The founder of the Mormon Church had up to 40 wives.
November 11, 2014 1:31 PM Subscribe
For the first time, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints(Mormons) has admitted that their founder had up to 40 plural wives, some as young as 14, others already married to other men. This is the latest essay in a series of essays covering some of the more controversial claims of the church. Others have included the ban on blacks until 1978, Joseph Smith's ability to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics, and using seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon
The older I get the plainer it seems to me that the singular essential component of western religions is patriarchy. More than any sweetness and light or saving souls, what really matters is that men rule. I wonder what a religion founded by women would look like. I really do.
posted by Anitanola at 1:46 PM on November 11, 2014 [93 favorites]
posted by Anitanola at 1:46 PM on November 11, 2014 [93 favorites]
Your post is interesting, damayanti, but in vain. It's not like the Mormon church is going to say, "Hey, yeah, you're right, I guess it's all made up." There's always the "Smith was just being guided by God" defense.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:47 PM on November 11, 2014
posted by Sangermaine at 1:47 PM on November 11, 2014
There's always the "Smith was just being guided by God" defense.
Isn't it weird how God spoke perfect vernacular Aramaic two thousand years ago, but hasn't kept up with human languages since?
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:51 PM on November 11, 2014 [54 favorites]
Isn't it weird how God spoke perfect vernacular Aramaic two thousand years ago, but hasn't kept up with human languages since?
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:51 PM on November 11, 2014 [54 favorites]
This was an interesting link. Certainly doesn't do anything to raise the mormon ideology in my esteem though! That one on the racist history of the church was such a shitty self-justifying, responsibility-shirking pile of crap, for example.
posted by latkes at 1:52 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by latkes at 1:52 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
it seems like the ces letter [pdf] is probably in some way related to this new (mealymouthed, still bathed in lies) truth telling that's coming out of salt lake and might be interesting for people to read who don't already know about it. also, the writer of the letter was on the mormon stories podcast.
posted by nadawi at 1:55 PM on November 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 1:55 PM on November 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
You're right, Sangermaine; but honestly, even as an agnostic, the "God did it" excuse would make me happier, because in the end, it's more honest- better to admit you have no evidence beyond "I believe God did it" than present shaky evidence that's so easily knocked down. It's actually kind of contrary to the spirit of the posts, as the NYTimes article outlines: people don't like finding out they're being lied to, so they're coming clean on the more easily debunked aspects of their church's history.
I guess it'll be a while (if ever) before they reach the same state as more liberal sects of Judaism and Christianity who, in the face of overwhelming textual and linguistic evidence that the Torah wasn't written by one person at one time, are happy to play the "Definitely not written by Moses, but inspired by God" game. On the other hand, they've already essentially done so on the Book of Abraham, so maybe it'll be sooner than I think.
posted by damayanti at 1:56 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
I guess it'll be a while (if ever) before they reach the same state as more liberal sects of Judaism and Christianity who, in the face of overwhelming textual and linguistic evidence that the Torah wasn't written by one person at one time, are happy to play the "Definitely not written by Moses, but inspired by God" game. On the other hand, they've already essentially done so on the Book of Abraham, so maybe it'll be sooner than I think.
posted by damayanti at 1:56 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
I wonder what a religion founded by women would look like. I really do.
Well, there's Tenri-kyo, which is a religion founded in the Japanese provincial city of Tenri (about 100 km east of Osaka) in 1838. Tenrikyo is still going strong and has temples and other facilities in most cities in Japan, and also operates a university.
I couldn't tell you if it was "better" than other presumably patriarchal religions.
In the 19th Century in Japan a ton of "New Religions" were created, and these new religions became especially popular following WWII, both because there was greater freedom to practice whatever religion you chose, and also because new religions offered a lot of people immediately after the war some sort of social mobility, especially women who, in rural areas, were still excluded to a large extent from education and most jobs.
My own mother-in-law was a lead practitioner in a local "new religion" that's chief aim was to collect alms as a sort of pyramid scheme. She was very good at collecting alms, with the downside that she neglected her own family.
So I am not too sure that religions created and run by women are *always* a good thing. Besides, if you read the Parables, much of what Jesus taught for example is universally true.
posted by Nevin at 1:59 PM on November 11, 2014 [17 favorites]
Well, there's Tenri-kyo, which is a religion founded in the Japanese provincial city of Tenri (about 100 km east of Osaka) in 1838. Tenrikyo is still going strong and has temples and other facilities in most cities in Japan, and also operates a university.
I couldn't tell you if it was "better" than other presumably patriarchal religions.
In the 19th Century in Japan a ton of "New Religions" were created, and these new religions became especially popular following WWII, both because there was greater freedom to practice whatever religion you chose, and also because new religions offered a lot of people immediately after the war some sort of social mobility, especially women who, in rural areas, were still excluded to a large extent from education and most jobs.
My own mother-in-law was a lead practitioner in a local "new religion" that's chief aim was to collect alms as a sort of pyramid scheme. She was very good at collecting alms, with the downside that she neglected her own family.
So I am not too sure that religions created and run by women are *always* a good thing. Besides, if you read the Parables, much of what Jesus taught for example is universally true.
posted by Nevin at 1:59 PM on November 11, 2014 [17 favorites]
I wonder what a religion founded by women would look like. I really do.
There are plenty of 'new-age' type movements that have had women at their helm. They have the level of integrity that you've come to expect from religions started by men.
posted by el io at 2:02 PM on November 11, 2014 [31 favorites]
There are plenty of 'new-age' type movements that have had women at their helm. They have the level of integrity that you've come to expect from religions started by men.
posted by el io at 2:02 PM on November 11, 2014 [31 favorites]
nadawi, I think it's in directly related to the CES letter. It's related in the sense that many troubling facts in the past were dismissed by the church as lies from their "anti-Mormon" enemies. With so much access to information they can't ask their members to ignore these issues anymore and I believe the strategy is to address the issues so they no longer look like they are hiding them. I suspect in the coming decades they will distance themselves from strong truth claims about the historicity of the BoM or accuracy of Joseph Smith's translation abilities. Essentially making it all about faith without any hard facts to dispute.
posted by ShakeyJake at 2:02 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by ShakeyJake at 2:02 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Joseph Smith had up to 40 wives. Muhammad had 11 or 13 wives. Compare and contrast:
"Joseph Smith is unique among those who claim a prophetic calling. He had at least fifteen witnesses to specific events in his divine calling --
viewed and hefted the BOM plates,
heard the voice of the Lord,
Direct contact with divine personages -- Moroni, John the Baptist, and the apostles Peter, James and John
Joint vision of the Saviour
Mohammed has only himself as a witness. Just another dime a dozen claimant."
