Boyd K. Packer, “Agency and Control,” Conference Address (April 1983), Ensign (May 1983): 66. See also apostle Spencer W. Kimball, “Blind Obedience or Faith Obedience,” Conference Address (October 1954).

137 intelligent to do something just because we are told to do so by a living prophet or by prophets who speak to us from the scriptures.¹

Schultz’ statement revealed the intricacies of argumentation to justify blind obedience: if one thinks that blind obedience is objectionable, the very thought is a Satanic ploy. Some church leaders have thus gone to great lengths to make blind obedience acceptable. In some ecclesiastical contexts and with very dutiful church members, agency may thus be at risk when they solely act out of what could be interpreted as coerced obedience.

4.2.2. “Follow the prophet”

Within Mormonism, the phrase “follow the prophet” has a particularly rigorous meaning since the time of a sermon by apostle Benson in 1981. Up to the middle of the twentieth century the title “the prophet” was practically only used to refer to Joseph Smith, first president of the church, and commonly identified as “the prophet Joseph Smith.”

Basically “prophet” is a priesthood office that every church president, his counselors, and the twelve apostles hold. With the emphasis on centralized authority in the 1970s, the function of the church president as “the living prophet” became more highlighted, leading to an almost veneration of the person. Benson’s sermon expounded prophetic authority as virtually infallible. He summarized his talk in a number of “fundamentals”:

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything. 2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works. 3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. 4. The prophet will never lead the church astray. 5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. 6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture. 7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know. 8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning. 9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. ²

Since Benson’s talk the phrase “Follow the prophet” has become a Mormon mantra in church talks and lessons. It forms the basis of a song now sung by all children in the church’s Primary program, thus deeply instilling the message in their minds. Each verse tells of an Old Testament prophet, followed by the refrain:

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

1 R. Conrad Schultz, “Faith Obedience,” Conference Address (April 2002).

2 Ezra T. Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” Ensign (June 1981), from an address given on February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University, https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet. Accessed November 18, 2018.

138

Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

The last verse refers to the living prophet:

Now we have a world where people are confused.

If you don’t believe it, go and watch the news.

We can get direction all along our way,

If we heed the prophets—follow what they say.¹ Anderson (2017, 81) noted:

Church members grant considerable authority to the words of Church leaders, which creates a sort of extra-canonical scripture. Despite the oft-repeated claim that pronouncements from the general conference pulpit are not infallible, conference talks have profound influence on Mormon culture and day-to-day religious experience. And in a culture of increasing authoritarianism, the status of Church leaders’ words is ever rising.

Submissiveness to the words of the prophet is, according to Thompson (2012), also related to the rise of a “Mormon right” where adherents not only venerate the highest leader, but are willing to follow his injunctions regardless of their validity.

4.2.3. “I know the church is true:” testimony as agentic base

The reference by apostles Maxwell and Packer (4.2.1) to a previous, grounding experience as the basis for continued obedience is clear for devout Mormons: it is their initial

“testimony” of the truth of the restored gospel. Maxwell indicated Adam’s “experiences with the Lord (and probably with angels)”; Packer spoke of the knowledge of “certain spiritual truths.” Devout Mormons interpret this as their personal experience of the divine which gave them the deep conviction of the veracity of Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet, of the Book of Mormon, of the restoration of the priesthood, and of the prophetic calling of the current church president. Many church leaders have spoken on the importance of “obtaining a testimony” and “nurturing one’s testimony.” It is key to missionary work when missionaries encourage investigators to pray in order to “know the truth” for themselves. Missionaries always refer investigators to a key passage in the last pages of the Book of Mormon:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall

1 Children’s songbook, 110. https://www.lds.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/follow-the-prophet.

Accessed October 23, 2018.

139 ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.¹

Patterson (2005) called this approach the “Moronian fideist model” to contrast it with the “Pauline rationalist model” where the biblical apostle Paul used historical and theological argumentation to demonstrate truth. Church leaders frequently insist on the testimony to be obtained as revelation. In apostle Hales’ words: “A testimony is the spirit of prophecy. It is a personal revelation from God, revealing the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. A testimony comes through the Holy Ghost; it makes a deep and lasting impression on the soul.”²

Most church members, even those who are less active or disaffiliated, will recall the moment or moments when such an emotional testimony was felt—mostly at the occasion of intense prayer, or through a dramatic event, such as a “miraculous” protection or healing, or during a highly spiritual gathering with others. Every first Sunday of the month the sacrament meeting encompasses a “testimony meeting” where members can freely stand up and “testify” of their basic conviction, with the usual first words:

“Brothers and sisters, I would like to share my testimony.” They may then expand on the initial gaining of their conviction or on the experiences that keep it burning. Mormon anthropologist David Knowlton (1991) applied an ethnography of this expression of public testimony. Such expression has “great ritual salience” as it not only reaffirms personal commitment but also serves as “a social diacritic, classifying members” (see also 4.6.2 on types of Mormons). Indeed, during a testimony meeting, only a limited number of members of the congregation, and quite often the same people, will stand up to give their testimony. It may reflect a genuine psychological need for exteriorization of their faith, while it can also serve as a way to enhance their standing as a devoted member. But fundamentally an authentic testimony articulates the original basis from which continued commitment stems. The experience of the initial testimony should form the basis for accepting, without hesitation, all subsequent obligations and assignments. For further analysis of the place and value of testimony in Mormon culture, see Smith (2006).

