Reforming our Haditha
Reuters has an interesting article detailing Turkey’s recent announcement that its official religious body is scanning all available hadiths and revising them to remove some of the more offensive and degrading portions (see also here). Hadiths, in a nutshell, are traditions of actions or sayings attributable to the Prophet Muhammad. They stem from oral tradition and are of varying importance, but overall for most Muslims a collection of hadith is second in importance to the Qu’ran itself, and it makes up the core of shariah in most Islamic countries. The reformation of the hadith is an extremely significant event for Turkey; it means a significant step in the ‘Europeanization’ of the country and a major leap forward in women’s rights.
What, if any, implications do the Turkish Diyanet’s actions have for Mormons?
The answer is, very few. This will only affect the way that Islam is taught within Turkey, and will affect the fatwas and pedagogical methods on an internal basis only. It does represent a major inroad by the Islamic ‘bourgeoisie’ of Turkey and is a sign of further Westernizing. In some ways, it is very good news for those concerned about the global radicalization of Islam, and it seems to be a welcome change away from Wahhabism.
Approached from a comparative religious standpoint, however, the idea of reforming hadith may have interesting parallels for Mormons. It would be akin to revising some combined version of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (cue cheers from Stapley) and the Church Handbook, or perhaps a consolidation and reformation of accumulated Church policies over the years. More accurately, it would be like California’s CES producing a revised version of those documents (without there still being in Utah a centralized and universally-accepted policy making body) for LDS to use. Perhaps as Church growth worldwide continues (and hundreds of years elapse) we can look to this kind of decentralized reform.
Let’s hope so. I’d probably be active in the Church if there were decentralized reform as you describe, Steve. I’m sure the Mormons of California would drop the unilateral excommunication of non-celibate gays if they were allowed to do so.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 3, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
Well, maybe not in Orange County.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 3, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
It’s not a bad idea. I wonder how the Church would go about this if they were so inclined? Maybe like the Chinese saying Mao was 70% correct? “Doctrines of Salvation is 70% correct, but please disregard the TK smoothie.”
Comment by MattG — March 3, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Mikey, you sure about that? Maybe the Mormons of LA and SF proper would do so, but not the suburbanites nor those elsewhere in the Redwood State…
Comment by Steve Evans — March 3, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Aren’t most churches like this to some degree? I think the LDS church’s uniformity is actually something that gives it a major leg up on many other religions. There was a Brazilian businessman visiting at church yesterday. Looking around himself in the sacrament hall after church he said, “America is a very different place but this…this is the same. I am at home.”
Comment by Eric Russell — March 3, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
The main difference I see is our lack of insistence on treating the words of former prophets (even Joseph Smith) as canon. Why would the Church officially revise what it doesn’t teach to be canonical? Individual members and leaders already interpret these sources radically differently. Why would the Church restrict that in a way that would appear to enlarge the canon? (I can hear members now: “If you don’t remove something, it must be correct, right?”) If it did so, most of the more liberal crowd probably would complain about how the Church (or Area Presidency or Stake Presidency) was trying to remove controversial aspects of early Mormonism and further correlate acceptable teachings. The reaction to the Joseph Smith manual is instructive enough.
That type of editing / correlation is all I expect on an organized level, but I don’t see it varying regionally.
Comment by Ray — March 3, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Though our religion has “informal” sayings/traditions of past prophets that have been canonized in a similar fashion as hadiths have become for Muslims, there is one fundamental difference in applying Turkey’s rewriting to Mormons: the LDS Church is centralized. Doctrine, official interpretation, church policies, etc., come from one place: COB.
Your example applies more to Protestant religions where the hierarchy is decentralized–similar to Islam. One example that comes to mind is the US Anglican (Episcopalian) church ordaining gays and sanctioning them as bishops even.
Comment by jose — March 3, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
jose, I agree with your diffetentiation based on centralization, but as I say in my post, it’s possible this is simply a matter of time.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 3, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Doctrine, official interpretation, church policies, etc. come from one central place, but in real life, applications of those doctrines and policies can vary dramatically from place to place.
Just like politics, it’s all local. One bishop’s dangerous apostate is another ward’s liberal gospel doctrine teacher.
Comment by anonymous — March 3, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
I’ve heard some rumors that the church is currently planning to take some first steps toward genuine decentralization by consolidating regions and placing more authority over publications and curriculum in the hands of regional leadership. This is the kind of believe-it-when-you-see-it stuff you hear in the church, but it’s probably inevitable at some point.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — March 3, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
I can see decisions being made at a regional level regarding the use of the curriculum, but I can’t see publication/interpretation or curriculum being made locally.
At least, that’s I hear from my own spies in the Curriculum Dept.
