Please consider supporting this podcast:
It was amazing to have the opportunity to sit down with Patrick Mason and ask him some of my most pressing questions about church history and about his perspective on polygamy, the scriptural canon, belief, and how we can engage in the church.
Patrick’s books, which I highly recommend, are available in audio at DeseretBook.com, or in print from Amazon, and pretty much everywhere else.
Planted: Belief and Belonging in an Age of Doubt
Restoration: God’s Call to the 21st-Century World
Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict
Transcript
[00:00] Michelle: Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy, where we explore the scriptural and theological case for plural marriage. My name is Michelle Stone, and as always, I recommend listening to these episodes in order starting at the beginning and continuing on from there. This is episode 44, which is my discussion with Patrick Mason. I am so excited to be able to bring this episode to you. I I would like to thank all of those who have contributed to the discussion and suggested questions to ask. I wish that I had had 3 times as much time to be able to ask all of the questions that we would have loved to talk about. I especially want to thank Patrick Mason for being so generous with his time and with his knowledge and for all of the good that he does. It was really a privilege for me to be able to talk to him. I also want to thank all of those who have contributed and donated to this podcast. I appreciate your help so very much. I would like to also invite anybody else who feels that they could contribute to please do so. Um, the Venmo and Patreon links are below and it means a lot to me to have, to have a little bit of help to do this. So anyway, I hope you enjoy this discussion as Patrick Mason and I take a deep dive into the murky waters of Mormon polygamy. Thank you so much for joining us today. I want to introduce my guest. I am here with Patrick Mason, who was very kindly agreed to come on and talk to me about Several topics, including polygamy in the church. Well, we are not living polygamy in the church, but the concept and doctrine or non-doctrine of polygamy in the church today. So I want to do a quick introduction. Um, I had first heard about Patrick Mason, probably back, I’m guessing in 2015, when, um, his book Planted came out, and I heard him on several interviews and added Planted to my infinitely long list of books that I intended to read. And, um, and then I heard him. I’m sure several other times and his name brought up without really a clear idea picture of who he was until last year when he came to speak at a tri-state fireside in my home state in Highland, Utah. And, um, that was, that was a profound and beautiful experience for me to be there. I remember one distinctly one thing. I remember is that Patrick standing on the podium with the state by state president behind him, and said that he didn’t believe the priesthood ban was ever of God. And hearing that kind of truth spoken with such compassion and kindness, yet clarity and fearlessness was, it did something for my heart. It was, it was amazing. Amazing. So since, so I went right home and bought his book Proclaimed Peace, Listened to it that week. And then since then, I bought Planted, which I should have put it, put at the first of my list, because that is an exquisite book. I, I cannot recommend it highly enough. That was published, I think, in 2015 by Desre Book and the Maxwell Institute. And so that’s and then and then to prepare for this, I listened to his more recent short book called Restoration, which is only the audible audio version is like $5 on Amazon, so buy that, listen to it. They’re all wonderful. I, I, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the work that Patrick Mason is doing. And so let me give you just a little bit of a bio. Um, Patrick, uh, and I are actually the same age, and I have to say, reading through his bio all of this time, he’s living the alternate life I would live if I hadn’t raised that. Children instead. I love what he’s been able to do. So he is quite a preeminent academic. He, um, graduated in history from BYU and then got a master’s both in history and I want to get this right, International Peace studies, I believe. Both of those masters and then a PhD from his in history, all from Notre Dame. And then, since then he has lived and taught in Egypt, I think in Cairo and and some other positions until he became the um the Howard W Howard W. Hunter Chair in Mormon studies at Claremont Braate University. And um now he is a professor at Utah State University where he holds the Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture, and I have to say I want to take your course on religion, violence, and peace building. That sounds amazing. And, um, and I had to look this up because I’m not an academic. An endowed chair is actually the highest honor a university can grant. It’s the most prestigious position in academia, the academia. So, and, um, I really appreciate how you acknowledge that the heart of being able to accomplish that at your young age is because of some of our difficult history in the past in the church. But anyway, that, that, like, this guy’s real. And I also just want to say, just a little more, uh, Patrick travels all around and has for years, in addition to his busy academic and I I assume family schedule. He goes all around speaking to people, giving firesides and gathering with people to talk them through the troubling things that are happening in the church right now. So we ask kind of his own. Private ministry, in addition to everything else that he is doing, which I think does so much good. So this is just my personal feelings. I just think Patrick is brilliant, compassionate, kind, so good, and he does so much good. And just, I have to just say, he’s someone who makes other people feel good about themselves. I’m You know, just a mom doing this. And I sent the same day, I actually sent emails to 4 different, um, professors that I wanted to talk to. And Patrick, who is the most esteemed and well known of all of them, was the first one to respond and the only one to accept my invitation, which I can’t tell. how much that meant to me. So he’s a really, really good guy. I’m so thankful to get to talk to him today. So Patrick, welcome.
[05:54] Patrick Mason: Well, that’s, that’s way too much, thank you. That’s just incredibly incredibly generous. You you, you can, uh, you can speak at my funeral, just, just do what you just did. So
[06:04] Michelle: yeah. OK, as long as we’re friends until then,
[06:08] Patrick Mason: you know.
[06:10] Michelle: OK, so is there anything that you wanted to add or that I left out?
[06:15] Patrick Mason: No, just, uh, I mean you mentioned my family, so I’m married, 4 kids, uh, live here in Logan, and, and, um, so yeah, life is good.
[06:24] Michelle: OK, I shouldn’t have left out your family. I’m so sorry. Tell me.
[06:27] Patrick Mason: No, you you mentioned it, that, that’s great, but, but it’s, you know, a lot of what I’ve been able to accomplish professionally, of course, is because of the support of my family and, and now we’re uh trying to turn the tables a little bit. My wife has started a graduate program, so I’m, I’m, you know, sort of in a more of a support role to make sure that she can fulfill those ambitions. So, um, so I’m, I’m just really lucky to be able to do what I do.
[06:49] Michelle: I am so happy to hear that. That’s a wonderful thing to hear. So, OK, thank you for sharing that. So, and congratulations to her. I wish her the best of this. So, OK, do you care if we just dive in and start? I have a lot of questions and we’ll see how much we can get through. But I know that you worked on the Gospel Topics essays, I believe. Did you didn’t you say you worked mainly on the one about? Yeah, yeah,
[07:10] Patrick Mason: I helped out with one of them. Yeah.
[07:12] Michelle: OK. And so can you talk to me just a little bit? I have quite a few questions. I have so many things I want to talk to you, but I’m kind of curious about how the church works with history, with the history department. Like, it seemed like before the church kind of let farms or fair handle it and just kind of kept an arm’s length distance. But then they went to the Gospel topics essay. So I’m curious, did you get contacted? Did you get tagged to do that? And was it a calling where you set apart? Was it more of a Um, like, like a contract, and how did that work?
[07:44] Patrick Mason: Yeah, great questions. And yeah, and, and, and the church’s relationship to its historians has changed a lot over the past half century. Uh, you mentioned the Leonard Arrington chair which I hold and actually the the picture over my my shoulder here is Leonard Arrington, who was the first, uh, full-time academic to, to, to serve as church historian back in the 1970s, but Then there was a a period of of of some conflict between the church and its intellectuals and, and its historians, but really in this century, over the past couple of decades, that has changed and really done kind of a 180, um, under the the leadership of elder Marilyn Jensen and then elder Stephen Snow and and and the more recent church historians. And where it just became a much more productive, uh, relationship, and, and the gospel topics essays were absolutely at the heart of that. So, so what, what they did, and, and I wasn’t involved in everything. I, I just saw my, my piece of it, but, but talked with other people, you know, once the church history department decided that they were gonna write essays, um, or produce essays on, I think there were 12 or 13 topics that they identified a major concern or kind of consistent concern to people. And so what they did is, of course, they had a ton, they have so many amazing historians working in the church history department. These are people with PhDs, people who’ve been trained at really good history programs. So they have a ton of talent internally, but what I really admire is they said, like, let’s go out and find the people who have, have dedicated their careers, you know, or really done a lot of research on these topics. So they didn’t just keep it in-house, they partnered with external. Historians, um, and other scholars who had worked on these topics. And so, so I got tapped to to to work on the one that that eventually became the, the, the essay that’s now called, I think, um, it’s basically the about the Mountain Meadows massacre. It’s about 19th century violence, uh by Latter-day Saints against others. And, um, so it, it was not a calling, it was a professional relationship. So I was hired to do so, I was contracted to do so, it really was work for hire. Um, and it, which means that it wasn’t my work. I was working for, I think I did it during the summer, if I remember right, um, when I had a little bit more, uh, time, and, and so, so essentially they contracted me to to do this work, to, to do the the research and and help write the essay. Now, the essay I wrote ended up they they ended up going a little different direction than what they originally charged me to do, uh, but, but that’s all fine. I mean, it was, it was, uh, cause cause again I was working for them. Uh, and, uh, and I have to say it was a really terrific experience working. I mean, I was in the church archives, I was working shoulder to shoulder, you know, if, if I wanted to see a source, they brought me a source, um, you know, it was, uh, it, it was a really good professional experience.
