I’m Writing a Book to Help Latter-day Saints Build Faith by Cultivating a Faithful Mind

You may have noticed that things have been quiet here on my blog for a long time. The reason I have been blogging less is that for the last two years I have been writing a book.

Mormons write a lot of books. But my hope is that this book will be different than other Mormon books you might have read– both in style and substance.

The purpose of my book is to help members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints build faith in Jesus Christ, the Church He restored through Joseph Smith, and the living prophets and apostles he has authorized to lead and direct it today. And while there are many LDS books with the same purpose, I hope to introduce new concepts and ideas that are not found in any other of the popular or scholarly books on Mormonism.

The human mind is an amazing thing. Our ability to reason and analyze is powerful. But our intellectual capacities can also lead us into mental traps and logical loops that interfere with our belief in the gospel. My hope is that my book will introduce readers to new ideas and concepts that can help them cultivate a faithful mind and avoid mental traps that undermine their faith.

The book includes some ideas that I have written about here on my blog over the last decade. But when started adapting these ideas from my blog posts into book format, I discovered that there were a lot of underlying concepts that inform my blog posts but that I have never explained. And I felt that it would be important for the book to lay out these ideas with greater context and in more detail.

I have some friends who are amazing writers and who can spin out spools of insightful, coherent prose like spinning gold out of straw over night. But I am a slow writer. I puzzle and struggle over every sentence and paragraph. And it takes a lot of mental and emotional energy for me to express my ideas in writing.

So, I have dedicated whatever time and energy I have for writing to working on my book manuscript. That means that even when I would like to blog about current events, or my observations about various topics, I have chosen instead to work on my book.

So far, I have written 9 chapters with over 39,000 words– which, including footnotes, comes out to over 170 double-spaced 8.5 x 11 pages. The final manuscript will probably be at least twice that number. So I’m about half way done.

In the last 10 months I have been scheduling time daily to work on it, so even though it has taken me 2 years to get to where I am, I hope to finish the second half faster than that.

Once the manuscript is complete, I would like to get it published through a traditional publisher. But if that proves too difficult, I may consider self-publishing.

If you would like to be informed about the progress of this project, or if you are interested in possibly reading pre-publication excerpts, if you are involved in book publishing and may be interested in evaluating it for possible publication, or if you are simply interested in purchasing or reviewing the book when it is available, please subscribe to receive email notifications about progress and publication at this link:

Book Notifications Subscription Form

I will also try to post periodic updates here on the blog.

Thank you so much for your interest and support.

J. Max Wilson

 

1 Comment
Category: Uncategorized

Radical Orthodoxy, Chesterton’s Fence, & Living Prophets

Recently, there has been quite a lot of online chatter among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about a manifesto that I helped write advocating for what we call radical orthodoxy.

You can read the manifesto at https://latterdayorthodoxy.org .

You can also read more about it in this news article published by the Salt Lake Tribune last Sunday: https://sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/05/theres-new-manifesto/

Even though I am not actively blogging at the moment so I can focus on finishing my book, I’d like to pop in to share a few insights about what we mean by radical orthodoxy within the context of the restored gospel.

First, let me say something about the title. We explored a lot of different options before settling on the words “radical orthodoxy” to describe the ideas we have tried to articulate.

The word radical is complex, with a rich, symbolic etymology. It has deep roots– in fact, it is derived from the Latin word rādix which literally means “root.”

Over time, words evolve meanings beyond their etymological origins, and in Modern English, the word radical usually refers to a desire for change— not just superficial change, but change at a fundamental, root level. Radical can also refer to something basic or intrinsic. Sometimes it means far-reaching or thorough. In chemistry it refers to atoms, ions, or molecules that have unpaired electrons, which makes them highly reactive. When it is paired with an ideology, radical can sometimes mean extreme. And most people also recognize it as a popular slang term roughly equivalent to “excellent!” or “awesome!”

The word orthodoxy comes from the Ancient Greek roots ὀρθός (orthós), meaning “correct,” and δόξα (dóxa) meaning “way or belief.” So it literally refers to correctness in doctrine or belief. In a religious context it usually refers to conformity to established or accepted beliefs.