posted by iviken at 2:07 PM on November 11, 2014
"Joseph Smith is unique among those who claim a prophetic calling. He had at least fifteen witnesses to specific events in his divine calling --
viewed and hefted the BOM plates,
heard the voice of the Lord,
Direct contact with divine personages -- Moroni, John the Baptist, and the apostles Peter, James and John
Joint vision of the Saviour
Mohammed has only himself as a witness. Just another dime a dozen claimant."
posted by iviken at 2:07 PM on November 11, 2014
It's almost as though Mormonism was patently complete bollocks.
posted by Segundus at 2:09 PM on November 11, 2014 [46 favorites]
posted by Segundus at 2:09 PM on November 11, 2014 [46 favorites]
ShakeyJake - i also think it's directly related, but i know the church will obviously never admit that. i also think work done by mormon stories, ordain women, etc laid the groundwork for the ces letter to take root. i think you can see that shift from "anti-mormon enemies" to "no let us explain" to (hopefully) "well these are some nice stories but the basis of them is unimportant" when places like fairmormon are actually taking the time to respond. during my days as a member it was all "the people who speak out against the church are lying and you know they're lying because i told you they were and if you research it further you won't be in good standing in the church."
posted by nadawi at 2:12 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 2:12 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Well, there's Tenri-kyo, which is a religion founded in the Japanese provincial city of Tenri (about 100 km east of Osaka) in 1838. Tenrikyo is still going strong and has temples and other facilities in most cities in Japan, and also operates a university.
I used to live near Tenri. It's a bit like Salt Lake City, but with way more Judo students.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:13 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
I used to live near Tenri. It's a bit like Salt Lake City, but with way more Judo students.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:13 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
I'm a little conflicted about this. I believe very strongly in ecunemicalism and respect for other's beliefs, so I'm not always comfortable with denigration of other faiths. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Mormons can take it. Lord knows they have been persecuted much more harshly in the past.
I had the chance firsthand to experience the Mormon faith during my first few years living in Japan. I was hired by a "language institute" that had been started by American Mormons (the school principal was from Boston). All of the teachers were recruited from BYU in Provo, and for a time I actually lived with an American Mormon family.
There were some odd things about the culture, but if you live overseas in a different culture (eg, Japan) you kind of have to learn to accept other points of view.
Mormonism seemed to have spoken to these folks very strongly (a number of these folks were converts) and they never tried to impose their beliefs on me.
So I always feel a little bad when making fun of Mormons.
posted by Nevin at 2:20 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
I had the chance firsthand to experience the Mormon faith during my first few years living in Japan. I was hired by a "language institute" that had been started by American Mormons (the school principal was from Boston). All of the teachers were recruited from BYU in Provo, and for a time I actually lived with an American Mormon family.
There were some odd things about the culture, but if you live overseas in a different culture (eg, Japan) you kind of have to learn to accept other points of view.
Mormonism seemed to have spoken to these folks very strongly (a number of these folks were converts) and they never tried to impose their beliefs on me.
So I always feel a little bad when making fun of Mormons.
posted by Nevin at 2:20 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
el io: There are plenty of 'new-age' type movements that have had women at their helm. They have the level of integrity that you've come to expect from religions started by men.
Yeah, the problem of patriarchal organizations can't be solved by just having a woman at the helm. A religion founded by a woman, but maintaining patriarchal structures, would not be an improvement. The problem isn't necessarily who's running everything--this is true in all contexts, not just religions: for example, the UK didn't become less patriarchal when Margaret Thatcher was running things.
And yet at the same time, I think a lack of women in leadership roles is part of the reason patriarchal structures remain entrenched. Having more women in visible leadership positions (who are considered intellectual equals and treated with respect by the other leaders) would most likely reduce the patriarchal influences within an organization.
I am not a Mormon and never have been, but I'm fascinated by the LDS church and I have a real admiration for the increasing numbers of women in it who are starting to speak out and defy the patriarchal old guard (see all of nadawi's examples).
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 2:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [11 favorites]
Yeah, the problem of patriarchal organizations can't be solved by just having a woman at the helm. A religion founded by a woman, but maintaining patriarchal structures, would not be an improvement. The problem isn't necessarily who's running everything--this is true in all contexts, not just religions: for example, the UK didn't become less patriarchal when Margaret Thatcher was running things.
And yet at the same time, I think a lack of women in leadership roles is part of the reason patriarchal structures remain entrenched. Having more women in visible leadership positions (who are considered intellectual equals and treated with respect by the other leaders) would most likely reduce the patriarchal influences within an organization.
I am not a Mormon and never have been, but I'm fascinated by the LDS church and I have a real admiration for the increasing numbers of women in it who are starting to speak out and defy the patriarchal old guard (see all of nadawi's examples).
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 2:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [11 favorites]
I'm sort of disappointed there's never been a post yet on The Urantia Book; it is in its way an impressive piece of work whose authorship is apparently unknown, and that's what I find intriguing about it -- there's no con artist like Hubbard or Smith lurking behind it to explain why it exists.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
As noted in the CES letter, Joseph Smith would tell these young teenage girls that if they didn't marry him, (1) an angel with a drawn sword would kill him, and (2) the girl and her entire family would lose any chance at salvation and would basically go straight to Hell. He was the leader of their religion so of course his threats would have been terrifying to them and extremely coercive. I can only assume that most LDS faithful are unaware of the history here (or I suppose deep in denial -- the LDS church essays suggest that Smith was marrying these women but not having sex with them, which seems laughably naive).
posted by Mallenroh at 2:25 PM on November 11, 2014 [20 favorites]
posted by Mallenroh at 2:25 PM on November 11, 2014 [20 favorites]
Mormons seem nuts because it all happened so recently. Similar impossible happening get a total pass in mainstream Christianity because they happened so long ago, when magic was real and dinosaurs walked the Earth, I guess.
posted by cccorlew at 2:26 PM on November 11, 2014 [27 favorites]
posted by cccorlew at 2:26 PM on November 11, 2014 [27 favorites]
Christian Science was founded by a woman.
posted by empath at 2:27 PM on November 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by empath at 2:27 PM on November 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
Mormons seem nuts because it all happened so recently. Similar impossible happening get a total pass in mainstream Christianity because they happened so long ago, when magic was real and dinosaurs walked the Earth, I guess.