[10:39] Michelle: That’s so great. Thank you for sharing that. I think there’s something like 14 church essays. So so were you, um, aware of the other one? I, I’m of course the most interested with my topic on polygamy, and I believe it was Brian Hales’s they tapped to do those is my understanding. Did you know the other ones that were going on at the same time? Were there any collaborations? Did you?
[11:00] Patrick Mason: I, I knew the, I knew the list of topics. They, they showed me the list of other topics that they were working on, and I, but I mean this is now several years ago, so I could turn it was like a decade ago that I was doing this, um, but I seem to reme I I knew for sure some of the people working on some of the essays, but I, I don’t. I don’t recall ever seeing a list of like, here’s the topics, here’s all the outside scholars who are working on it. So I was certainly aware of some of them, um, but, but there, um, we, at least in my case, there was not collaboration with other people working on on other topics, right? We were all just kind of working on our own particular projects.
[11:38] Michelle: OK, that’s great. So this might not be right exactly in your wheelhouse, but I have been so curious about the William Clayton diaries, cause with my topics, those seem like so important, and I believe the church promised to Add them to the Joseph Smith papers back. They, they promised back in 2017 that here we are in 2020, well, almost 2023. And I haven’t heard any updates. Do you have any insight about that? Or, and I kind of want to ask you about that process as well. Like, when the church on the Joseph Smith papers, do the historians work on it and then kind of let the brethren know, these are some of the troubling issues. What do you want us to do? And like, how does that process work? And do you know anything about the William Clayton diaries?
[12:22] Patrick Mason: Yeah, so, so my sense, and, and I get this all, uh, so, so I’m good colleagues with many of the, the historians who are working on the Joseph Smith papers, um, but I’ve never been an employee of the, the Joseph Smith papers, uh, themselves. So, so even this time that I did work on the gospel topics, essays it was just for hire, so I’ve never actually been a church history department employee. Um, but my sense is that, yeah, throughout the entire process of the Joseph Smith papers, there’s been a really open set of conversations between the general authorities and between the historians. And the church historian, whoever that is at the time, is, is really in charge of mediating that relationship and and sort of making sure that the flow of information goes both ways. Um, but they’re constantly seeking approval of every volume that they publish eventually goes up and and gets approval, um, uh, from, from the general authorities, and so, Uh, so, so, yeah, as they have come up on, on difficult or challenging issues, uh, my understanding is the process has been that that they’ll go forward and say this is what the documents are, this is what they say, here’s what the footnotes are gonna look like, here’s, you know, they’re they’re not necessarily interpreting it, but they are providing a lot of analytical resources in terms of footnotes and And kind of introductions to to to the different books and different volumes. And so yeah, there’s just a ton of communication back and forth, and, and again, my, my friends and colleagues who work on it say it’s been a tremendously productive relationship again, very different than what we saw a generation before, uh, where the, you know, where the general authorities and historians were sometimes butting heads. Uh, this has been really different. I have no doubt that there have been some, you know, some hard conversations or some difficult ones. Um, just because they have different responsibilities. But um, but, but my understanding is it’s been a really collegial relationship. In terms of the Clayton Diaries, I actually don’t know exactly where that is. I mean, lots of historians would, uh, uh, you know, and, and lots of folks would, would, would love to, um, you know, to, to see those, and there’s been some access, obviously to the limited access um to them. But um yeah, I don’t know where that stands in terms of uh its relationship to the project,
[14:31] Michelle: so. OK, OK. Does it seem reasonable to you to take 56 years to is that a?
[14:38] Patrick Mason: Yeah, everything works at, at, I mean, actually the, the, the, the pace of production within the Joseph Smith papers has been phenomenal. I mean, academics work really slow and his ian s work even slower, right? I mean, we, we basically work at the speed of molasses, um, uh, I mean, because I mean that’s part of, uh, it’s just what we do to do archival work unless somebody’s really done it, um, uh, it’s, it’s hard to, it’s hard to really comprehend how long it takes to like to really go through each and every document to be careful to Um, you know, to make sure you’ve, you’ve checked everything, to, to, to look at the context, look at other documents to help inform what you’re doing. So his historical research is slow, um, and then when you add to that, uh, administrative, you know, bureaucracies and, and, and concerns, no doubt, you know, the Clayton diaries we we know contain a lot of sensitive information. And so, um, so no, it’s, uh, I mean there are other similar projects, uh, of, of other sort of major religious figures or major historical figures that take years and years and years to produce anything. Um, so actually the Joseph Smith papers has sort of been working at warp speed in terms of their production of stuff. Some of these internal conversations about releasing sensitive documents, it, it doesn’t surprise me that that these things take years. OK,
[16:00] Michelle: that So, so, because, because for those of us who just like want the PDFs scanned in, it seems like just scan the PDFs in, we can all have those discussions together. So you do think though that there will be discussions and maybe not not just a full release of all of the original pages. Yeah, I,
[16:17] Patrick Mason: I have no doubt that those, again, I, I don’t have firsthand knowledge of this, but knowing the way things work within the department, I have no doubt that those conversations have been had. I mean, because his I mean, this is the way the process works and and and I do know this from things that I have requested, because a lot of stuff there is restricted, you know, it’s a private archive, you know, and, and they have certain principles for restricting certain items. So that there have been things that I’ve requested that were restricted, which they did a quick review and they said, oh yeah, it actually turns out, you know, that that’s OK and and so they they they just clear it. Um, other things I’ve requested, they, they come back and say, well, you can look at part of it, but not all of it. uh, other times they say, other times they say sorry, it’s, it’s just off limits for researchers, uh, for right now. But, but I know that as soon as researchers put in that request, that triggers an internal process, and it triggers an internal conversation. Again, some of those are really easy, sometimes it’s an open shut case with either a yes or no, sometimes it’s an ongoing conversation that again my The the the historians who work there and the and the church historians, their, their desire is is is is to put out as much as they can while also protecting in, in their view, the interests of the of the church, right? So there are these competing values and and different people are gonna sort of fall down on different sides in terms of how you weigh those values.
[17:42] Michelle: That’s so good. So we are still short of complete transparency, like yeah,
[17:47] Patrick Mason: no, I mean, there are a ton of documents that are that are restricted. There are a lot that we’ll never see the light of day within our lifetime. A lot of those are financial records or temple related documents, um, other things having to do with very personal things or membership issues, um. Uh, and, and actually, and this is helpful for people to know also, this is not uncommon in terms of private archives, uh, that, especially having to do with anybody who is living or who is deceased only recently. Uh, oftentimes when people donate papers or something, they put like a 25 or even a 50 or sometimes like 100 year uh restriction on it. And so the, the church is, you know, tends to be a little bit more on the conservative side here, especially for its leaders, you know, in in terms of a of a lag of time between when they die and when their records are released. But we’re seeing just way more in terms of being opened up in terms of 19th century history. 20th century is still a little, a little tough, um, for, for some of those, those leaders. But I expect, you know, more and more we’ll just, you know, and, and I, the other thing I’ll say is they see that the Joseph Smith Papers project and being fully transparent, as transparent as it can, you know, with with the the Joseph Smith papers, that that’s been a good thing. Right? That the church is still here. It survived, right? I mean, you know, a great chasm did not come and swallow up the, you know, the entire church. And so, so I, so these are all confidence building measures and, and again, to remember that this is, this is all pretty recent. This is just in this century, this is just in the past decade or two, that the church has moved towards this greater sense of transparency with its history. So I think the more Confidence they build and and the more that, you know, that we see that actually this helps rather than than harms uh the the church, I think that that’ll just give, you know, the the decision makers even more confidence that hey, we couldn’t it’s it’s OK to do this.
