Pragmatism Does It Have A Place In The Church?

[Stone holm]

There was an exchange awhile back between Jan Shipps, a non-Mormon observer, and Dallin Oakes, regarding whether the Church was using pragmatic reasoning when the so-called "purge" took place with regards to the September 6. Also, there has been some concern over whether Pres. Hinckley wasn't just being pragmatic in his responses to Larry King on TV when discussing the Snow Couplet. Is there a place for pragmatism in the Church, or should the Church leaders always be driven by idealism?

[Questing Beast]

I am pragmatic. So far it works for me....

[thesometimesaint]

I'm either very pragmatic in my idealism, or I'm very idealistic in my pragmatism.

[CASteinman]

Is there a place for pragmatism in the Church, or should the Church leaders always be driven by idealism?

Why is this presented as a dichotomy? And why are these the only choices? There aren't other options? Like say -- "being driven by devotion to God, being led by the Spirit"?

[Stone holm]

Why is this presented as a dichotomy? And why are these the only choices? There aren't other options? Like say -- "being driven by devotion to God, being led by the Spirit"?

Well, I would consider "being driven by devotion to God" to be included in the term "idealism". I guess "being led by the Spirit" could include both pragmatism and idealism in my mind, so that option kind of begs the question. Would you prefer it if the question were "Does being led by the Spirit sometimes take into account pragmatic type thinking?" For example, if one considered Pres. Hinckley's response to Larry King as being a pragmatic decision to deflect the question so that there wasn't a full blown discussion of the doctrine on TV could that not be both "beling led by the Spirit" and also a pragmatic decision? Idealism, on the other hand might have led him to have a full blown discussion of the doctrine regardless of the forum and regardless of the consequences.

[mfbukowski]

It depends on your understanding of pragmatism.

Alma 32 is pure Pragmatism in a philosophical sense. If you mean moral equivocation to pick the easy path to popularity, that is not philosophical Pragmatism as practiced by James, Dewey, Peirce and the boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

[Stone holm]

It depends on your understanding of pragmatism.

Alma 32 is pure Pragmatism in a philosophical sense. If you mean moral equivocation to pick the easy path to popularity, that is not philosophical Pragmatism as practiced by James, Dewey, Peirce and the boys.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Pragmatism

Actually I was thinking more of the term as it is under Merriam Webster's first definition:

" a "]practical approach to problems and affairs"

In other words, to what extent is the Church and its leaders allowed to simply take "a practical approach to problems and affairs"? For example shortly after the Priesthood was extended Boyd K. Packer was a speaker at a Q & A during a Stake Conference meeting with Priesthood Leadership meeting and the question was raised, "Why now?" And he responded that the Church leaders were wrestling with the problem of how to sort out Temple Recomends in view of the upcoming dedication of the Sao Paulo Brazil Temple and they were trying to figure it out because of the extent of the blended races down there, and they took this issue to the Lord." So one of the most important changes in the Church of the 20th Century came to pass because the First Presidency was struggling to come up with a practical solution to a major problem that immediately confronted them. (At least that was how Boyd K. Packer put it.)

[canard78]

I think there's two different questions I could answer here.

One is the inspired by the title. Can members believe part of the truth claims but not all and still be fully engaged in the gospel? Yes, and pragmatism often helps. Pragmatically being in is better than being out.

On the other hand, you seem to be asking more about whether the FP & 12 can be pragmatic but have asked two different questions within that:

1) Is it ok to give milk teachings not meat teachings to a public audience? (eg response to Snow couplet)

2) Is it acceptable that church revelation or policy is shaped in response to practical problems instead of being given in advance to avoid them happening at all.

Answer to (1) There's already been a very long thread on Hinkley vs Snow. Perhaps you could dig that out (it's not old). I do t realty want to rehash my POV on it.

Answer to (2) I am very comfortable with the idea that God rarely imposes revelation without a question. I've often referred to the idea of a 'floating quill' that springs into action without request and scribbles out a new dictum in the perfect words of God. I don't mean literally, but figuratively.

I don't believe that happens. I find very few examples of it. I find far more examples of practice problems with shrooms that may often come from the mind of the prophet which are then confirmed with a spiritual witness.

- Jared's brother was stuck at the waters edge and later was worried about darkness

- Moses had a group falling into idolatry and were at risk of disbanding

- Joseph Smith had an unhappy wife and spit covered floors

- Lorenzo Snow had a debt problem (the church did)

- Mixed race Brazilians needed a temple

- 18-19 age boys were falling away from the church and needed a fix

I'm sure you'll be able to cite examples that appear to be unsolicited revelations. Maybe they are. Or maybe we only have half the story.

For me, I've gained a different perspective on what a prophet is since considering this practical approach to leadership.

When I was called as a branch president, in the early stages I'd do nothing without strictly studying it out and seeking a spiritual witness. In later stages I sometimes made a call based on experience (not always and not on big decisions). I've spoken to other Bishops and I think this often happens. Maybe those who become GAs/prophets are those who maintain the discipline of always seeking a spiritual witness to a solution they've created.