It’s hard to dispute any statement that says “it’s a matter of time”. To Peter and the early apostles, the Restoration of the Church in 1830 was just a matter of time.
Comment by queuno — March 3, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
re: 4 You’re probably right. People in L.A. and S.F. tend to imagine they’re the only people in California.
Why to do you think decentralized reform is inevitable, Steve? Is it simply a function of size? There’s a case to be made that the Church has gone in the opposite direction as it has grown larger (correlation, etc).
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 3, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
Mike, I don’t know that it’s inevitable — see queuno’s comment — but I do see size as being a significant factor. Even the Catholic church, which of course is highly centralized in some respects, is immensely decentralized on all but the most important points.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 3, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
I believe it inaccurate to say that statements from prophets don’t constitute canon. Although there is a continuum for how much respect and authority they are afforded. It goes something like:
1) Scripture (i.e. Doctrine and Covenants)
2) Official Proclamations (i.e. Proclamation on the Family)
3) Prophet’s statements during General Conference.
4) Prophet’s statement in the Ensign
5) Prophet’s statements in non-official books (i.e. Deseret Book publications)
6) Prophets statements to the media (i.e. President Hinckley on Larry King Live)
7) Statements of apostles who later become prophets
Current prophets are loathe to contradict statements from previous prophets. For example, witness the interview between Mike Wallace and President Hinckley on 60 Minutes:
Mike Wallace: Church policy had it that blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, “Cain slew his brother, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.”
Gordon B. Hinckley: It’s behind us. Look, that’s behind us. Don’t worry about those little specks of history.
Clearly, these comments wouldn’t be considered canon, but Hinckley avoided undoing the doctrinal basis of denying Blacks the priesthood—preferring a polygamy-like “change in policy” rather than an admission of Brigham Young’s error and racism.
In contrast, President Kimball’s extension of the priesthood to Blacks is clearly scripture.
As for gays and the church, I have a standing bet with several friends that the church will have gay temple marriages and female priests in my lifetime. Obviously, I put more money on female priesthood given the pioneer era practices. Reverting to these practices has a doctrinal and historical foundation. Gay marriage lacks these benefits and President Hinckley’s leadership was ambivalent on the issue. President Monson seems more inclined to a détente.
Comment by Randall — March 3, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
The Mormon Church also is decentralized more than many people think. I often say that I belong to two churches: the global one (that sets the general standards I live and provides the broad outline for my theology) and the local one (to which I “belong” and in which I “live” and “have my being”). The leader who most influences many members’ views of the Church is not the President/Prophet, as important as he is, but rather the Bishop and/or Relief Society President.
At that local level, the Church doesn’t need to “reform THE hadiths” - since many of us individually “reform OUR hadiths” regularly. I don’t see the global need, since I see the local / individual practice thriving as it chugs along largely un-celebrated and un-emphasized - and, in many cases, surprisingly immune to what happens globally.
That inability to pin down an individual’s hadith, if you will, as identical to another’s drives anti-Mormons nuts, but it is a vital part of our perspective on scripture and revelation and canon and the modification of doctrine - which is what I think “reforming our hadiths” is all about.
Comment by Ray — March 3, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
Randall,
1) LDS “canon” is what has been accepted explicitly “by common consent” - and, in one case, even that is modified by the phrase “as far as it is translated correctly”. Much more can be considered “revelation”, but nothing else is “canon”. That alone influences my view of the general question of this post.
2) Pres. Hinckley’s answer is as direct a repudiation as you can get without saying, “The man was wrong.”
3) “Gay marriage lacks these benefits and President Hinckley’s leadership was ambivalent on the issue. President Monson seems more inclined to a détente.” What is your source / reasoning for this?
Comment by Ray — March 3, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
Ray:
President Hinckley took the church in 2 directions regarding gays:
1) Fighting gay civil rights more than any other prophet (mostly owing to timing–being the prophet during the flowering of the movement).
2) Being the first prophet to repudiate the idea that gayness is a behavior/lifestyle rather than an actual condition with genetic and irreversible roots. Under his leadership, the church has clearly stated that gays shouldn’t enter into traditional marriages, nor should they be harassed or abused.
As for President Monson, it’s more of a hunch. He has always avoided a harsh and doctrinaire approach to his public pronouncements. He is very sensitive and affirming of the human side of Mormonness. And, his first statement as a prophet was about continuing and growing President Hinckley’s ecumenical efforts. Inter-faith collaboration inevitably leads to mainstreaming and softening the doctrines.
Comment by Randall — March 3, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
Steve, I’m pretty sure that whatever instructional committee produces the Presidents of the Church lesson manuals has already done something remarkably close to Hadith reformation. No decentralization required.