[19:48] Michelle: I like that. OK, so we’re slowly learning that honesty is indeed the best policy. That’s good for us to learn.
[19:55] Patrick Mason: It’s it’s hard for institutions to learn. that, right? I mean,
[19:58] Michelle: yeah, it is. It’s, it’s good when they do. I think it makes the world a better place. Um, so two more kind of like chunks of I want to talk about polygamy for a little while, and then I kind of want to talk about church membership and activity. Um, so, so let’s see how much we can get to both of those. But, so shifting to polygamy, um, so I have, oh, I have so many questions. But the church’s current stance on polygamy. Is, in my opinion, messy. Like, I’ll say I like the essay on violence better than I like the essays on polygamy, you know? And so, um, no offense to anyone involved. Just it seems like we’re supposed to believe a narrative now that it seems to me that, um, like the standard narrative now is monogamy is the rule unless God commands otherwise, as he did back at that time. And, but that For me, it doesn’t jive with any scripture, including 132, or with, um, older president’s teachings like Brigham Young, you know, they taught very different things, or with President Hinckley, who declared it to be non-doctrinal and disavowed it completely. So we’re in this messy, I think, kind of not fully transparent place. So I guess my first question, and if you need to punt on this one somehow, you know, that’s OK. But I heard you so clearly say that you didn’t think that the priesthood ban was ever of God. I just kind of want to know your feeling from your own experience and your own studies. Do you believe that polygamy was of God? Or do you think it’s a mistake of man that we attribute to God, sort of like the priesthood them?
[21:28] Patrick Mason: Yeah, no, it’s, it’s a, it’s a great question. And so, Um, for me, uh, it’s a little bit complicated, and, and, and I’ll, and I’ll try to explain why. So, um, I do not personally believe in it. I don’t have a testimony of, of plural marriage, um, to, to be honest, I’ve never sought one, because it’s, it’s not a principle that is attractive, uh, to, to me, um. Uh, so. But I also, as a historian, so this
[22:06] Michelle: this is where it gets you. I’m so sorry I lost you. Can you go back to where, where you said I don’t have a testimony of plural marriage I lost you.
[22:13] Patrick Mason: So, um, so, so I don’t have a, a testimony of, of plural marriage, uh, as a principle or as as a practice, as a as a doctrine of the restored gospel, uh, but I’ll be perfectly frank that I’ve never actively sought such a testimony because, um, it’s, it’s not a it’s not something that’s attractive to me or or something uh that uh that I want to uh to to to implement or practice or or or frankly believe in, um. That said, this is where it’s, it’s a little bit complicated for me. When as a historian, when I go back and read the the documents uh of, of 19th century people who practiced it. And here I, I lean especially on the voices and testimonies of women who who practiced it. Um, you know, I’ve read a lot of those accounts where they were quite skeptical, uh, if not outright resistant and hostile to it. And but but they talk about having very distinct and clear spiritual experiences that that led them not only to believe that it was kind of a sacrifice worth doing, but some of, some of them, many of them came to believe that it was, it was, you know, they, they gained testimonies of it, um. And so I don’t want to be in a position of of sort of judging or condemning those women or saying that their spiritual experiences and their confirmations were were false. Um. So that’s, that’s where it’s tricky for me. That’s, that’s uh because um because I, I believe those women and and and, you know, many of the men who had similar kinds of experience as well, but, but especially the women, of course, we know the polygamy was harder on them. And so they’re to me, I, I wanna privilege their voices and their experiences, their testimonies, their spiritual confirmations, and I don’t want to doubt the reality of what they said, they, they felt an experience from God. I that’s,
[24:16] Michelle: yeah. Yeah, I really respect that. Can I push back just a little and give. So, um, the story of Phoebe Woodruff, where she stood up in the meeting and bore testimony of polygamy to the surprise of so many who knew her real feelings. And then after Afterwards she said that she was an old woman and couldn’t stand that she’d suffered all that she could and couldn’t be kicked out of her house as she surely would be if she didn’t obey counsel. Does understanding that, because to me, I, I’ve done a couple of a couple of episodes on the testimonies of women and different ways. I think we should think about them. And while I still want to honor the voices of women, absolutely, I think that, well, I use the example sort of of Elizabeth Smart. If we believe her when she says what those who have power over her were sort of forcing or, or, you know, kind of. Motivating or compelling her to say, are we really honoring her?
[25:07] Patrick Mason: Exactly. Great. No, I’m glad you asked that follow-up question, cause that’s exactly right. No doubt that, um, I mean, any, any of our ideas are held within a kind of social context, right? And, and there’s no doubt that that for women and men, but let’s focus on the women. And that so much of what they were saying, thinking, doing, operated within a social context, the power relationships, the power dynamics are real, right? When somebody that you believe is a prophet or some other kind of priesthood leader says that it comes and says, like, your salvation is on the line or the salvation of your family is on the line, right? Is, is that a, you know, that’s not a neutral space, uh, you know, to work with, uh, in, in terms of making a kind of rational decisions, right? So, so, uh, absolutely, and, and, and, and we do this as historians all the time, right? Not only what do people say, but what are the social, social and cultural context contexts in which they say it and what are the ways in which power uh power dynamics, um, uh, might be shaping them to say certain things. Even with all that said, Um, there for me there’s enough private testimony, sort of in diaries, and in memoirs, and other things like that that that are not, you know, where they’re standing up and so forth, where, I mean, I again, I, I think, um, I, I, I just can’t dismiss all of those personal private testimonies, right, as, as purely the imposition of of an imbalanced patriarchal power structure, right? Um. I, I, I understand why the, the, you know, the impulse to do so, um, but, but I, one of the, one of the reasons I’m a historian, uh, is, is because I really, uh, strongly believe in the agency of historical actors, that people, even in the context of vast power disparities, even in the context of, uh, you know, societies and cultures that have shaped their responses to things. Um, they, they still exert remarkable human agency, and, um, and I think some of these, some of these women again, some of these testimonies to me just they, they resonate as Um, that’s pretty authentic in terms of that. Can
[27:21] Michelle: you give me a couple of examples of the ones that have been the most impactful to you to make you, like, is it Helen Mar Kimball? Is it Eliza?