Maybe Amos 3:7 could read:

"For surely a prophet forth nothing save he seeketh confirmation of the will of the Lord."

Maybe revelation is less pushed down from the heavens as pulled down from the heavens.

[canard78]

It depends on your understanding of pragmatism.

Alma 32 is pure Pragmatism in a philosophical sense. If you mean moral equivocation to pick the easy path to popularity, that is not philosophical Pragmatism as practiced by James, Dewey, Peirce and the boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

I like that. "Alma 32 is pure pragmatism." I may use that phrase again I will try to remember to credit it when I do

[Stone holm]

"18-19 age boys were falling away from the church and needed a fix" Interesting that you brought that up, my eldest son who is extremely pragmatic in his views as to why the Church does things, said basically the same thing -- 18 and 19 year olds had too much unstructured time after high school to get into trouble and then would be unable to pass the ecclesiastical interview honestly, so the idea was to get them before they got to the girls more or less. But not sure how most Mormons would react if you explained it in anyway close to that.

[Tacenda]

I keep being pulled back and forth with my testimony, when I get hungry for truth and think the church isn't panning it out quickly enough (but see why they don't), I invariably read someone's testimony on this board and it keeps me hanging on, until I get my own, just like Elder Holland mentioned in conference to lean on his testimony, I lean alot on those on the board mostly, because I know, you know what I know in church history, etc. For now my testimony is that God adopted our church because there are some darn nice people in it and they really want to provide love, service and kindness to others. Until I get my testimony of the BoM and JS, I guess this will do. I see that the church is ongoing with it's revelations and programs and need to deal with things as they come to the best of their ability. I do not know if JC visits the apostles or the prophet, but believe they are inspired and have strong convictions of and a relationship with Him.

ETA: The second to last sentence has more to do with the topic.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Tacenda

[CASteinman]

The LDS Church and its leadership have almost always been pragmatic, as far as I can tell.

[Stone holm]

The LDS Church and its leadership have almost always been pragmatic, as far as I can tell.

Yeah I agree. I think sometimes its just the members that like to put a holy spin on every step they take

[CASteinman]

Yeah I agree. I think sometimes its just the members that like to put a holy spin on every step they take

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think I've met anyone in or out of the who does that, so I don't think I understand it. Or maybe I have the wrong friends.

[Stone holm]

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think I've met anyone in or out of the who does that, so I don't think I understand it. Or maybe I have the wrong friends.

Just my personal observation. You remember that thread about Pres. Hinckley and his response to Larry King and the rather amazing doctrinal conclusions that people were drawing from that? With a certain amount of hyperbole, the Prophet can't blow his nose without someone coming up with some mystically Divine implication. You get Paul a Roman tent maker by trade whose family followed the legions around. Legionnaires like shorthair that creeps into Paul's writings along with a fondness for long hair on women, and wallah the Amish women aren't allowed to cut their hair which for modesty sake they keep hidden from all but their husbands and Amish men all have bowl cuts, etc.

[CASteinman]

Just my personal observation. You remember that thread about Pres. Hinckley and his response to Larry King and the rather amazing doctrinal conclusions that people were drawing from that? With a certain amount of hyperbole, the Prophet can't blow his nose without someone coming up with some mystically Divine implication. You get Paul a Roman tent maker by trade whose family followed the legions around. Legionnaires like shorthair that creeps into Paul's writings along with a fondness for long hair on women, and wallah the Amish women aren't allowed to cut their hair which for modesty sake they keep hidden from all but their husbands and Amish men all have bowl cuts, etc.

I don't really recall that thread exactly or doctrinal conclusions people would make from that event. I don't even know why you would bother. -- but Oh well.

However, this is not really a "Church" thing.

Years ago, I was in a large Fortune 50 Company. I sometimes would work with the President. Sometimes I would be in meetings and he would just sit there and not say anything. It made him almost look dumb. Like someone born slow.

One day we were in an elevator and I drew up the nerve to ask him, why he was so quiet in that meeting. He told me of the time he went to a factory and after seeing a machine that was not very new and saying that it could stand a little paint -- he then added "You know, I wish we could paint this place the company colors" (which were not good colors).

Some weeks later apparently he learned that they had ordered the paint and were painting the factory. It was not the company's factory -- it was a Government Owned Contractor Operated Facility. So after painting it, they had to paint it BACK to the colors the Government specified.

He told me that he had to be careful what he said because people would jump to get it done - even if it was stupid.

I was surprised at the story and thought he might be pulling my leg, but apparently not.

.. and... oh...I find it a bit funny and actually ironic that you would tell a speculative story about Paul to make your point.

[Stone holm]

I don't really recall that thread exactly or doctrinal conclusions people would make from that event. I don't even know why you would bother. -- but Oh well.