By putting these two words together, we intentionally create a paradox. How can you desire deep change while still conforming to established doctrines?

Throughout our lives we encounter this struggle between extremes: change vs statis, conformity vs nonconformity, progress vs conservation. Radical orthodoxy is about navigating the space in between.

G.K. Chesterton famously wrote about the conflict between change and tradition in an analogy that is often referred to as “Chesterton’s Fence”:

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’ This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

When we talk about the restored gospel in online forums, we find various competing voices in addition to the official communications from the Church.

On the one side we have those who say that because the fence exists it therefore must always remain the same. No changes or adjustments are necessary or allowed.

On the other side we have those who want to tear down the fence because it imposes limits on them that they don’t like, regardless of whether those limits might serve a good purpose that they don’t know about or may not have considered.

Radical orthodoxy sees the great value of tradition, and the potential dangers of change. But it also sees the necessity of change and improvement, and the potential dangers of traditions that become an end in themselves.

Radical orthodoxy looks to the roots. It encourages us to not only examine the fence, but also explore the reasons why the fence exists in the first place, the purposes it served when it was put there, as well as the purposes it continues to serve. And it is open to the possibility that the fence might need to be changed, updated, or moved– though never cavalierly or recklessly, and always with an eye toward the roots of why it exists.

However, in addition to the principle of Chesterton’s Fence, latter-day saints have an additional variable that they must consider: Living Prophets. One of the fundamental tenets of the Church is a deference to those whom God has chosen and authorized to represent Him and to speak on His behalf.

Being a faithful member of the church does not require you to believe that the prophets are infallible or to agree with everything they have ever spoken. But it does mean that you intentionally allow their teachings and directions to weigh more heavily than your own opinions. And it means that you are willing to reconsider or change your views when they conflict with what the prophets teach. Faithful members avoid contradicting or undermining the authority, programs, and policies of the Lord’s authorized servants– especially those teachings that are proclaimed by all fifteen of the apostles and prophets who comprise the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church.

However, apostles and prophets also have personal opinions and personal interpretations. They sometimes speculate. They are not always acting in the capacity of a prophet or apostle. That means that, for example, the content of a private letter written by an apostle to a family member or a friend ought to be considered inherently different than what they teach over the pulpit in a general conference of the Church or when they are otherwise acting in their official role and giving apostolic teachings. Furthermore, some counsel is context-specific and meant for a specific audience, circumstance, or time. Some teachings are meant to address local problems and were not necessarily intended to be generalized into a principle for the whole Church.

A personal opinion expressed privately by an apostle should not necessarily be given the same weight as something taught in a stake conference, which in turn should not be given the same weight as a discourse given in a general conference, which in turn should not be given the same weight as the teachings that have been taught by many apostles and prophets over time.

An idiosyncratic idea expressed a few times by one or two apostles that has not been taught by any of the subsequent prophets or apostles should weigh far less among the factors of your testimony than those precepts, principles, and doctrines that have been taught repeatedly by multiple prophets and apostles from the time of the restoration until the present. The doctrine of the church is not found in a popular quote or some obscure sentence from a single discourse. And the teachings and guidance of the current, living prophets, who relay the will of the Lord regarding present circumstances, should always carry more weight than those of the past.

It can be difficult to disentangle official teachings of the Church from cultural ideas and traditions. Some traditions and cultural concepts are wrong and should be abandoned. Some are good and useful and should be preserved. But the relationship between tradition, culture, and doctrine is complex, and changing tradition and culture can have unexpected consequences. There are always tradeoffs. So just because something is traditional or cultural does not mean it can or should be discarded.

Radical orthodoxy seeks to navigate these considerations while continually defending and following the living prophets. It can recognize the need for change and improvement, and it can acknowledge mistakes and misinterpretations of the past, while still recognizing the value of tradition and culture, and at the same time trusting in the Lord and the prophets and apostles He has chosen to lead His Church.