[27:29] Patrick Mason: So, so I think 11 of one of my favorites, um, that, that, that I come to it and and and I’ve I’ve taught her and written about her a little bit is uh Louisa Pratt, um, who is, who is Addison. So it’s interesting, she never became a plural wife because Addison didn’t want to. So, so, so Addison is sent on a mission. He’s gone for most of the the the Navu period. He’s, he’s the one serving, you know, in the um uh Polynesian islands, and Louis is there, she has to move all of her daughters across the Uh, uh, across the country with the pioneers all by herself cause her husband is gone. She eventually goes and joins him on a mission and, and so forth. And it’s actually while he’s on a mission that the 1852, you know, he’s kind of heard of stuff going on in Navo and stuff, you know, there are all these rumors going around, but it’s, he’s on a mission in 1852 when the church publicly announces it. And so he’s not in the center of of of church culture and so forth. He’s out just preaching the gospel and and he is revolted by this teaching. He, he does not accept it, and but it’s Louisa who believes it. OK, OK,
[28:35] Michelle: so I’m gonna go look up Louisa Pratt. I don’t want to take all of our time. And then, and then just, I, I, I just want to respond really quickly, then we’ll go on to another topic because I guess I come to from the from the perspective of someone who used to have a very strong testimony of polygamy. I totally was raised. I, I’m, I’m the great granddaughter of post manifesto polygamists and was raised on all the positive stories. And then I did have experience. of my life that very much felt like confirmations. It wasn’t until I felt inspired to start studying it out much more that I realized how completely ignorant and naive I was and how little I understood the scriptures and, and the truth about what was happening with polygamy. So I do want to say that while on the one like, and as I’ve read through the testimonies of women, they’re, um, when, when God gives something to me, it’s it. It’s unique with understanding that’s my own. And when I read the testimonies of women, they’re kind of repeating, rehashing what is being said in general conference or it’s resaid said by the leaders. And also, even in the private reminiscences, like, oh, who is Tanner? Annie Tanner, I think? Tanner. Yeah. It might be her, it might be another book that I’m thinking about that she wrote the letters defending polygamy until she to live it and learned a whole new lesson. So for me, I think still we take those testimonies in the context of where they were in their life experience, where they, you know, because, like, so, so that, so I just have to throw that in there, but I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
[30:06] Patrick Mason: No, I, I think that’s exactly right. So, so all, all of this to say, like, I’m, I’m, I’m just not prepared to like throw out all of those women’s experiences and Testimonies, right? Um, I, I, but, but, but what you’re doing is absolutely essential, right? In terms of framing like what’s going on here? What is the discourse? What are, what are they, what, what seems to be coming from inside them? What seems to be them just repeating what other people have said, this is exactly the kind of careful historical analysis we have to do. And, and I think, I think reasonable people can look at some of those things and come up with different conclusions, right? Um, but all of that is, is sort of going back to what I think about it. I’m for me still, um, you know, I’m, uh, I, I come at it, uh. There’s the historical part of it, um, but then there’s the, the theological part of it, and I, the second half of section 132, um, doesn’t sit right with me for a variety of reasons, but theologically, uh, discursively. Um, in terms of the power, the authority, uh, uh, on, on display there, it doesn’t seem consonant with the principles that are revealed in section 121 about persuasion and long suffering, and so forth about the way, uh, that the God’s power actually works, uh, and that that applies to polygamy more generally. Um, and then for, for me, the, the, the central lens, the primary lens that that I used to interpret all of history, theology, culture, scripture, etc. is the life teachings example and atonement of of Jesus Christ. Um, and I don’t, I don’t see any, uh, anything, uh, in, in his direct teachings that that that gives any gives any space, uh, for, for polygamy. Now that gets complicated too, cause the New Testament doesn’t seem to give a whole lot of room for eternal marriage either, uh, which I do believe in. So, you know, that’s kind of like first half of 132 versus the second half, right? So it’s it’s all complicated. It’s all complicated,
[32:17] Michelle: but, um, and the parts of 132 that are about eternal marriage are strictly monogamous. It’s if a man marries a wife. So it’s really interesting that we have those troubling that first verse and then those verses at the end that are so upside down from everything. So I, I want to kind of summarize what I’m hearing from you. You can tell me if I’m getting it right. It sounds to me like sort of your Willingness to keep the door open on polygamy is sort of out of chivalry. I kind of get your saying, I’m a man and I’m not just gonna disregard the voices of women. That’s kind of what I’m sensing. And I find that fascinating because at the same time, it’s this sandwich where you can’t win. So it probably wasn’t fair, because either you’re disregarding the voices of women, or you’re considering the voice. of women, but considering that women might be very serious second class citizens in the eternal, you know, nature of God. And so that’s a tough, I just, as you were answering that, I was like, Oh, this is a, this is not a win-win, and I apologize.
[33:15] Patrick Mason: I’m, I’m glad you’re, you’re exactly right. And it’s, you know, I, I think on most of these conversations, we sort of get sandwiched between different things, right? Uh, uh, it’s, um, I’m also, and this is I’m gonna try and say this carefully so as to not be misunderstood. There’s there’s a way in which I believe that even if Let’s, let’s presume that Joseph Smith is just entirely wrong about this, right? I mean, there’s absolutely no
[33:48] Michelle: divine into my next question. So yes,
[33:51] Patrick Mason: right, so, so let’s let’s presume that there’s no divine grounds, uh, for, for, for this, uh, for, for the teaching and practice of plural marriage. I believe that then those who those women and men who then followed it, um uh receiving what they believed to be this strong spiritual confirmation, um. I don’t think that they’re under condemnation for doing it, right?
[34:18] Michelle: 100% agree. Especially the women or the men who were being obedient. I think those who exercise unrighteous dominion, have the unrighteous dominion to deal with. I completely agree.
[34:31] Patrick Mason: But, but, but even that calculation, that kind of ethical calculus gets tricky too. Like, what if somebody, you know, I, you know, uh, soldiers just following orders, right? Um, in, in, in wartime can still commit war crimes. Uh, so, so just following orders is actually not a defense, um. And so that it, that’s why it’s so tricky
[34:57] Michelle: tricky. So, OK, I have so many
[34:59] Patrick Mason: things on these historical examples and and then you think about the contemporary ones too, of people who will say like, I, I really believe God is leading me this way, right? So what are the principles upon which we reject somebody’s personal revelation? What are The principles upon which we reject somebody’s interpretation of scripture, right? Because it is in the Old Testament, right? And so, so we’ve got to have, if, if you’re gonna reject it, you’ve got to have a really strong theological case, uh, in, in which to to to reject their interpretation of scripture and to say that their personal revelation is wrong.
[35:33] Michelle: Hey, I find myself hoping you’ll listen to my, to my podcast.
[35:36] Patrick Mason: Exactly. And, and, and, and I, and I think I can provide that. So in my own mind, like, I, I know how to go there, but it’s, but it’s not easy, right? Uh, in terms of respecting the individual while also saying you’re wrong.
[35:49] Michelle: Mhm. Yeah, it is tricky because we do have though, a lot of evidence of, I hate to call it lying, cause I don’t think, I think people were doing the best in the situation they they were in, you know. But we do have a lot of precedent of claiming to Be the mother of Joseph’s child, and we know that that’s not true. Claiming to, you know, we know that there was a lot of sort of, I’ll say this, prioritizing the church narrative over the factual, um, reality, because that, I believe that’s what they felt like the priority had to be. And so because
[36:20] Patrick Mason: loyalty becomes the prime virtue, uh, especially in in the in the pioneer church.
[36:26] Michelle: Yes. I like that. That’s a great way to say it. Yes. OK, so do you think That, like with your historical knowledge and work, and I don’t know if polygamy’s been one of your main topics.
[36:37] Patrick Mason: It has not, so yeah, I’m not the expert. I mean, you probably know more about the details than I do.
[36:42] Michelle: So. OK, OK. So, OK, so maybe I don’t, but do you think that there is room to believe that Joseph actually was honest about polygamy and actually was not participating in polygamy, but was, was opposed to it. And so, if we believe that, we believe Joseph and Hiram and Emma. In all of their statements and several others. If we don’t believe it, then the evidence we have to go on is Joseph told me this in private, Joseph told me this in private. It’s all decades later, or at least years later, usually decades later, and it’s all private conversations, everything we have that Joseph said in public. So I actually started out very agnostic. You know, I actually started out thinking it was Joseph. And then as I studied and learned, I became agnostic. Like, I don’t think we can prove this one way or the other. And the more I’ve studied, the more I’ve moved to say, I think Joseph was honest and not doing this. So I kind of am curious, but, but there’s so much, um, feeling of the sign. It is settled. Like, people can be really condescending. I actually had a man tell me I needed to get more education, so I wouldn’t be so susceptible to, to bad sources. And, you know, so they call us polygamy deniers. So I’m just curious to know where you fall on that. Do you think it, do you think the science is settled and you’re kind of ridiculous if you don’t believe?