Won't be long until they've moved to the 'allegory' defense.
posted by empath at 2:28 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Won't be long until they've moved to the 'allegory' defense.
posted by empath at 2:28 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Mormons can take it. Lord knows they have been persecuted much more harshly in the past.
i think like a lot of the things being discussed in these essays, the mormons telling of their own persecution should maybe be viewed with a critical eye. after i left the church i learned that a lot of the persecutions were actually two sided skirmishes with victims and aggressors on both sides. i'm glad that some people have had some nice experiences with mormons, hell - some of the people i love most in the world are mormons, but i think there has to be room to discuss when their storytelling doesn't match reality (and how their persecution complex can be very damaging to the people in the religion, and how the very strong patriarchal nature of it is practiced in some pretty abusive ways).
posted by nadawi at 2:29 PM on November 11, 2014 [14 favorites]
i think like a lot of the things being discussed in these essays, the mormons telling of their own persecution should maybe be viewed with a critical eye. after i left the church i learned that a lot of the persecutions were actually two sided skirmishes with victims and aggressors on both sides. i'm glad that some people have had some nice experiences with mormons, hell - some of the people i love most in the world are mormons, but i think there has to be room to discuss when their storytelling doesn't match reality (and how their persecution complex can be very damaging to the people in the religion, and how the very strong patriarchal nature of it is practiced in some pretty abusive ways).
posted by nadawi at 2:29 PM on November 11, 2014 [14 favorites]
I wonder what a religion founded by women would look like. I really do.
there's always "christian" "science"
kermit died for your sins.
posted by ennui.bz at 2:30 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
there's always "christian" "science"
kermit died for your sins.
posted by ennui.bz at 2:30 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
whose authorship is apparently unknown
As in "this author, who has published a bunch of books already, claims the manuscript appeared out of nowhere, and he later said he doesn't believe in supernatural phenomena so he's probably telling the truth"...
posted by effbot at 2:31 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
As in "this author, who has published a bunch of books already, claims the manuscript appeared out of nowhere, and he later said he doesn't believe in supernatural phenomena so he's probably telling the truth"...
posted by effbot at 2:31 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
There is of course the Mountain Meadows massacre.
posted by Nevin at 2:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Nevin at 2:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
From the LDS:
That being said, if the current position of the church was articulated 30 years ago by anyone else it would also come off as a direct attack on Mormonism (I think).
posted by el io at 2:40 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27Is anyone else here (non Mormon, that is) finding it difficult to come up with any commentary directly on this matter that doesn't come off as LOLMormon? I find pretty much any commentary I have would sound pretty offensive to practicing Mormons.
That being said, if the current position of the church was articulated 30 years ago by anyone else it would also come off as a direct attack on Mormonism (I think).
posted by el io at 2:40 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
There is of course the Mountain Meadows massacre.
also Nauvoo, and Kirtland, and everywhere else that they got run out of because they only bought and sold to other members of the church, and voted en masse to get their own people in power. Being persecuted doesn't have quite the same self-righteous ring to it when you're being persecuted for a series of dick moves.
posted by floweringjudas at 2:45 PM on November 11, 2014 [18 favorites]
also Nauvoo, and Kirtland, and everywhere else that they got run out of because they only bought and sold to other members of the church, and voted en masse to get their own people in power. Being persecuted doesn't have quite the same self-righteous ring to it when you're being persecuted for a series of dick moves.
posted by floweringjudas at 2:45 PM on November 11, 2014 [18 favorites]
And yet at the same time, I think a lack of women in leadership roles is part of the reason patriarchal structures remain entrenched. Having more women in visible leadership positions (who are considered intellectual equals and treated with respect by the other leaders) would most likely reduce the patriarchal influences within an organization.
But when you have a strictly hierarchical religious organization, women are barred from the real decision-making roles that would have this kind of influence. Since women can't become priests, they can't become bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, and since they can't become cardinals, they can't advocate for women to be allowed to join the priesthood. The outcome of the system is reinforced by its structure, which is exactly how people who like the patriarchal system want it.
In contrast, religions without such strong hierarchies are more free to come to their own conclusions. The last decade or so has brought more female leadership to Islam, especially in the West, but also in Turkey. While these advances may be condemned by hardliners, no one outside of the theocratic states can be excommunicated or disciplined by their religion for allowing women to serve in leadership. Similarly, branches of Orthodox Judaism treat women deplorably in my opinion (while recognizing that plenty of Orthodox women appreciate their roles and would fight against any changes), but many Jews participate in branches that are fully egalitarian.
posted by zachlipton at 2:54 PM on November 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
But when you have a strictly hierarchical religious organization, women are barred from the real decision-making roles that would have this kind of influence. Since women can't become priests, they can't become bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, and since they can't become cardinals, they can't advocate for women to be allowed to join the priesthood. The outcome of the system is reinforced by its structure, which is exactly how people who like the patriarchal system want it.
In contrast, religions without such strong hierarchies are more free to come to their own conclusions. The last decade or so has brought more female leadership to Islam, especially in the West, but also in Turkey. While these advances may be condemned by hardliners, no one outside of the theocratic states can be excommunicated or disciplined by their religion for allowing women to serve in leadership. Similarly, branches of Orthodox Judaism treat women deplorably in my opinion (while recognizing that plenty of Orthodox women appreciate their roles and would fight against any changes), but many Jews participate in branches that are fully egalitarian.
posted by zachlipton at 2:54 PM on November 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
"Yeah, the problem of patriarchal organizations can't be solved by just having a woman at the helm. A religion founded by a woman, but maintaining patriarchal structures, would not be an improvement."
So true. We've become so immersed in patriarchal organizations that it's difficult to imagine a truly different structure. I do think more women in meaningful leadership positions infiltrating patriarchal structures will help. "When governing bodies are 51% women, surely it will be possible to empower women equally with men," (she said, hopefully.)
posted by Anitanola at 2:58 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
So true. We've become so immersed in patriarchal organizations that it's difficult to imagine a truly different structure. I do think more women in meaningful leadership positions infiltrating patriarchal structures will help. "When governing bodies are 51% women, surely it will be possible to empower women equally with men," (she said, hopefully.)
posted by Anitanola at 2:58 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Zachlipton, religions without strong hierarchies have trouble making much money or gaining much power. A religion without a hierarchy is a small, disorganized group of people and not a religion as we recognize it.
posted by blnkfrnk at 2:59 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by blnkfrnk at 2:59 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
they got run out of because they only bought and sold to other members of the church, and voted en masse.