Relevance for my research

The acceptance of gender roles by Mormon women may simply hinge on obedience, whether reasoned or blind. In interviews or other exchanges with respondents it is to be expected that the extent of their obedience and commitment to the church would color answers and reactions on the topic. Mormons are, overall, well aware of the

1 Moroni 10:4–5.

2 Robert D. Hales, “The Importance of Receiving a Personal Testimony,” Conference Address (October 1994), Ensign (November 1994).

140

“misconceptions” many outsiders have about Mormonism. One such idea is precisely the impression of “blind obedience” in a sphere of cultish allegiance. In exchanges with respondents the topic can be introduced by directly referring to such misconception:

“Some people believe that Mormonism is a kind of cult where everyone has to obey what the leaders decide. Is there any truth to it or how would you respond?” Highly committed members will probably tend to respond defensively. Others may concede some of the challenges associated with expected obedience. It may also be feasible to refer to the event of Adam’s sacrifice and unquestioning compliance: “What do you think of Adam’s reaction ‘I know not, save the Lord commanded me.’ Would such reaction still apply to church members today?”

One indicator of commitment would be the expression and the strength of testimony.

It is also likely that some respondents will bring their testimony to the foreground as the basis for their acceptance of gender roles—something they may not do easily with a researcher who is an outsider. Any researcher should be well aware of the significance of testimony in Mormon culture.

4.3. “The Spirit” and “personal revelation” in decision-making

Contrary to the impression that nearly everything is simply dictated by authority, church leaders insist that each individual can rely on “the Spirit” and personal revelation to come to decisions. Agency is to be used to obtain answers from God. In line with the initial confirmation that a testimony provides (4.2.3), it is assumed that every true spiritual experience will lead to correct behavior and corroborate what the church expects.

Agentic choices can thus be seen as predetermined. Often, in public sermons, testimonials, and in discussions in lessons, devout Mormons will narrate an experience where “the Spirit” inspired them to insights or prompted them to make a decision. This is part of a deeply embedded Mormon rhetoric. For example, leaders on all levels are supposed to first seek divine inspiration and confirmation when they call someone to a position in the organizational structure under their jurisdiction. From the early days of the church, this principle has been emphasized and repeated by church leaders. Apostle McConkie, in a sermon on “How to get personal revelation,” said, referring to an 1829 revelation by Joseph Smith:

We are entitled to revelation. Every member of the church is entitled to get revelation from the Holy Ghost ... “The Lord said: I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation” (D&C 8:2–3). This revelation speaks of Spirit speaking to spirit—the Holy Spirit speaking to the spirit within me and in a way incomprehensible to the mind. But it is plain and clear to spiritual

141 understanding—conveying knowledge, giving intelligence, giving truth, and giving sure knowledge of the things of God. This applies to everyone.¹

Apostle Packer explained the process as follows.

To one who thought that revelation would flow without effort, the Lord said: “You have supposed that I would give it unto you ... But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you.” This burning in the bosom is not purely a physical sensation. It is more like a warm light shining within your being. Describing the promptings from the Holy Ghost to one who has not had them is very difficult. Such promptings are personal and strictly private! The Holy Ghost speaks with a voice that you feel more than you hear. It is described as a “still small voice.”²

The fluidity of the experience and its intense personal character make that church members have fairly divergent attitudes toward personal revelation. Some will only search for such promptings when weighty decisions must be taken, such as related to major study choices, marriage, or job offerings. They will follow the directive “to study it out in your mind” at first and then seek a spiritual confirmation. Other members live in a sphere where they claim to be recurrently “open to the Spirit.” Such candidness may pertain to trivial items, such as praying for “inspiration” to locate a lost key or receiving the prompting to timely order heating fuel before prices go up unexpectedly. Referring to the Spirit often concerns impromptu decisions to call or visit someone who then happens to be in need. It may relate to a sudden “inspired” resolve which turned out to having avoided a serious accident. People testify of “warnings” or “promptings” which they ascribe to the Holy Ghost. For outsiders it would be easy to deride this type of religiosity in its naive formats. Overall, however, research indicates that thoughtful handling of the principle of personal revelation enhances a more mature application of agency (Clayton 2013; see also 2.4.2).

Hoyt (2007b) used the Mormon concept of personal revelation to create flexibility when a woman’s religious experience becomes highly individualized. Many women in Hoyt’s research give a broad range of answers in relation to personal spiritual behavior.

For Mormon women this open access to divine inspiration puts them on the same footing as men, at least rhetorically.

1 Bruce R. McConkie, “How to Get Personal Revelation,” Liahona (April 1981).

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/04/how-to-get-personal-revelation. Accessed October 3, 2018.

2 Boyd. K. Packer, “Personal Revelation: The Gift, the Test, and the Promise,” Conference Address (October 1994), https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/personal-revelation-the-gift-the-test-and-the-promise. Accessed November 2, 2018.

142

Relevance for my research

From personal experience in Mormon congregations I know how the rhetoric of inspiration from the Spirit and of personal revelation permeates Mormon testimony meetings, talks, and lessons. It is expected that this topic will emerge in interviews with my respondents. A main aspect would be to examine if this free access to the divine also affects the perception of gender roles, with questions such as:

- Compared to men who hold the priesthood, do Mormon women have equal access to inspiration from the Spirit and to personal revelation?

- In leadership meetings with men and women, such as a ward council, have you ever felt that in a conflictual discussion, women can also claim inspiration and revelation?

- Could a conflict arise between what a (local) church leader requires and what you feel is right based on personal inspiration?