[37:57] Patrick Mason: So, um, Uh, so, so yeah, so I’ve not looked at every source. This is not my primary area of expertise. So I’ve read a lot, um, but, but, but I don’t claim to be, you know, the, the top expert on, on, on this, or even, you know, the number 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever, uh, uh expert on this, but, but I’ve I’ve I’ve read a lot of I’ve tried to educate myself and familiarize myself both with the primary and the secondary sources, um, and It’s, it’s my judgment that, uh, that, I mean, the historical record, I think we all agree is really difficult on this. So many of the sources are late. We have very few contemporaneous sources in Na view, um, so the vast majority of sources that we have are ex post facto. They’re they’re they’re people, they’re reminiscent accounts, uh, people looking back, and almost always political, uh, in the sense that they’re they’re trying to make a point or prove something either pro or against. Uh, still, it’s, it’s my, uh, assessment that, um, the case is, is very strong, uh, that Joseph Smith practiced it, uh, essentially the way that it’s received and and currently, uh, uh, in, in the scholarly in in the scholarship on on Joseph Smith and on on polygamy, uh, and so, um, so I, I have a pretty high degree of confidence that that he did practice it, teach it, taught it privately. Uh, and, and gave us section 132. Uh, do I think that anybody who disagrees with that is completely ridiculous and off the rocker? No, I mean, I, again, the, the, the sources are, are, are, are tough, the sources are difficult, uh, and, and again, I think reasonable people can interpret sources differently. For me though, the vast preponderance of evidence, in my opinion, uh leads to the to the fact that Joseph, Joseph taught and practiced it.
[39:50] Michelle: OK, I appreciate you answering that and doing it so diplomatically. So thank you for. And, and in all honesty, I didn’t get the vaccine, so I’m not afraid of a good conspiracy theory. So, so I guess it’s just how, how we’re built. But, um, OK. And then I do kind of wanna, there are so many other things I want to cover, but Um, Doctrine and Covenants 132, you tend to believe that came from Joseph. I think it appearing out of Brigham Young’s desk drawer in 1852 with, you know, the whole history behind it is really fuzzy. There are, there are good questions each way, right? But I think that many of us can agree that certain verses of it don’t sound like God, right? That’s even, even the beginning, I did an episode on the first, even the very first verse, claims that Isaac was a polygamist, which he wasn’t, and claims that polygamy was commanded, which it never was. It, you know. And so it happened in the Old Testament, just like slavery happened in the Old Testament, and just like even sex slavery. You know, Hagar really was a slave that they had sexual access to to use as a surrogate. So, so that, that’s a far, it’s, it’s a very different thing to say. This was part of their culture to say this was commanded by God as part of the eternal doctrine of exaltation, right? And so, so I’m curious, because I’ve looked at how scriptures are, are added to the canon or taken from the canon. And I know that in the, with the original, um, doctrine and Covenants, the 1835, everybody had to vote to sustain that and support it. There had to be that common consent. And then, and the thing that I find fascinating is that we really for our whole history have been living in conflict, in contradiction to our canonized scriptures. Because up until 1876, we had the original section on marriage, the statement on marriage, which very directly opposed polygamy. Then we have that little period from 1876 to 9 to 1890, where we’re living polygamy while polygamy is in our scriptures. And then since then, polygamy is still in our scriptures and we are disavowing polygamy and not living it. And we’re also in conflict from all of the other scriptures that universally preach monogamy. So, um, I can’t find anything about how that Switch was made in 1876. How it was decided to remove the statement on marriage and to add section, um, 132. I can’t find where it was sustained in conference or, you know. And so I’m curious if you know the history of that. And then I guess I’m wondering what the process would be to change or remove parts of 132 now that we just tend to kind of try to ignore and pretend aren’t there and are sad if someone brings up a gospel doctrine class.
[42:24] Patrick Mason: Yeah. So, uh, I, I know a little bit about uh what happened in 1876, and this is mostly because uh I had a great master’s student here at Utah State University who published a thesis just a couple a year or two ago about that edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Uh, so his name is Brian Pasantino, uh, and it’s the whole thesis is about Orson Pratt’s, um, a revision of, of the Doctrine Covenants, which, which becomes that, that addition. And so what he does is, is he, what Brian tries to do is is apply kind of text critical methods that are commonly used in biblical scholarship. So it’s like, how do these texts get here? What does that tell us about the intentions of the authors or the compilers, or the editors? And so he tried to apply those kinds of methods to Pratt’s, uh, because we know that Pratt did it. Pratt was the one he was assigned by Brigham Young to to go through and and incorporate and and to to update and revise the doctrine covenants. Uh, but Pratt left a pretty scanty record of why he made the decisions that that he made, um, in, in doing it. But, uh, but, but we do know it, it, I think it’s pretty clear that of course he includes that, uh, includes what is now Section 132, um, as justification for what was then very settled practice, you know, they’ve been practicing it for a quarter century at that point. He had been the one to get up, you know, that Brigham Young got tapped in 1852 to get up and And uh and announce it and then provide an initial justification uh for it. So obviously Pratt is uh Pratt was deeply invested in this doctrine and and in this practice, so it makes a lot of sense that under his, um, that it was under him that that it would be included uh in that. In terms of the broader question about scripture, you’re exactly right, and scripture is both made and unmade. It’s both canonized and de-canonized and we do have examples of decanonization. Uh, in Latter-day Saint history, specifically of the lectures on faith, um, they were published as part of the doctrine covenants, and then actually as part of that same revision, they were decanonized because they were seen to be in conflict with what the church understood the doctrine of God, um, and the Godhead to be. So at one point, the church, uh, said, hey, yeah, we believe this stuff, and at a certain point, uh, the church leadership. Said no, actually, we don’t believe that, and we’re gonna take it out of the scripture. So, so we do have precedent. So we normally think about adding to scripture, but we have precedent for taking away from scripture as well. We also know that, um, we, we within the doctrine of covenants, we don’t have, we have many cases where we don’t have the entire text of a revelation, where it’s Excerpted. So actually sections 121, 20122, 123, these these are all excerpts of a longer letter. And so it is possible, and there are other examples as well. And so it’s, it would be possible for us to say, no, we’re gonna accept certain parts of this text, this document, this revelation. We’re gonna canonize certain parts of it while leaving other parts out. So I think we, we have precedent both for decanonization and for excerpting revelation that would allow us, uh, you know, if the church went this direction, to to to keep part of the current 132 canonized while decanonizing other parts of it.
[45:43] Michelle: That’s so helpful and so interesting. Do you have to know was there a sustaining vote about the new doctrine and covenants, because those were huge changes.
[45:51] Patrick Mason: Those were huge changes. I mean, it it it’s, it’s a remarkable, uh, a lot of the stuff that we assume was there all along. Uh, it, it, it’s, it comes from that 1870s. I don’t recall that. I, I honestly don’t remember whether there was a sustaining vote or not.
[46:06] Michelle: OK, for me, because Orson Pratt in his initial, um, kind of, um, explanation of polygamy, he included just one of his things is for we have got a fallen nature to grapple with as men, and if we don’t have polygamy, we’re going to have more houses. So he’s not the one I would want. Making the,
[46:22] Patrick Mason: you know, yeah, some of those arguments he makes, uh, let’s just say they they they don’t hold up.