Reminds me of homophobic bakeries, oil change shops with christian fishes in the window, and the moral majority as a voting block. Not the same thing, but it reminds me.
posted by el io at 3:01 PM on November 11, 2014
Reminds me of homophobic bakeries, oil change shops with christian fishes in the window, and the moral majority as a voting block. Not the same thing, but it reminds me.
posted by el io at 3:01 PM on November 11, 2014
Mormons seem nuts because it all happened so recently. Similar impossible happening get a total pass in mainstream Christianity because they happened so long ago, when magic was real and dinosaurs walked the Earth, I guess.
I think this is a lot of it -- older religions (or even just older parts of Christianity) have had a lot longer to smooth off the rough edges and find ways to fine tune the parts that don't withstand so much scrutiny. And even after well over a thousand years of smoothing off the rough edges, there are plenty of things in mainstream Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) that is at least as weird as anything in Mormonism.
The difference is that the LDS is having this process happen in full view of the modern media and while still being new enough to continue to get a lot of theological pushback from other Christian sects, so the legitimate lulz are mixed up with biased lulz and plenty of casual onlookers. It's a necessary process, but it can't be easy to be on the inside of it.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:02 PM on November 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
I think this is a lot of it -- older religions (or even just older parts of Christianity) have had a lot longer to smooth off the rough edges and find ways to fine tune the parts that don't withstand so much scrutiny. And even after well over a thousand years of smoothing off the rough edges, there are plenty of things in mainstream Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) that is at least as weird as anything in Mormonism.
The difference is that the LDS is having this process happen in full view of the modern media and while still being new enough to continue to get a lot of theological pushback from other Christian sects, so the legitimate lulz are mixed up with biased lulz and plenty of casual onlookers. It's a necessary process, but it can't be easy to be on the inside of it.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:02 PM on November 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
to be clear - when we talk about mountain meadows we're talking about the time a militia made up of mormons dressed like indians and murdered a fuckton of people, yeah?
"The adult men were separated from the women and children. The men were paired with a militia escort. When a signal was given, the militiamen turned and shot the male members of the Baker–Fancher party standing by their side. The women and children were then ambushed and killed by more militia that were hiding in nearby bushes and ravines. Members of the militia were sworn to secrecy. A plan was set to blame the massacre on the Native Americans. The militia did not kill some small children who were deemed too young to relate the story. These children were taken in by local Mormon families. Seventeen of the children were later reclaimed by the U.S. Army and returned to relatives in Arkansas.posted by nadawi at 3:02 PM on November 11, 2014 [21 favorites]
They would probably take this as an insult, but Mormon beliefs are weird. So are the beliefs of Rastafarians and I wouldn't want to live in a world without Rastafarians. The problem is that Mormons think they are normal. And none of us are.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:05 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:05 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
i don't think mormons would take that as an insult - sure, in the last 10 years or so mormons have been doing a whole "we're just like you!" thing in their pr, but prior to that there was a big push for "mormons are a peculiar people." they considered it a great compliment to be noticed as not like everyone else.
posted by nadawi at 3:09 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 3:09 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yes, the Mountain Meadows massacre was when Mormon militias massacred a bunch of folks. Is there some other interpretation of "Mormon Meadows massacre"?
posted by Nevin at 3:13 PM on November 11, 2014
posted by Nevin at 3:13 PM on November 11, 2014
I'm sort of disappointed there's never been a post yet on The Urantia Book
Jaco Pastorius was way into this. Hence, his composition named Havona.
posted by thelonius at 3:18 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Jaco Pastorius was way into this. Hence, his composition named Havona.
posted by thelonius at 3:18 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Nevin - i was only confused because another poster had put it in a list of things that aren't as cut and dried as far as fault is concerned so i wanted to make sure we were all discussing the same thing...
posted by nadawi at 3:20 PM on November 11, 2014
posted by nadawi at 3:20 PM on November 11, 2014
Well, it's a try.
This is a response to a phenomenon that was first point out to me by Fred Clark (my favorite Evangelical Christian blogger who runs the blog slacktivist). He notes that in the Evangelical community, or at least the conservative part of it, there is a long running effort to basically tell lots of lies to children (and adults), usually lies of omission or lies of gently editing things to make them seem a bit better than they were. He notes that this seemed, to him as an outsider, to also be a feature of Mormonism. And he notes that, even if he weren't ideologically opposed to systemically lying to people to keep them in the faith, it never really worked well and in a world with an internet it doesn't work at all.
He says he knows personally several people who grew up in the arch-conservative Evangelical world and had their faith shattered by exposure to the truth after they grew up surrounded by a sea of comforting lies. He advocated very strongly that even if the leaders of those religions didn't have any concern for the truth in and of itself that it was in their best self interest to present the truth simply because keeping it from the faithful is utterly impossible.
The Mormons, at least, seem to be making an attempt at that. It's ham handed and clumsy, as first efforts generally are, but it is an effort. It remains to be seen whether the effort will fade into the background and become forgotten or whether the LDS leadership has the whatittakes to spread their truth telling and make it part of the standard Mormon education packet. Up until now young Mormons were told by their leadership that of course Joseph Smith never had more than one wife and any claims to the contrary were just anti-Mormon propaganda, will that continue, or will the effort (however clumsy) to tell (and justify) the truth survive?
To me that's a more interesting question than the LOL Mormons bit. Not that I don't enjoy me some LOL Mormons stuff, but been there, done that.
posted by sotonohito at 3:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [15 favorites]
This is a response to a phenomenon that was first point out to me by Fred Clark (my favorite Evangelical Christian blogger who runs the blog slacktivist). He notes that in the Evangelical community, or at least the conservative part of it, there is a long running effort to basically tell lots of lies to children (and adults), usually lies of omission or lies of gently editing things to make them seem a bit better than they were. He notes that this seemed, to him as an outsider, to also be a feature of Mormonism. And he notes that, even if he weren't ideologically opposed to systemically lying to people to keep them in the faith, it never really worked well and in a world with an internet it doesn't work at all.
He says he knows personally several people who grew up in the arch-conservative Evangelical world and had their faith shattered by exposure to the truth after they grew up surrounded by a sea of comforting lies. He advocated very strongly that even if the leaders of those religions didn't have any concern for the truth in and of itself that it was in their best self interest to present the truth simply because keeping it from the faithful is utterly impossible.