Radical orthodoxy sees that there is great complexity, beauty, and infinite wonder to be found within the framework of the Church. There are infinite opportunities for intellectual exploration and discovery within the constraints of faithfulness. We do not need to cross lines, break barriers, and deconstruct truths in order to find intellectual fulfillment. In fact, choosing to work within the limits and constraints of the gospel can be the catalyst for profound discovery and invention.

Radical Orthodoxy is orthodoxy with deep roots. It is orthodoxy that is far reaching and thorough. It is orthodoxy that embraces change– but change that is rooted in fundamental ideas and truths– not in the hasty or superficial, not in change for the sake of change itself, and not in change in order to conform to societal pressures. Radical orthodoxy is about letting the gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His prophets change and reform us.

Some might even say that radical orthodoxy is awesome orthodoxy.

Now, back to focusing on my book

A close up photo of a wooden fence
Comments Off on Radical Orthodoxy, Chesterton’s Fence, & Living Prophets
Category: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , ,

The Flip Side of the Coin – Mormon Youth Bishop Interviews & Abuse

Recently critics and dissidents have been clamoring for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to abolish the common practice of having lay bishops hold private interviews with youth in which they ask them questions about sexual morality and the Law of Chastity.

Many of these critics are concerned about the propriety of having a bishop talk about sexual issues with young men and women alone as well as the potential for abuse. And they point to legitimately tragic anecdotes from people who feel that the practice had a negative effect on them as youth. Some even claim that it facilitated abuse by a bishop.

Earlier this year, the church announced that it would update its policies to optionally allow youth to have a parent attend the interview with them. The church provided bishops with standardized questions to be asked. And parents and youth were also to be given information about the kinds of questions and topics that would be included in the interview beforehand.

But the changes do not seem to have appeased the critics, who will not be satisfied until they have pressured the church to abolish the interviews completely and with them any enforcement of the Law of Chastity.

I just wanted to raise a point in support of the interviews that I have not seen made elsewhere, and that I hope the critics will seriously consider:

What about youth who are being sexually abused by their own parent? Continue reading

Leave a comment
Category: lds
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thoughts After a Week Without News and Social Media

A week without any social media, news media, or blogs, has been enlightening. I deleted all the social media apps from my phone and closed all of my pinned browser tabs to social media sites.

During the first few days I found myself absentmindedly unlocking my phone and trying to open social media programs only to realize what I was doing because they weren’t there anymore. I hadn’t recognized how habitual they had become until they weren’t there. It was almost like an automatic reflex. By the end of the week the urge was mostly gone, but not completely.

I realized that I needed to be more deliberate about when I use social media and when I don’t. I have reinstalled some social media applications on my phone. But I have chosen to disable all notification messages and indicators for them. We’ll see how it goes.

The second thing I realized was that by cutting out social media and news media, my everyday life was far more peaceful. I could enjoy the people and events happening immediately around me at home, at work, in my neighborhood, and at church. Continue reading

1 Comment
Category: Uncategorized

Techno-Social Despotism in China vs Decentralized Credentials, Reputation, and Trust

What they are doing in China using technology to modify and mold social behavior is both ingenious and amazing, but also terrifying. This article from Wired is long, but worth the read:

INSIDE CHINA’S VAST NEW EXPERIMENT IN SOCIAL RANKING
https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/

Basically, companies and the government in China are developing a technology-driven “Social Credit Score” that they can use together with concepts of gamification to socially engineer the views and behaviors of people on a massive scale. In some ways it is kind of like Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984, but instead of fear and oppression, it uses social, economic, and psychological incentives to create a more subtle and manipulative despotism.

I think it is likely that, as the article suggests, this kind of centralized reputation based social engineering will eventually come to the United States.

Meanwhile, individuals in Utah and elsewhere are currently working on technology that could revolutionize identity, reputation, and trust using open source software called Sovrin that uses an ingenious combination of cryptography and a public ledger technology similar to the blockchain used by bitcoin. Continue reading

Leave a comment
Category: technology
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,