[46:27] Michelle: Right, right. So that, I guess that’s what I’m saying, like, we, we still are leaving it to him on his own to decide what is our scripture that we all have to hold as the word of God. I’m, I, I would like to investigate that more or re-explore if that’s how we want that process done. Well, but,
[46:42] Patrick Mason: but, but the other thing too is that even if, um, the there is Latter-day saints, we don’t have a view of scriptural inerrancy. Um, and so we’re not, we’re not, we’re not bound to every word and letter and sentence of even canonized scripture. Uh, so it’s not just we believe that some stuff doesn’t belong in scripture, it’s, it’s we believe that even stuff that is in scripture, um, doesn’t all necessarily uh represent the the will or or or word of of God. Uh,
[47:12] Michelle: do you include the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants with that? Well,
[47:15] Patrick Mason: I’m not talking about books. Yeah, I mean, I’m, I’m talking, I mean, within the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon itself resists the notion of scriptural inerrancy. When, so you’ve got, I mean, the most famous example is Mormon chapter 9 verse 31, where where he specifically says like, hey, sorry, this this record isn’t perfect, forgive me of my imperfections. I did the best I could, but if there’s errors in here, sorry, right? And, and actually the Book of Mormon authors in particular are very conscious of their own weaknesses, their own frailties, their own limitations, their own inability to sometimes express what what they want to. Um, so actually the Book of Mormon is actually is, is it, it might, it’s, you know, we call it the most correct of any book, but we don’t say it’s, it’s perfect, right? Uh, and so because the Book of Mormon is so, um, it’s so cognizant of the human role in the production of Revelation and and of scripture. Like at no point, you could read the Bible and feel like it just like drops from heaven cause that’s the voice that that that it’s, it’s mostly written in. You can’t do that with the Book of Mormon. We know exactly, I mean, Nephi talks about like, hey, I made these plates, and then I inscribed them, right? And so for, so the Book of Mormon is so self-conscious about the human role in the production of Revelation. We know this, and then and then we get Joseph Smith and the scribes as well. So even if you have a really high view of scripture, I think Latter-day Saints scripture in particular Restoration scripture does not allow you to have an inerrant view of scripture. And so that does allow us to say, and and to ask and to interrogate when we when we come up against a certain uh sentence or set of words or set of passages in scripture, right? Is this, you know, is this in fact the the the will of God that’s binding. for us today. Now, I, I, I, I think we need to be cautious about that, right? You know, canonize that that there’s a reason why this scripture has, has come down to us. Um, so, so I don’t think we just, you know, do like Thomas Jefferson did and take our scissors and start cutting out entire passages and so forth. So, so I think we should be pretty, pretty careful in the way we approach that. But as Latter-day Saints, we are not bound to an inerrant view of scripture.
[49:26] Michelle: OK, that is fascinating. So, cause I think that, and I’m gonna jump forward to another question I have on that topic. But, so, uh, what I, what I’m hearing a little bit is you’re kind of saying, it doesn’t even really matter if it is in our scriptures. We aren’t, we don’t have to believe it. And that, I want to apply that also to the story of Nephi and Laban, because what troubles me is we as Mormons in our church, we’re the only ones that make a huge deal of Abraham and Isaac, and we Use the term Abrahamic sacrifice, which I was shocked to learn is specific to Mormonism. Other religions don’t do that. And between that story and Nephi’s story, that has been the motivation or the justification for every bad thing that has happened in any Mormon sect, it seems to me. So I like the idea of going, OK, nope, we’re going to talk about those in a different way. So, but that does bring me to another question, because, and so I’m jumping ahead a little bit. Um, I have to admit that when I felt so strongly that it was that I needed to do this podcast, I had to grapple with, I had to have difficult conversations with my husband and my grown children with the possibility that this could lead to an uncomfortable road of church discipline or, you know, because we’re technically, It feels like sort of required to believe the standard narrative on so many topics. And so I want to, you know, like how you said, historians used to be excommunicated, but there are much more recent excommunications as well for simply speaking for publicly not believing part of the standard narrative. And so I guess I want to ask about if I believe that polygamy is not of God and feel like You know, feel inspired that I need to share my theological and scriptural reasons for believing that. What should that mean with my relationship with the church? How do you view that? I, I, I am personally horrified by excommunication. I find it to be medieval and Draconian and violent, I think it’s a terrible thing that we do. And yet we still do it. And so how can we proceed? I, and, and with, you know, with the understanding that when people go to church, they’re all going to church to worship. And if everyone sounds off on their particular issues at church, we can’t worship. So we need to be wise and considerate and careful in church. But in our own lives, when we’re doing our own work and and saying our own things. How should that work in your opinion? How can we navigate this really kind of scary reality of excommunication?
[51:56] Patrick Mason: Yeah, no, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s a great question. You’re right, there’s so many examples that that that we could point to and, and in general, you know, excommunication is a pretty blunt tool, uh, and it’s, it’s it. Uh, I don’t think it should be a tool that we throw out of our toolbox. I mean, I think somebody who’s a serial rapist and murderer, um, you know, um, excommunication, I think is not a bad tool, um, to, uh, to, to help convict that person of their sins, um, but, but it’s, it’s a tool that I think we should be wielded, uh, very carefully and very selectively, um,
[52:30] Michelle: but more specifically of excommunication for a
[52:32] Patrick Mason: for intellectuals, yeah, for apostasy, exactly. Um, and so, uh, so yeah, you’re, it’s, it’s so tricky. So, so the way that I, I think when the the the the church is functioning well and, and even the way that it’s defined in the handbook. Is the sense that apostasy is a kind of active, repeated, not just uh disagreement or uh um a kind of diversity of opinions, uh, of things, but, but a kind of active and public and repeated teaching of things that Uh, it that are against what the church teaches and, and in particular what what current church leadership teaches, right? Uh, and, and oftentimes it involves a kind of active criticism of of current church leaders. Um, and so I think there’s a lot of room for faithful disagreement that stops short of any of that, of, of what I just described. Um, I think there’s a lot of room, certainly for private, uh, personal, you know, interior disagreement, but even for a kind of public disagreement, um, to, you know, like on a podcast or, or like in, you know, somebody speaking publicly, publishing something, uh, I think, I think there’s a lot of room to, uh, to express these kinds of disagreements and and different views that stops short. Of of saying and therefore, um, you know, the current leaders of the church have no idea what they’re talking about, right? Or the they’re they’re they’re not really prophets, or, um, you know, it’s, it’s that kind of direct criticism that undermines um that that is a public attestation. Of your lack of faith and their calling as prophets, and revelators, and then oftentimes what’s seen as sort of public advocacy along those lines. So, I just think there’s a lot of room and and and and we’ve seen that, um, all kinds of people who disagree about all kinds of things that don’t receive church discipline. So for me it it’s about what what goes into the realm of advocacy and and especially public critique of of the leaders themselves.
[54:47] Michelle: OK, so for you, would that include Um, huh, would that include reading true statements said by Brigham Young, or are you talking just?
[54:57] Patrick Mason: I mean, reading, reading, reading a historical sources, that’s, you know, there’s, there’s nothing, there’s nothing wrong with that.
[55:04] Michelle: Well, I mean, I mean like, like if I have on my podcast quotes from early church leaders. Um, just simply reading their quotes can sound like very extreme criticism of them, even if it’s not, even if it’s just reading their own words, because some of their words are quite offensive to us today. And so, so I guess I’m wondering about your idea of Do we just not criticize past profits? Do we not criticize, I mean, do we not just current profits or past profits? How do you look at that?
[55:35] Patrick Mason: Well, I think it’s, uh, and yeah, I, I, I think we can be critical because none none of us are, uh, we don’t believe in in human infallibility or prophetic infallibility. And so to me it’s, it’s about the approach and the way that it’s couched, and it’s, it’s, it’s one thing to say. Um, it’s one thing to, to be and to do the the work of a historian. And, and then there’s another identity to to be and to do the work of a covenanted member of the church, right? Now, most of the time we, we do both just fine, right? But there are times where it seems like these two things could be in conflict with one another. And so I think so much of it has to do with uh with our tone, with our approach, and what we’re really getting at. Um, uh. I, I mean, I’ve, I’ve been plenty critical of of Brigham Young, uh, and, uh, oftentimes in, you know, and, and publicly in print, uh, and and fire as you, as you suggested even from the pulpit, um, but at no point have I said, uh, I don’t believe he was a prophet or he was a fallen prophet, uh, or something like that. No, I, I believe he was a, he was a a fallible human being just like I am. Who received an extraordinary call from God, as anybody who receives the call to prophethood does. And I, and I think for the most part, uh, he did the best he could, uh, um, but he got some stuff wrong. He got some stuff seriously wrong, and I think we as truth tellers and ultimately as followers of Jesus Christ, right? I’m not a follower of Brigham Young, I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, and so So I want to be really careful in the sense of like, OK, when I’m being critical of Brigham Young, on what grounds am I being critical of him? Is, is it because he disagrees with my politics or I just don’t like him, or I’m in the 21st century and he’s in the 19th? Um, I mean, OK, fine, any of that is fine with, you know, but, but again, where does that lead me to? Um, I mean, I personally, as both historian and as a believer, I, I can say that Brigham Young could be wrong and right on the same day. He could be wrong and right in the same sermon, uh, but that, uh, I personally believe that none of his wrongness, uh, disqualified him from his calling as prophet, uh. And uh and that that I think if if I were to sort of go on the other side of that and to say, I think Brigham Young was a was a fallen prophet and so and therefore he led the church into into the entire church in terror, not just the the the church on particular things, right, but that the entire church, essentially it’s truthfulness, that the the entire restoration project falls apart because of Brigham Young’s teachings that I think puts me in a in a different space than simply saying, I, I, I think Brigham Young was wrong about these teachings, and here’s why, and I actually have a theological rationale that’s rooted in the restored doctrine of Jesus Christ that that then uh that I’m applying it so I don’t I hope that’s clear. I mean, this this is complicated stuff because it’s a lot easier to either just Uh, it’s a lot easier to do the black and white thing, right? Either they’re all right or they’re all wrong. That’s, that’s way easier. It’s way harder and we, and collectively we have not done the theological work to to say, what does it mean to believe that God calls ordinary human beings to be prophets, and we can believe that they’re still prophets, even when they make mistakes, even serious ones. That’s harder theological work to do.