The Mormons, at least, seem to be making an attempt at that. It's ham handed and clumsy, as first efforts generally are, but it is an effort. It remains to be seen whether the effort will fade into the background and become forgotten or whether the LDS leadership has the whatittakes to spread their truth telling and make it part of the standard Mormon education packet. Up until now young Mormons were told by their leadership that of course Joseph Smith never had more than one wife and any claims to the contrary were just anti-Mormon propaganda, will that continue, or will the effort (however clumsy) to tell (and justify) the truth survive?
To me that's a more interesting question than the LOL Mormons bit. Not that I don't enjoy me some LOL Mormons stuff, but been there, done that.
posted by sotonohito at 3:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [15 favorites]
"The church’s disclosures, in a series of essays online, are part of an effort to be transparent about its history"
This is so funny in that sad, tragic way that always happens when discussing the raw cognitive dissonance on display that is the history of the Mormons. They've persecuted so many church historians over the years, from what my friends in Salt Lake City who follow these things have been telling me.
posted by Catblack at 3:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
This is so funny in that sad, tragic way that always happens when discussing the raw cognitive dissonance on display that is the history of the Mormons. They've persecuted so many church historians over the years, from what my friends in Salt Lake City who follow these things have been telling me.
posted by Catblack at 3:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I ate a vegetarian Thanksgiving dinner gratis at a matriarch-led church in the East Bay last year. Some old bald-headed woman who's supposed to be divinely perfect. Who cares? The feed they put on was excellent and I ignore the religious part. Will probably be going again this year!
posted by telstar at 3:25 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by telstar at 3:25 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Speaking of patriarchy. The Columbia professor, Bushman, is quoted in the NYT article as saying "there's no single fact that's more unsettling than Joseph Smith's marriage to other men's wives." So what I'm getting from this is a) the possibility of a woman being married to more than one man is more unsettling than the possibility of a man being married to more than one woman, and b) marrying other men's wives is more unsettling than marrying a 14 year old girl. Is there a more charitable interpretation that I'm missing here? Because as I'm reading it now, I'm finding this evaluation pretty distasteful.
posted by ootandaboot at 3:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [24 favorites]
posted by ootandaboot at 3:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [24 favorites]
jokes aside, i think The World Famous is pretty awesome in these threads. he and i disagree about quite a few things but i've always found him to have interesting perspectives relayed in non-emotional ways about the church.
posted by nadawi at 3:36 PM on November 11, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 3:36 PM on November 11, 2014 [12 favorites]
@Nevin, re the Mountain Meadows Massacre, yes.
First off, note the use of the word "massacre", which at the time was almost exclusively reserved for the killing of white people by native Americans. Just by calling the event by that name Mormons were working to deflect the crime onto Indians rather than themselves.
Then there's the historical markers. In 1930 the first was erected and it read:
Then in 1990 a new marker was put up that made the whole thing even more vague:
A secondary plaque talking about the monument replaced the 1930's plaque and read as follows:
Note also that the LDS Church owns the land the memorial is on, the only message that can be put there is one they approve.
The newest edition, from 2011, finally leaves off the passive voice and admits who did the killing.
So yeah, no one was actually out there outright saying that Mormons were completely innocent, but in the Utah the truth was obfuscated, not spoken of, and generally suppressed.
posted by sotonohito at 3:37 PM on November 11, 2014 [27 favorites]
First off, note the use of the word "massacre", which at the time was almost exclusively reserved for the killing of white people by native Americans. Just by calling the event by that name Mormons were working to deflect the crime onto Indians rather than themselves.
Then there's the historical markers. In 1930 the first was erected and it read:
Mountain MeadowsNote the use of the passive voice, and the complete omission of who exactly the "white men" who killed the Missourians might be. Also note the continued attempt to blame the event on the Indians. This is fairly typical use of the passive voice in historical markers to give a wrong impression to the casual reader (see Lies Across America for a more in depth analysis of this)
A favorite recruiting place on the Old Spanish Trail
In this vicinity, September 7–11, 1857 occurred one of the most lamentable tragedies in the annals of the west. A company of about 140 Arkansas and Missouri Emigrants led by Captain Charles Fancher, en route to California, was attacked by white men and Indians. All but 17, being small children, were killed. John D. Lee, who confessed participation as leader, was legally executed here March 23, 1877. Most of the Emigrants were buried in the own defense pits.
This monument was reverently dedicated September 10, 1932 by The Utah Pioneer Trails and Landmarks Association and The People of Southern Utah.
Then in 1990 a new marker was put up that made the whole thing even more vague:
IN MEMORIAMThe passive voice is much stronger and all reference to who did the killing is completely gone.
In the valley below between September 7 and 11, 1857, a company of more than 120 Arkansas emigrants led by Capt. John T. Baker And Capt. Alexander Fancher was attacked while en route to California. This event is known in history as the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
A secondary plaque talking about the monument replaced the 1930's plaque and read as follows:
MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRENote here the specifics vs the omissions. It says that the memorial was built, but not that it was built by the people who killed the settlers. By doing so it serves to give the impression that the Mormons in the area were trying to help, not that they were the perpetrators of a mass murder.
This stone memorial marks the burial site for some of those killed in the Mountain Meadows Massacre in September 1857. The Baker-Fancher party camped here – a well-known stopping place along the Old Spanish Trail.
The first memorial was erected at this location in May 1859 by Brevet Major James H. Carleton and 80 soldiers of the First Dragoons from Fort Tejon, California. Assisting were Captains Reuben P. Campbell and Charles Brewer, with 201 from Camp Floyd, Utah. The bones of about 34 of the emigrants were buried here. The remains of others were buried one and one-half miles to the north, near the place of the massacre.
The original memorial – consisting of a stone cairn topped with a cedar cross and a small granite marker set against the north side of the cairn – was not maintained. The Utah Trails and Landmarks Association built a protective wall around what remained of the 1859 memorial and, on September 10, 1932, installed a bronze marker. That marker was replaced with the present inscription in conjunction with the dedication of the nearby memorial on September 15, 1990
Note also that the LDS Church owns the land the memorial is on, the only message that can be put there is one they approve.
The newest edition, from 2011, finally leaves off the passive voice and admits who did the killing.
In memory of the emigrant men and boys from Arkansas massacred here in Mountain Meadows on September 11, 1857. Their lives were taken prematurely and wrongly by Mormon militiamen in one of the most tragic episodes in western American history.Much better. But note that it took over 150 years before a monument was erected that even touched on the truth.
May we forever remember and honor those buried in this valley. May we never forget this tragedy but learn from the past.
