By Bryce Christensen 18 Feb 2015
Coordinating conjunctions—and,
but, or, so, yet, for, nor— are mere syntactic connectors. They look like
no more than communicative fasteners, just verbal nails and screws that hold
together words that carry real weight. Yet they can say a great deal,
especially as they come out of the mouths or pens of those who represent themselves
as Mormon intellectuals. Consider, for instance, what these intellectuals
signal by their choice of conjunction after they make a public declaration of
their religious identity. How often have we heard a Mormon intellectual affirm,
“I am a Mormon” or “I am a Latter-day Saint,” only to deploy a coordinating
conjunction that raises questions, even suspicions, about that affirmation?
Mormonism—more properly, the faith
taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—entails heavy
doctrinal truths, and consequently heavy moral and spiritual obligations as
well. The person who affirms his or her personal identity as a Mormon or
Latter-day Saint is thus acknowledging ties to very sacred declarations about
the nature of God, the meaning of life in mortality and hereafter, the source
of true ecclesiastical authority, the content and interpretation of Sacred
Writ, the origin and destiny of the soul, the nature and eternal duration of
marriage and the family. What is more, anyone who self-identifies as a Mormon
or Latter-day Saint is acknowledging that he or she has participated in sacred
ordinances—baptism by immersion and confirmation by the laying on of
hands—conducted by those who hold proper priesthood authority in the Church.
Given all that intrinsically inheres
in a personal affirmation of identity as a Mormon or Latter-day Saint, those
familiar with English might reasonably expect the conjunction that follows such
an affirmation would be so. I am a Latter-day Saint, so I embrace and affirm
the doctrines of the Church. Or, I am a Mormon, so I accept and support
Mormon leaders. Or, I am a Latter-day Saint, so I do all I can advance
the Church and its sacred mission. Or, I am a Mormon, so I have reason
to be deeply grateful for the spiritual guidance that the Church gives me in a
confusing world. Or, I am a Mormon, so I defend the Church against its
detractors.
In sentences such as these, the
conjunction seems natural, organic, and wholly consistent with the affirmation
of self-identity.
However, with puzzling frequency,
when some prominent intellectuals identify themselves as Mormons, they
immediately deploy a coordinating conjunction that raises serious questions
about that identification. The coordinating conjunction we find some intellectuals
opting for immediately after publically identifying themselves as Mormon is
definitely not so. Rather, it is but.
To be sure, for anyone who takes
seriously the very high standards that come with membership in the Lord’s
Restored Church, choosing to add a but after self-identifying as a
Mormon or Latter-day Saint can be not only appropriate but even doctrinally
necessary. That is, I am a Mormon, but I acknowledge that my own conduct is
not always fully in accord with Church teachings. Or, I am a Latter-day
Saint, but my own behavior frequently falls short of Church ideals.
Deployed in this way, but signals
simply the humility and awareness of personal fallibility that Christ enjoined
in his parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18: 9-14). No mortal
is a sinless embodiment of the truths taught in the Lord’s Restored Church. A but
that links an affirmation of Church membership with a humble
acknowledgement of personal inadequacy as a Church member simply reflects
honest self-scrutiny of the sort that fosters awareness of how much of the
spiritual path that the Church has marked out remains to be traversed.
It is, however, a different kind of but
that intellectuals often deploy immediately after identifying themselves as a
Mormon or a Latter-day Saint. It is not a but that prefaces
self-judgment or self-criticism. Rather, it is a but that introduces
self-assertive judgment of the Church, its doctrines, and its leaders. I am
a Mormon, but I can hardly endorse the Church’s position on same-sex marriage. Or,
I am a Latter-day Saint, but I find the Church’s positions on women
dreadfully retrograde. Or, I am a Mormon, but I find Church leaders
terribly abusive in their response to dissent. Or, I am a Mormon, but I
consider the Church’s concern for doctrinal purity oppressive and stultifying.
When used in this way, but is
clearly not a conjunction that checks self-righteousness. Rather, it looks
disturbingly like a but that authorizes self-righteousness, over and
against the righteousness called for by the Church. Such a but can even
begin to look like a syntactic Rameumptom affording the speaker or writer an
opportunity to indulge in some warm self-congratulation on having reached a
perspective higher than that of the Church.
This syntactic elevation, not
coincidentally, also affords the exalted speaker or writer the opportunity to
look down with condescension on lesser beings who append to their public
affirmations of Church membership not a self-elevating but, but rather a
self-effacing so. The syntactic elevation of this kind of but is
one allowing some pretentious Mormon intellectuals to hold up their doubts,
their skepticism, as an attainment of the mind far above the mere faith and
convictions of lesser members of the Church.
No doubt many take pride in using a but
after any acknowledgement of Church membership. Such a conjunction, they
are sure, signals their intellectual independence, their personal autonomy, their
refusal to surrender to the strictures of dogma. A closer look raises doubts.
Many of those who are so careful to signal their independence from Church
orthodoxy seem almost anxiously intent on protecting a political correctness
rooted in a progressive secular orthodoxy. How willing are such
individuals to deploy a but declaring personal independence after
identifying themselves as a progressive intellectual. I am a progressive
intellectual, but I recognize only marriage between a man and a woman as truly
a marriage? Or, I am a progressive intellectual, but I recognize the
prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as God’s inspired
mouthpiece on questions of morality and doctrine? Or, I am a progressive
intellectual, but I recognize the Latter-day Saint Church’s position on women
and the priesthood as divinely ordained?
Unless they are utterly blind,
progressive intellectuals know that secular progressivism conducts its own
rituals of excommunication, its own auto-de-fés. (If you doubt this, ask
Brendan Eich, ask Richard Raddon. Former CEO of the Web giant Mozilla, Eich was
forced out of his position by gay-rights activists when they learned that he
had supported California’s Proposition 8 affirming a traditional heterosexual
understanding of marriage. In similar fashion, Raddon was pushed out of his
position as director of the Los Angeles Film Festival when his contributions to
support Proposition 8 became public.)
Progressive intellectuals know that
if they do not watch their step, they may be cast out of the progressive
congregation. They may indeed want listeners and readers to interpret
their choice of conjunction after acknowledging Church membership as a token of
their valiant personal autonomy. However, it is quite possible to discern
something far less laudable, something far less courageous, in their choice of
conjunctions. Their choice of conjunctions may be interpreted as the
consequence of a tacit but decisive syntactic chain that governs any public
acknowledgement of Church membership: I am first and foremost a progressive
social thinker, so whenever I
acknowledge my identity as a Latter-day Saint, I must immediately qualify that
identification lest I in any way jeopardize the personal identity or the social
doctrines I actually value most.
What is the real meaning of a public
acknowledgment of Church membership? It depends largely on the conjunction that
follows that acknowledgment. Will it be a but signaling supercilious
skepticism, or will it be a so reflecting humble but deep devotion?
No comments:
Post a Comment