[59:17] Michelle: It is a lot harder. And so I kind of want to, and, and maybe this will have to be close to our last question because I know you’re just about out of time, although I, I might tap you again because I didn’t get to ask the other half my questions so. Um, but this is, and we’ve kind of moved on to more your ministering role. This isn’t really you as a historian. These last couple of questions we’re asking you kind of in your ministering role. And so, um, so for me, when, um, like, I think what I find as the most beautiful part of the restoration is the idea of individual revelation of every person having the Holy Spirit, everybody being able to discern truth. I, I really believe we all have the same access to God, regardless of our calling. Right? We each have different stewardships, but, but nobody has a shortcut, or, you know. And, um, and I, and I think That’s one of the things that I most appreciate and tend to prioritize. And so for me, when I see, you know, there are a lot of troubling things throughout time with our leaders, but, um, my faith isn’t in any of my leaders. I get really uncomfortable when my kids have lessons on why you need a testimony of Joseph Smith. And I’m like, that’s why would you have a testimony of Joseph Smith? Have a testimony of Jesus Christ, gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon. And the rest will follow, right? And so, so for me, when I see, like, really troubling things from our past, statements made by church leaders, the gardo house, while there was so much starvation happening, you know, there are really difficult things that happened. For me, it’s, um, the, the standard of God has been erected. No, no one held hand to stop the work from progressing. And I think that includes leaders who. You know, like, so I look at it as, God allowed this to happen. And when I sustain my leaders, I’m saying, just like I am with my bishop or my, um, you know, any leader, I’m saying, I want to make your job as easy as possible. I want to help you. I want to pray for you, but I’m not going to think that you are automatically have better answers for my life than I have. You, you know, that you have better access, or that you’re automatically right about everything. I, I have some leaders over time that I’ve really disagreed with and some that I really, really love and resonate with, right? And so I guess my question is, and sorry for the long lead up, but for me, I actually have really struggled with our general leaders. Um, I’ve been in the LGBT communities when the 2017 happened, which to me felt like it really was, um, kind of speared spearheaded by our current leadership now and then. You know, and, and then seeing what felt to me like some dishonesty following that. Like, it’s been hard for me. And then seeing, um, in the very first press conference, um, our new president of the church quoted Doctor Covenant. Well, he didn’t quote, but he referred to 13263, which is just a troubling, troubling verse to have the one thing you refer to. And a question about the status of women in the church, you know. So, and then, and then going forward with, um, I had a particularly bad 2020 and 2021 where I was really traumatized by masks. And so experiencing what I did in the world after losing children and having it said that a masks are a symbol of your Christ-like love. Like, I’ve really been kind of unable to even engage recently, cause it’s been so traumatic, you know? And so what I find, sorry. What I find challenging. Is sort of this feeling, again, of all or nothing. You either believe in prophets ears, and revelators and, and put them on that pedestal, or you should leave the church. And I really want to, for me, it’s so much healthier to go, No, I have God on a pedestal. I know God, I know the voice of God, and I know the truth of God. And I can find that. And if particular leaders are in or out of line on that with what I feel, that’s, that’s on them. But it, but it doesn’t have to affect my answer. I’ve had to be in this church and to stay in this church and to love this church, and, and to enjoy all of the blessings that it offers and the script, you know, there’s so much. And so I guess. That’s my question is, can you talk about I know that it’s hard for different members in different places to cart out a space for themselves. But for those who really just vehemently disagree with a lot of things that leaders do, whether it’s Brigham Young or current leadership, how do you think that there is and should be room in this church? For people who want to help them and pray for them and make their job easier, but who do not think they speak for God on on many, many things.
[1:03:46] Patrick Mason: Uh, yeah, the the answer is yes, and, and that it’s that that it is tricky. Um, it’s, it’s in terms of the, the application, in terms of what that looks like, the, the, you know, the, to, to me in the sense is that, you know, so, uh, One of one of the most cherished doctrines, I mean, you talked about individual revelation, right? That’s that’s an absolute pillar, uh, of, of, of the restored gospel. Another pillar is the idea that um that God calls prophets, seers, and revelators, right? Uh, and, and the God reveals his will through scripture. Right? So we have, for, for me it, and this is what makes it so interesting and and stimulating, but also frustrating sometimes, we essentially have these sort of three major sources of authority within the church. We have personal revelation through the Holy Ghost, we have the the the revelation of the Holy Ghost through scripture. And the revelation of the Holy Ghost through prophets and apostles, right? And how do we ascertain what is true while we triangulate those three things. That there’s other sources of authority too, tradition and history and and the the overall sense of the saints and all kinds. I think those are kind of secondary sources of authority. But those those three main sources of authority. Um, and, and, and that’s how we gain our testimony of Christ. That’s how we gain, you know, it’s through the witness of the Holy Spirit that as revealed through scripture and the testimony of the prophets, right? So, so we’re always triangulating those, those three things. And the fact of the matter is that as individuals, uh, our triangulations will look a little bit different. Your triangle might look a little different than than mine does, uh, in terms of how, especially on on any particular issue. Uh, I think the question for, for the, the church is how many shapes of triangles can we include, uh, within the church? Some are, I mean, it’s been a long time since I had uh any of this, but, you know, tus and isosceles and, you know, all these kinds of things, right? Um, that the length and the angles of those sides are gonna be slightly different for for different people. uh, and I personally think that actually the the church can encompass. Oh, most of that, right? So long as those are your points of triangulation. Now, now if you say It if at a certain point you say, you know what, I, I, I don’t think any of these guys are prophets and apostles. But at that point, I, I think you’re, you’re probably outside this community of faith. You might be in a different community of faith, right? But, but this community of faith accepts these, uh, or if you say, you know what, I reject the Book of Morm and I reject the doctrine of covenants. Well, now you’ve, you know, you’ve rejected one of those points of triangulation for this community of faith, and, and so that’s fine, uh, hopefully you’ll find another place where you can worship and and find God. But, but in this community of faith, these are our sources of authority. And um so I, I think, uh, yeah, so long as it’s it’s, it’s part of a kind of faithful wrestle, uh, and, uh, imagine how hard it would have been, and, and we have examples of this, of, of, of people, you know, living during Brigham Young’s time who who didn’t believe in polygamy, right? Imagine how hard that would be. But was there room in the church for them? Yeah, although it was really hard and and a lot of them left. Um, imagine how hard it was in 1838 to disagree with the kind of militarism happening with the Danites, uh, in October of 1838, uh, and, you know, how hard it is to stay, but, but also, you know, uh, some of the people end up leaving. So this is not a new thing. This is not a new thing for the church. This goes all the way back to the beginning in terms of people who were convicted by the doctrines, but who also out of a sense of individual conscience, uh, and revelation, disagree with certain points, uh, or teachings or practices of the current leaders, not just, it’s one thing to disagree with a guy who died 150 years ago, right? It’s another thing now. And so what does it look like to have that, that kind of to to to to be in a space. Of, um, faithful disagreement. Um, I think, you know, we, we always, at least myself, um, anytime I find myself disagreeing, I, I wanna to interrogate myself first, right? Where is this coming from? upon what grounds am I doing this? Is, is this because of the news sources that I read? Is this because of the kind of cultural conversation I’m part of? Um, or is there, you know, what are the principles upon which, or, you know, the, the, the things that I feel are revelation, um, you know, how confident am I that that’s, you know, this is what’s so tricky about it, right? Um, but I, I, I just, to answer your question, yes, I think, I think there’s space, I think there has to be space. There’s always been space for that. I mean, we, we do hear sometimes from church leaders, there’s no such thing as a loyal opposition within the church. I think what they mean there is a sense of like setting your Yourself up as like a party. I mean so that that comes from a kind of political context, right? There’s one party in power and there’s another party that their job is to sort of check the power of this this other party. That’s not the way the church works. That is not the way the king, we’re all In one party, right? Uh, ideally there are no Is among us. So in that sense, I, I actually totally agree with that, that we don’t seek to create rival or alternative groups within the church, or of churches within the church. We do share the kind of common communion around a set of ordinances in our testimony of Jesus, but within that then there’s going to be secondary and tertiary issues that that we’re gonna have faithful disagreements about.