However, this is not really a "Church" thing.

Years ago, I was in a large Fortune 50 Company. I sometimes would work with the President. Sometimes I would be in meetings and he would just sit there and not say anything. It made him almost look dumb. Like someone born slow.

One day we were in an elevator and I drew up the nerve to ask him, why he was so quiet in that meeting. He told me of the time he went to a factory and after seeing a machine that was not very new and saying that it could stand a little paint -- he then added "You know, I wish we could paint this place the company colors" (which were not good colors).

Some weeks later apparently he learned that they had ordered the paint and were painting the factory. It was not the company's factory -- it was a Government Owned Contractor Operated Facility. So after painting it, they had to paint it BACK to the colors the Government specified.

He told me that he had to be careful what he said because people would jump to get it done - even if it was stupid.

I was surprised at the story and thought he might be pulling my leg, but apparently not.

.. and... oh...I find it a bit funny and actually ironic that you would tell a speculative story about Paul to make your point.

Yeah you get my drift. Not sure how speculative the story was about Paul, his family was tent makers the primary market for tents were the Roman Legions. It was important to their family business that they be Roman citizens which Paul was. He was well educated, But probably somewhat on the fringe of Jewish society because of his trade as a tent maker which caused him to be in contact with dead animal parts, which in turn accounts for his being used by the upper classes to do some of their dirty work like participating in the stoning of Stephen and the persecution of the early saints before the rather remarkable Divine intervention on the road to Damascus. You mean that speculation about Paul. Lol....

[blackstrap]

I visualize revelation as a bit like lightning. A bolt works its way down from the clouds but there is no discharge until a faint leader arises from the ground and the circuit is joined.

[CASteinman]

Not sure how speculative the story was about Paul, his family was tent makers the primary market for tents were the Roman Legions. It was important to their family business that they be Roman citizens which Paul was. He was well educated, But probably somewhat on the fringe of Jewish society because of his trade as a tent maker which caused him to be in contact with dead animal parts, which in turn accounts for his being used by the upper classes to do some of their dirty work like participating in the stoning of Stephen and the persecution of the early saints before the rather remarkable Divine intervention on the road to Damascus. You mean that speculation about Paul. Lol....

Yes. I think I have seen this trick before.

[Stone holm]

Yes. I think I have seen this trick before.

Thank you Watson.

[canard78]

I keep being pulled back and forth with my testimony, when I get hungry for truth and think the church isn't panning it out quickly enough (but see why they don't), I invariably read someone's testimony on this board and it keeps me hanging on, until I get my own, just like Elder Holland mentioned in conference to lean on his testimony, I lean alot on those on the board mostly, because I know, you know what I know in church history, etc. For now my testimony is that God adopted our church because there are some darn nice people in it and they really want to provide love, service and kindness to others. Until I get my testimony of the BoM and JS, I guess this will do. I see that the church is ongoing with it's revelations and programs and need to deal with things as they come to the best of their ability. I do not know if JC visits the apostles or the prophet, but believe they are inspired and have strong convictions of and a relationship with Him.

ETA: The second to last sentence has more to do with the topic.

I think this is a great reason to 'hang on.' This is being pragmatic. Stay with it, stick at it.

[Stone holm]

I think this is a great reason to 'hang on.' This is being pragmatic. Stay with it, stick at it.

Absolutely, whatever works is what works!

[KevinG]

After many unsatisfactory answers a young investigator asked my daughter why LDS married so early in life. She responded "because we want to be chaste and have sex."

He thanked her for her honesty and laughing said - "finally I got a straight answer!" He was baptized shortly thereafter with no unanswered questions about the church.

[mfbukowski]

Actually I was thinking more of the term as it is under Merriam Webster's first definition:

" a practical approach to problems and affairs"

In other words, to what extent is the Church and its leaders allowed to simply take "a practical approach to problems and affairs"? For example shortly after the Priesthood was extended Boyd K. Packer was a speaker at a Q & A during a Stake Conference meeting with Priesthood Leadership meeting and the question was raised, "Why now?" And he responded that the Church leaders were wrestling with the problem of how to sort out Temple Recomends in view of the upcoming dedication of the Sao Paulo Brazil Temple and they were trying to figure it out because of the extent of the blended races down there, and they took this issue to the Lord." So one of the most important changes in the Church of the 20th Century came to pass because the First Presidency was struggling to come up with a practical solution to a major problem that immediately confronted them. (At least that was how Boyd K. Packer put it.)

Well in that perspective, then the answer to the OP is obviously, by definition, "yes".

Now let's go have lunch.

[Stone holm]

After many unsatisfactory answers a young investigator asked my daughter why LDS married so early in life. She responded "because we want to be chaste and have sex."

He thanked her for her honesty and laughing said - "finally I got a straight answer!" He was baptized shortly thereafter with no unanswered questions about the church.

Nothing beats having your cake and eating it too! Savvy daughter.