So yeah, no one was actually out there outright saying that Mormons were completely innocent, but in the Utah the truth was obfuscated, not spoken of, and generally suppressed.
posted by sotonohito at 3:37 PM on November 11, 2014 [27 favorites]
another poster had put it in a list of things that aren't as cut and dried as far as fault is concerned so i wanted to make sure we were all discussing the same thing...
if this is in response to my comment, then yeah, we were talking about the same thing. I'm aware that murder and kidnapping (and trying to frame an actual persecuted group for it and, hey, spending a century pretending it never happened) is more egregious than not being a patron of a nonmember's general store.
posted by floweringjudas at 3:40 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
if this is in response to my comment, then yeah, we were talking about the same thing. I'm aware that murder and kidnapping (and trying to frame an actual persecuted group for it and, hey, spending a century pretending it never happened) is more egregious than not being a patron of a nonmember's general store.
posted by floweringjudas at 3:40 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Martin Gardner wrote a whole book about Urantia:
Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery
It turns out it was renegade Seventh Day Adventists in Chicago.
posted by njohnson23 at 3:42 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery
It turns out it was renegade Seventh Day Adventists in Chicago.
posted by njohnson23 at 3:42 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
floweringjudas - agreed - i was just actually confused by the structure of your comment - i didn't mean it as an insult.
catblack - it should be obvious that i'm not a cheerleader for the church and also will never see eye to eye with my family - but i don't think it's derailing to discuss his views as a mormon especially in response to a comment about how mormons would be offended by something said.
posted by nadawi at 3:46 PM on November 11, 2014
catblack - it should be obvious that i'm not a cheerleader for the church and also will never see eye to eye with my family - but i don't think it's derailing to discuss his views as a mormon especially in response to a comment about how mormons would be offended by something said.
posted by nadawi at 3:46 PM on November 11, 2014
So yeah, no one was actually out there outright saying that Mormons were completely innocent, but in the Utah the truth was obfuscated, not spoken of, and generally suppressed.
Although I'm pretty sure you'll agree, this is generally part of our heritage as North Americans. It's part of the heritage of any dominant culture. There is the official history, and then there is the "real" history. Personally, I think that "real" history can only be told by individuals.
posted by Nevin at 3:49 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Although I'm pretty sure you'll agree, this is generally part of our heritage as North Americans. It's part of the heritage of any dominant culture. There is the official history, and then there is the "real" history. Personally, I think that "real" history can only be told by individuals.
posted by Nevin at 3:49 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I see these efforts as steadying the ark more than open and honest disclosures. For those paying attention the essays just magically show up as indexed topics on LDS.org. The church isn't publishing them to members in their monthly magazines or highlighting them on the front page of the website. They are more meant to be found rather than advertised.
So next time a member stumbles across the information that Joseph used the same rock he searched for buried treasure to translate "Reformed Egyptian" into the Book of Mormon, at least there will be some information from the church that attempts to explain why this shouldn't be problematic.
I think a early screening question for LDS missionaries to potential converts should be "do you believe it is possible for god to make magic rocks that translate unknown languages?". Because magic rocks are really the starting point and you should at least be on board with that possibility.
posted by ShakeyJake at 3:49 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
So next time a member stumbles across the information that Joseph used the same rock he searched for buried treasure to translate "Reformed Egyptian" into the Book of Mormon, at least there will be some information from the church that attempts to explain why this shouldn't be problematic.
I think a early screening question for LDS missionaries to potential converts should be "do you believe it is possible for god to make magic rocks that translate unknown languages?". Because magic rocks are really the starting point and you should at least be on board with that possibility.
posted by ShakeyJake at 3:49 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
On a practical level, if you find those white-shirted jackasses at your door, and would like to scatter them like crickets before seagulls, just speak this seven-word mantra:
"I used to live in Salt Lake."
They will disappear like salted slugs.
Note--there are mishies in SLC, but they do not seem to do door-to-door messaging.
posted by hexatron at 3:52 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
"I used to live in Salt Lake."
They will disappear like salted slugs.
Note--there are mishies in SLC, but they do not seem to do door-to-door messaging.
posted by hexatron at 3:52 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
nadawi - No worries, no offense taken! Mostly I was just trying to throw in that Mountain Meadows was the escalation of a pattern of isolationism that existed in the early days.
posted by floweringjudas at 3:54 PM on November 11, 2014
posted by floweringjudas at 3:54 PM on November 11, 2014
damayanti: "So I poked around, and followed the cited link about Hebraisms, which, since it's from a book, only had some of the text, and the one thing visible was basically "saying "plates of brass" instead of "brass plates"". Some further poking around led to sites like this, and has some further things like using "It came to pass" a lot, some particular types of sentence constructions, etc.
The problem is that nobody seems to address the fact that these things would also happen if Joseph Smith was consciously or unconsciously mimicking "Biblical style", see what I just said about the King James Bible above."
From Mark Twain's Roughing It:
The problem is that nobody seems to address the fact that these things would also happen if Joseph Smith was consciously or unconsciously mimicking "Biblical style", see what I just said about the King James Bible above."
From Mark Twain's Roughing It:
It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle—keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, accourding to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason...posted by Old Man McKay at 3:55 PM on November 11, 2014 [32 favorites]
...Whenever he found his speech growing too modern—which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as "exceeding sore," "and it came to pass," etc., and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to pass" was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.
Ok, one more Twain quote from that amazing chapter.
I can't resist.
I can't resist.
Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has “seen the engravings which are upon the plates,” and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either.posted by Old Man McKay at 3:58 PM on November 11, 2014 [9 favorites]
Speaking of patriarchy. The Columbia professor, Bushman, is quoted in the NYT article as saying "there's no single fact that's more unsettling than Joseph Smith's marriage to other men's wives."I assume this means unsettling from a religious point of view. The Bible has plenty of examples of polygamy, and has nothing much to say about ages of consent, but a man taking someone else's wife is one of the few moral issues that the Bible really does take a side on. There's the passage in the ten commandments about not coveting a neighbor's wife (or his ass) and there's David and Bathsheba.
So, I think he's right that, from a religious point of view, marrying another man's wife is the most clearly over the line thing Smith did.
posted by chrchr at 4:08 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Is there a more charitable interpretation that I'm missing here?
Yes, that breaking up other people's marriages in order to take one of them as a spouse is a bad thing.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:14 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Yes, that breaking up other people's marriages in order to take one of them as a spouse is a bad thing.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:14 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
cccorlew: "Mormons seem nuts because it all happened so recently. Similar impossible happening get a total pass in mainstream Christianity because they happened so long ago, when magic was real and dinosaurs walked the Earth, I guess."