[1:09:35] Michelle: I really appreciate that. I want, I, I wanted to hear your input because my plea always is, like, I want to just, you know, I’m always trying to say, hey, members of the church that are comfortable, please make room and let people don’t, don’t, you know, I know when I have gone through different challenges, having people say, well, then you should just leave is really painful, right? And then also people who are struggling with so many things over time, like, like, don’t, don’t think that means you have to leave. I really think that there is hope that both can do this hard work, which I see God’s fingerprints all over. I think this is what it is. It’s learning. It’s, it’s God cares so much less about what side of any issue we’re on and how we are in community with those both on our side and on the other side, right? And so.
[1:10:22] Patrick Mason: And then this goes all the way back, right? I mean, think about, um, we’ve been reading the Old Testament where we can find a lots of disagreements and also things that I think we disagree with now. Um, but also when, when we dive into the New Testament this next year, we, we’ll see, you know, Peter and Paul in sharp disagreement with one another, uh, but they remain in communion within the church, right, and Paul even calls Peter a hypocrite, right? I mean, he has, he has hard things to say. Against uh Peter, but, but he doesn’t break communion with him. Um, and there’s a sense of like the things that we unite around are greater than the things that that that divide us. And, and so can we bring a spirit of humility, a spirit of generosity, a spirit of genuine love towards, I mean, that’s exactly for me, that’s exactly what the church is supposed to be. It’s precisely supposed to be a laboratory where we’re learned to where we learn to disagree or where we learn to love the people that we disagree with. Like Jesus says, it’s easy to love your friends, right? It’s like slow clap for you. Like, I mean you don’t get any credit for loving your friends. What Jesus says in the sermon on the mountain is love your enemies. Um, uh, and that requires a whole different level, um, that, that I think the church, it’s not the only place actually the families are great at this too, but, but, but the church provides one place for us to learn to to love the people that that we disagree with, uh, and sometimes they’re sitting in the chair next to us in Sunday school, sometimes we hear them from the pulpit, either locally or generally. And what does it mean to be in communion together around our testimonies of Jesus Christ and the restoration? Well, sometimes disagreeing about serious stuff.
[1:12:07] Michelle: I love that. Thank you. I just, that’s, I’ve always wished that the church had a feedback box, a suggestion box, you know, like, cause it is, uh, Peter and Paul both had, had a had power. They had influence. They had, they weren’t the silent minority. And, and I don’t think we needed that. There’s, you know, you can’t have everyone. But I do wish, like, my suggestion to the church would be focus on the messages of unity, through like, throughout all of this, instead of being on a side, preach how valuable and loved each person is, wherever they are on and And teaching people to love one another, because I do think that that’s what the message of the gospel ultimately is that the message.
[1:12:45] Patrick Mason: Yeah, I, I, I agree, and I, I think for the most part, I actually think they do a terrific job of doing this. And actually sometimes our frustrations come from like, why aren’t they speaking more specifically about the things I care about? Well, it’s because the it as as they say, you know, general conference is general, right? I it’s, it’s, uh, it’s, it’s, it’s sort of the view from 30,000 ft. Uh, last thing I’ll say is some, some wisdom. I I think just some great stuff that that uh I heard once from um David Holland, who’s a scholar at Harvard, uh, the son of Elder Holland and also a state president, but, but he’s he’s taught that it’s crucially important for local members of the church to To talk to their local leaders, to their bishops and their state presidents about their questions, their concerns, their pain points. And the way that he talks about it, he said, I mean essentially within the context of the body of Christ, in the sense that the, you know, the people making decisions in Salt Lake, right, or or in your state or in your area, they can’t make informed decisions unless they know where the pain points are, unless they know what’s what’s hard for people. And so, I know it can be really hard, it can be scary to go into a bishop’s office or into a state presence, and obviously there is the power differential. There’s often there’s a gender dynamic, especially for women going into those spaces, right? But, but I think what what David has said, which I totally believe is when the church is working right, it’s listening to everybody. And of course there’s an order to things cause there’s however many million people, right? And we can’t all just call President Nelson every time, you know, we have something, but But, but he invited, and at least within his state, he said, you know, if you’re feeling those kind of pain points, I, I want, I need to hear about it. That’s part of the role of the membership of the church is to is to report back to the to the leaders of the church so that they can make the informed decisions that they need. But then, and then there’s a dynamic of sustaining, right? Um, and so. Uh, it’s, it’s complex, it’s complicated. Being in community always is, but I also think it’s possible.
[1:14:55] Michelle: I think that’s profound. I hope everybody hears that, because that is, if, well, I think the best thing leaders can do is be humble and kind, and I think we, the best thing we can do is be humble. And if we can humbly and kindly say this is a struggle for me, that can give them the feedback that they need, and that’s one way we can sustain them, I believe, in their calling. So thank you. Patrick Mason, thank you so much for spending this time with me here and with all of us and for your, the incredible work you do. I just hope you’ll keep going for 100 more years. We need your voice and
[1:15:29] Patrick Mason: you’re so kind, Michelle. Thank you.
[1:15:31] Michelle: Thank you. All right. Goodbye, everyone. Thanks, Patrick. I know that we kept you a little bit too long. Oh, that’s,
[1:15:40] Patrick Mason: that’s totally fine. I, I hope that was OK for you,
[1:15:43] Michelle: so. Oh, you’re, of course, you’re great. I hope I, I, I, I didn’t know which questions to prioritize. I followed that. I probably gonna be kicking myself that there were better things I should have brought up and asked. No, I,
[1:15:53] Patrick Mason: I actually totally love the the way that you responded and pushed back on, on some of my Uh, answers, especially around play. I mean, that’s, I think that’s exactly kind of the modeling that that we should do. It’s like, OK, what do you think about this? Here’s what I think. Well, what about this, right? I mean, it’s, it’s OK for us, for us
[1:16:12] Michelle: to learn, right? It’s how to find truth. Yeah,
[1:16:15] Patrick Mason: that’s exactly.
[1:16:18] Michelle: So oh go ahead. No, go ahead.
[1:16:19] Patrick Mason: I was gonna say again, thanks for the opportunity and, and yeah, just good luck with everything.
[1:16:24] Michelle: Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. All right, tell your wife and good luck I’m cheering her on. OK. All right, see you. OK, thanks, bye. I know I wasn’t able to ask even a fraction of all of the questions we would have loved to to talk about, but I hope that you found this conversation beneficial and interesting and um worthwhile. I know I certainly did. I love having conversations where I’m actually learning and having new thoughts as well as getting new information. I also hope that you gained deeper appreciation for Patrick Mason, for those of you who are just being introduced to him. I hope you understand why I have so much respect for him, and I do want to again. Recommend the wonderful books that he has written. You can find tons of discussion that he has joined in online and, um, I think particularly the book Planted is, is kind of a must read. I, I highly recommend it. The only downside is that he wasn’t able to narrate. himself in the audio version where the other ones that I’ve listened to, he narrates and I really appreciate his own voice speaking his own words, but I cannot recommend his books high highly enough. So anyway, thank you again for joining us and I will look forward to seeing you next time.