Comment by Jonathan Green — March 4, 2008 @ 12:46 am
I think the assumption that decentralization in the Church would lead to greater tolerance and acceptance of some of the issues mentioned above is misguided. While giving area/regional authorities more discretion has the potential for just that, the probability is that things would swing the other way, with leaders taking it upon themselves to be more vigilant against practices and attitudes they personally oppose, with greater authority to enforce their positions. Despite my disdain for centralized bureaucracy, the alternative seems scary. Although, in such a case, I’m sure the bloggernacle would be a great resource for evaluating the best regions in which to live, given certain doctrinal tendencies.
Comment by A Turtle Named Mack — March 4, 2008 @ 8:09 am
Jonathan, I think you’re right about that. The extensive editorial interventions into the comments of past presidents in the RS/Priesthood manual series seems like an exact parallel to Hadith reformation.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — March 4, 2008 @ 8:32 am
Jonathan, a very good point.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 4, 2008 @ 8:34 am
Thou shalt bake bread…and it shall be whole wheat.
Comment by annahannah — March 4, 2008 @ 9:51 am
re: 14 I wouldn’t take that bet, Randall. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Church winds up where the Catholics are, though. One can be a gay Catholic and even in a relationship, but openly teaching against church doctrine (which is arguably more homophobic than the current LDS view, btw) is not really allowed. The Catholics also keep gays out of leadership positions, although rumor has it there are some enforcement challenges in that regard round-about the Vatican.
re: 19 That possibility highlights something that hasn’t been mentioned here yet: Decentralization can also lead to schism. It’s a fine line to walk, especially in a tradition as focused on orthopraxis as this one.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 4, 2008 @ 10:00 am
Mike,
Thanks for the new word. I’ll try to work “orthopraxis” into at least 3 conversations this week. A useful term.
Comment by Randall — March 4, 2008 @ 10:14 am
Mike, Mormonism has always been prone to schism; I’m not sure decentralization is the culprit.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — March 4, 2008 @ 10:19 am
I suspect those Mormons of California inclined to violate God’s commandments have already made their own arrangements, and have been properly relieved of any cumbersome restrictions on what they were “allowed” to do.
No formal or informal revision of any document or policy was necessary.
Comment by Unbeliever — March 4, 2008 @ 11:45 am
#25, insert plug for Bringhurst/Hamer’s awesome book here…
Comment by Ann — March 4, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Ann, indeed!
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — March 4, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
Good call Ann!
Comment by Steve Evans — March 4, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
re: 25 Good point. I always enjoy learning about the various remnant branches of the Restoration, especially the ones that exist today. Still, contemporary Mormonism doesn’t really seem prone to schism, does it?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 4, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Mike, you’re right about the Brighamite Mormons remaining fairly intact. The only post-John Taylor schism of Brighamite Mormons I see in Mr. Hamer’s awesome illustration of fractioning Mormonism is the Harmstons, a fundy-variant that doesn’t claim authority through the John Taylor letter. I would speculate based on Anne Wilde’s article on Fundamentalist Mormons that most people who split off from LDS-ism just align with an existing group.
Comment by Ann — March 4, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
Randall (14) -
In your lifetime — how old are you, perchance?
(The bet takes on different meanings if you’re 66 or if you’re 26, for instance…)
Comment by queuno — March 4, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
I should join one of these little sects. Wonder if any of them have a chapel in West Hollywood? ha
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 5, 2008 @ 9:47 am
Mildly interesting post, but eye-opening comments. The reading (or at least, the commenting) audience seems to consist primarily of those prone to view the Church as a worldly patriarchy of bigoted old men. How sad. We can hope that such will repent, or they will surely find their way out of the kingdom of God.
In the meantime, by all means please wager your entire inheritance and retirement funds on the extension of temple sealings to homosexuals and other sexual deviants. Bet the wad on the ordination of women to the Priesthood. Do these things quickly! The sooner you lose your worldly possessions, the sooner you might quit insisting on viewing things from a worldly perspective.
Comment by Voldie — March 5, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Randall (#14):
Only in the bloggernacle can one be exposed so often to such manifestations of self-delusion.
Needless to say, I’ll take the bet. I’m willing to mortgage the house again; I can have about $500,000 in cash by the end of the week. You game?
You know, I have a question that perhaps BCC participants can answer:
Do any of you actually participate in wards where you know someone else who frequents the bloggernacle? If so, what would you estimate is the ratio of bloggernaclists (there’s a word!) to non-bloggernaclists?
I ask because I really am not aware of anyone in my entire stake who is a bloggernaclist. So I’m wondering if my stake/area is the aberration, or if my impression is correct that bloggernaclists make up about 1/2 of 1 percent of the active LDS membership in North America (about 10,000 out of 2.5 million).
