Mormon Paradox

Earlier this year I read the book “People of Paradox” by Teryl Givens. Givens book explores four fundamental tensions, or paradoxes inherent in the Mormon experience that have been influential in creating a unique Mormon culture. He succinctly titles the first paradox “the iron rod and the Liahona.”

The Iron Rod comes from a story within the Book of Mormon in which it represents a difficult, but clearly and plainly defined path to eternal life for those who hold fast to its straight trajectory. The Liahona on the other hand, was a compass which pointed to the destination but did not fully mark a path. The clarity of its directions varied with the circumstances of the user and were not an infallible delineator of course. Both represent different ways of getting to the same destination. Similarly, a strong emphasis on personal freedom is emphasized within Mormonism, while at the same time the importance of obedience to authority is constantly stressed. Both represent different paths to a final destination of spiritual fulfillment, even though the paths may often conflict with each other. As an exercise in these conflicting tensions I present two quotes.

“When the prophet speaks, the debate is over.” N. Eldon Tanner, August 1979 Ensign.

“I do not wish for any Latter Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the spirit of….revelation makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.” Brigham Young

These competing emphases have been especially apparent to me personally with the leaders of the church recently taking a strong stance in support of Proposition 8. Staying agnostic to the moral issue of homosexuality, I feel like Prop. 8 is a political issue appropriate for an editorial section within the newspaper, but not something to be discussed ad nauseum within church. It is not a proposition that I feel comfortable aligning myself with. I would feel hesitant to join the cause with some of the more homophobic groups supporting the proposition. Most importantly, I think the culture of commitment that comes along with the institution of marriage could only be a positive thing for the homosexual community. Yet on the other hand, I respect church leaders and feel they are divinely inspired in much that they do. It’s an unsettling paradox, and although my vote could still be subject to change, I think I am going to go with my personal integrity on this one.

Givens summarizes the paradox nicely as follows:

“A segment of Mormon society will always be disposed to see unquestioning obedience to priesthood counsel as weakness and abdication of moral autonomy, while others will see independent mindedness as a euphemism for the fetishizing of difference and pride. And the tensions will doubtless be fiercest among those whose life work calls them to worship God through creative expressions and intellectual pursuits.”