I wouldn't phrase it quite this way, but I was going to say something similar. One of the world religions textbooks I taught out of said that Mohammed was the first founder of a religion to live in the "full harsh light of history" and therefore it's a lot easier for people to judge his actions than, say, Jesus's. And, in fact, there are some early crises in Islam, in the 700s and 800s, when particular political or religious leaders became OBSESSED with erasing various (extra-Koranic) textual evidence that ran contrary to their preferred interpretations and mythologizing.
Joseph Smith lived an even more fully-recorded life, in much more recent memory, so of course he's much easier to judge than the Buddha.
I feel about Mormonism the same way I feel about most faiths, including my own -- parts of it are beautiful, parts of it are silly -- but Mormonism is SO FASCINATING because watching a fairly large, entrenched religion go through these processes of canon formation, myth making, fitting theology to history and vice versa in real time is ENDLESSLY FASCINATING to me, and it really helps illuminate how those processes might have worked in much older religions. We have a pretty good idea of how early Christians, for example, came to agree on a mostly-unified history of their church and how that history was to be interpreted theologically, but it's words on a page, and there are big gaps, and parts of it are totally mysterious, and sometimes you wonder, "Why did people get so upset about that thing that they were having riots in the street?" or "Why did this thing bother the Romans so much?" Watching the Mormons literally go through it live! on the internet! I'm constantly like, "oooohhhhhhh, no wonder people got so emotional about things!" or "yeah, okay, I can see why the dominant political culture dislikes this idea." It is SO INTERESTING.
I don't mean to sound dismissive like I'm watching a soap opera of people's real lives; just that everything about this process is enlightening and interesting and I feel lucky to get to watch it, and glad the LDS are having these discussions so publicly so that outsiders can watch it, even while I appreciate that for many people it is intensely personal and emotional and I would never denigrate or dismiss that.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:16 PM on November 11, 2014 [40 favorites]
I wouldn't phrase it quite this way, but I was going to say something similar. One of the world religions textbooks I taught out of said that Mohammed was the first founder of a religion to live in the "full harsh light of history" and therefore it's a lot easier for people to judge his actions than, say, Jesus's. And, in fact, there are some early crises in Islam, in the 700s and 800s, when particular political or religious leaders became OBSESSED with erasing various (extra-Koranic) textual evidence that ran contrary to their preferred interpretations and mythologizing.
Joseph Smith lived an even more fully-recorded life, in much more recent memory, so of course he's much easier to judge than the Buddha.
I feel about Mormonism the same way I feel about most faiths, including my own -- parts of it are beautiful, parts of it are silly -- but Mormonism is SO FASCINATING because watching a fairly large, entrenched religion go through these processes of canon formation, myth making, fitting theology to history and vice versa in real time is ENDLESSLY FASCINATING to me, and it really helps illuminate how those processes might have worked in much older religions. We have a pretty good idea of how early Christians, for example, came to agree on a mostly-unified history of their church and how that history was to be interpreted theologically, but it's words on a page, and there are big gaps, and parts of it are totally mysterious, and sometimes you wonder, "Why did people get so upset about that thing that they were having riots in the street?" or "Why did this thing bother the Romans so much?" Watching the Mormons literally go through it live! on the internet! I'm constantly like, "oooohhhhhhh, no wonder people got so emotional about things!" or "yeah, okay, I can see why the dominant political culture dislikes this idea." It is SO INTERESTING.
I don't mean to sound dismissive like I'm watching a soap opera of people's real lives; just that everything about this process is enlightening and interesting and I feel lucky to get to watch it, and glad the LDS are having these discussions so publicly so that outsiders can watch it, even while I appreciate that for many people it is intensely personal and emotional and I would never denigrate or dismiss that.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:16 PM on November 11, 2014 [40 favorites]
From the "ban on blacks" link:
In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed.
Yes, that must have been an awkward moment.
posted by zippy at 4:29 PM on November 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed.
Yes, that must have been an awkward moment.
posted by zippy at 4:29 PM on November 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
Since the Prophet of the church has so much responsibility and power, there's a check & balance of a sort. Any Prophet who gets out of line faces the risk of being slain by God.
Because what Joseph Smith did is terrible by any reckoning, even by believers, I keep wondering when the LDS will use this doctrine regarding Smith. Not only was he stealing wives, but as the end drew closer, he was getting more and more unhinged. Some of his sermons from his last months are quite interesting.
This doctrine of Involuntary Prophet Retirement might be what's needed to rehabilitate him. Keep him as the most important of all the Prophets but admit he was flawed and God took him before he could do any further damage.
I once ran this idea by some Mormon friends of mine. They were shocked at first, definitely thought this would never happen, but seemed strangely intrigued by it. So, maybe it's something the faithful occasionally think about, since many of Smith's later actions are highly questionable at best. And he really did die before he could provoke the sort of retaliation which would have wiped the church out. The timing of his death would fit the doctrine well.
posted by honestcoyote at 4:33 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Because what Joseph Smith did is terrible by any reckoning, even by believers, I keep wondering when the LDS will use this doctrine regarding Smith. Not only was he stealing wives, but as the end drew closer, he was getting more and more unhinged. Some of his sermons from his last months are quite interesting.
This doctrine of Involuntary Prophet Retirement might be what's needed to rehabilitate him. Keep him as the most important of all the Prophets but admit he was flawed and God took him before he could do any further damage.
I once ran this idea by some Mormon friends of mine. They were shocked at first, definitely thought this would never happen, but seemed strangely intrigued by it. So, maybe it's something the faithful occasionally think about, since many of Smith's later actions are highly questionable at best. And he really did die before he could provoke the sort of retaliation which would have wiped the church out. The timing of his death would fit the doctrine well.
posted by honestcoyote at 4:33 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
On a practical level, if you find those white-shirted jackasses at your door, and would like to scatter them like crickets before seagulls, just speak this seven-word mantra:
Once again, because of my experience with LDS I'm conflicted. When these folks come to the door, I try to be friendly, but they take it the wrong way and then start to return again and again, hoping to convert me.
Ecunemicalism is not a two-way street.
I've often thought that the "missions" that LDS and the JW's are sent out on are not done to actually convert people (although LDS is the world's fastest growing church). At least locally it's a way of demonstrating to people in the congregation that the outside world is full of hostile non-believers. It's a bonding ritual that has little to do with actually proselytizing.
posted by Nevin at 4:37 PM on November 11, 2014 [21 favorites]
Once again, because of my experience with LDS I'm conflicted. When these folks come to the door, I try to be friendly, but they take it the wrong way and then start to return again and again, hoping to convert me.