Comment by Will — March 5, 2008 @ 10:34 am
re: 34 I thought calling anyone to repentance was against the rules of BCC.
re: 35 I’d be happy to hold the escrow for y’all if you want.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 5, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
MikeInWeHo, there are the fundamentalist schisms, which are more or less organized but which do continue to emerge. And there have been at least a few third-world schisms, the best-known of which was the Third Convention in Mexico. So it does happen, even among the Brighamites.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — March 5, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
#34 - We’re all apostates. I better tell my Stake President. I’m sure he’ll want to know.
Comment by Ray — March 5, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
LOL… It seems like the locals are more willing to give up Mormon prohibitions on gambling than on homosexuality.
#32 Queno, I’m a 35 year old father of 3.
#34 Voldie, I’ve staked out the entirely opposite position as you suggest. If I viewed the church’s leadership as bigoted old men, I would be foolish to bet on women getting the priesthood and homosexuals receiving full fellowship.
Quite the contrary. I’ve been very impressed with church leadership and their ability to reverse the prejudice that crept into the church through cultural influences.
Getting back to the original intent of this post, the trends from Hunter to Hinckley to Monson have been heart-warming. I have full faith that our prophets are leading us in the correct direction in mainstreaming the church. Yes, there was a time when I was bashful about my LDS faith, but not any longer. I like our vibrant, growing, progressing church.
Comment by Randall — March 5, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
Why on earth does the church continue to publish that monstrosity of bad scholarship and rumor collection, “teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith” anyway? Particularly since even the ENSIGN denounces its contents (word search for “kinderhook” in the gospel library) as misauthenticated tripe?
Comment by Christian — March 6, 2008 @ 9:21 am
I don’t know much about how the hadiths are organized in Islam, or whether they are all gathered into one publication or not. Something like that would be useful for Mormons, though it would probably imply a systemization of theology that Mormons are generally uncomfortable with. The problem is now is that all quotes from GAs are fair game for use, unless obviously wrong (which is all in the eye of the beholder. Its all a matter of what you can find. Most members of the Church only have access to certain ones that are thought to be fit for repetition and republication. Others are more curious and have better resources and can construct opposing views out of more remote or well-hidden resources. You end up playing some kind of crazy infinite loop of a poker game with them- “I see your Hugh B. Brown and I’ll raise you a Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith!”
Comment by AHLDuke — March 6, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
I think that a haditha tradition would screw up our church as badly as the hadith have screwed up Islam. Some of the ugliest stuff touted as Islam comes from the hadith, which is only what we might expect when hearsay is treated as prophesy.
A prophet’s only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet, and the Lord, in the D&C, requires us to use the procedure of common consent to identify scripture. If we’re not one, we’re not His. The worst debacles of our theology, the so-called Adam God mess, the so-called blood atonement mess, and the zany apologetics for certain racist former policies, are all examples of what happens when we fail to heed the section 50 procedures of common consent.
Comment by C — March 6, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
#17 — that’s not “ambivalence” unless we accept your concept of what constitutes “civil rights.” There is no civil right to rewrite the language of others.
Comment by C — March 6, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
“There is no civil right to rewrite the language of others…”
True enough, but the rhetorical battle in the public square was lost to gays and their supporters decades ago. When people in the bloggernacle (and in the Evangelical community) revert to these “special rights” arguments, I’m always struck by how completely out-of-touch they seem. Nobody is listening outside the echo-chamber of certain insular sub-cultures. There would need to be some brand new arguments to turn back the political tide at this point, and I don’t see those forthcoming.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 8, 2008 @ 10:54 am
To echo #44 - When religionists (including Mormons) started arguing that sexuality is a scientific issue (by claiming that everything but monogamous heterosexuality is “unnatural”), they lost the debate. Pure and simple - that contest is lost and cannot be won. It was flawed from the beginning and never should have been waged, and our current situation is a direct result of that botched battle.
The political battle in society at large is lost - and I can’t cry about that, given the deeply flawed reasoning and hypocritical stances employed by those who lost it. (Don’t get me started on the hypocrisy.) Well-intentioned ends don’t justify terribly flawed means and warped perceptions and mean-spirited, narrow-minded bigotry, and the current Church leaders appear to understand the overall issue better than their predecessors. There is a reasonable middle ground on this issue, and too few conservative Christians are willing to attempt it, but I see the Church moving there - and I am glad to see it.
Comment by Ray — March 8, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
So then one can argue that in a sense the Mormon hadiths are “reforming,” albeit organically and slowly. Maybe that’s for the best.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 8, 2008 @ 7:47 pm