Ecunemicalism is not a two-way street.
I've often thought that the "missions" that LDS and the JW's are sent out on are not done to actually convert people (although LDS is the world's fastest growing church). At least locally it's a way of demonstrating to people in the congregation that the outside world is full of hostile non-believers. It's a bonding ritual that has little to do with actually proselytizing.
posted by Nevin at 4:37 PM on November 11, 2014 [21 favorites]
Echoing Eyebrows McGee, Mormonism is the first religion I know of that was founded and became popular after the advent of the printing press. So multiple copies of everything was kept, including the kookiest of the kooky. The previous religions were lucky in that not many copies of their weirdnesses were made in the first place and that events (like the Albigensian Crusade, which wiped out all Cathar writings) helped them get rid of these. Things were copied down. Things that the church really wishes were not copied down.
On the other hand, which is worse, a prohibition against those of a different tribe from joining your religion or a flat out decree to go and perform genocide? The racism of the time was horrible. But at least Joseph Smith's god wasn't ordering whole scale massacre, unlike Samuel and David's.
(The Mountain Medows Massacre is extra interesting actually. The events there are related to the Mormons fearing another round of persecution, especially given their worsening relations with the US government. This eventually ended with the Mormon War, in which federal troops were sent to pacify Utah, showed up, did nothing and went home.)
posted by Hactar at 4:41 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, which is worse, a prohibition against those of a different tribe from joining your religion or a flat out decree to go and perform genocide? The racism of the time was horrible. But at least Joseph Smith's god wasn't ordering whole scale massacre, unlike Samuel and David's.
(The Mountain Medows Massacre is extra interesting actually. The events there are related to the Mormons fearing another round of persecution, especially given their worsening relations with the US government. This eventually ended with the Mormon War, in which federal troops were sent to pacify Utah, showed up, did nothing and went home.)
posted by Hactar at 4:41 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
"if you find those white-shirted jackasses at your door..."
I've chatted with these folks in the streets (trying to convert me). I've found they are *remarkably* educated about most world religions. More so than I've ever encountered in my life.
Mind you, they still don't have any good answer to "why should I believe your holy book, instead of another religions holy book? Yeah, it *says* its the true word of god, but that's pretty common among holy books." But I don't think there is any good answer to that question.
Remarkably affable folks though, and happy to have a short thoughtful discussion (in my experiences).
posted by el io at 4:42 PM on November 11, 2014
I've chatted with these folks in the streets (trying to convert me). I've found they are *remarkably* educated about most world religions. More so than I've ever encountered in my life.
Mind you, they still don't have any good answer to "why should I believe your holy book, instead of another religions holy book? Yeah, it *says* its the true word of god, but that's pretty common among holy books." But I don't think there is any good answer to that question.
Remarkably affable folks though, and happy to have a short thoughtful discussion (in my experiences).
posted by el io at 4:42 PM on November 11, 2014
Mormonism is the first religion I know of that was founded and became popular after the advent of the printing press.
I'm not sure if I agree with this at all. The Reformation was made possible because of the printing press. At the time, Lutheranism and so on were most certainly considered to be "new religions." Long and bloody wars were fought over the nature of these new religions.
posted by Nevin at 4:45 PM on November 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
I'm not sure if I agree with this at all. The Reformation was made possible because of the printing press. At the time, Lutheranism and so on were most certainly considered to be "new religions." Long and bloody wars were fought over the nature of these new religions.
posted by Nevin at 4:45 PM on November 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
I almost want missionaries to show up at my door. If they do, are they allowed to just talk about their life and how they ended up where they are, etc. I don't want to talk theology, but I find the process of (even though it is generally expected) going to a completely new city or country to convert people fascinating.
posted by Hactar at 4:47 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Hactar at 4:47 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
ootandaboot: "b) marrying other men's wives is more unsettling than marrying a 14 year old girl. Is there a more charitable interpretation that I'm missing here? Because as I'm reading it now, I'm finding this evaluation pretty distasteful."
Dude, Smith died in the 1830s on the Illinois frontier. If he married a 14-year-old, he was hardly the only one. Laura Ingalls and Almanzo Wilder started courting when she was 15 and he was 25 (in the 1880s). In By the Shores of Silver Lake, Laura and her cousin Lena talk about a girl who's 13, married, and keeping house (in the 1870s, I think). My own grandmother was 14 when she started dating my 19-year-old grandfather in the late 1930s, although they didn't get married until after the war by which time she was 19 or 20. The U.S. is barely 100 years removed from 14-year-old girls marrying being so common as to be relatively unremarkable, especially in frontier areas. Average age of first marriage on the American frontier was around 19 or 20 for women; it was about 2 years higher for the US as a whole (and it rose rapidly towards the mean in frontier eras as they settled up). Marriage in frontier areas was largely viewed as an economic arrangement, not a romantic one, and frequently followed patterns well-known to patriarchal societies engaging in subsistence agriculture -- established men with enough property to feed a wife taking a much younger wife, who became a burden on her parents as she was largely socially prohibited from working in the fields but was merely replicating her mother's labor in the home.
Not that Joseph Smith had the excuse of being engaged in subsistence agriculture (or needing a wife, really), but "married a 14-year-old" would hardly stand as a scandal in Illinois and Missouri in the 1820s and 1830s.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:47 PM on November 11, 2014 [11 favorites]
Dude, Smith died in the 1830s on the Illinois frontier. If he married a 14-year-old, he was hardly the only one. Laura Ingalls and Almanzo Wilder started courting when she was 15 and he was 25 (in the 1880s). In By the Shores of Silver Lake, Laura and her cousin Lena talk about a girl who's 13, married, and keeping house (in the 1870s, I think). My own grandmother was 14 when she started dating my 19-year-old grandfather in the late 1930s, although they didn't get married until after the war by which time she was 19 or 20. The U.S. is barely 100 years removed from 14-year-old girls marrying being so common as to be relatively unremarkable, especially in frontier areas. Average age of first marriage on the American frontier was around 19 or 20 for women; it was about 2 years higher for the US as a whole (and it rose rapidly towards the mean in frontier eras as they settled up). Marriage in frontier areas was largely viewed as an economic arrangement, not a romantic one, and frequently followed patterns well-known to patriarchal societies engaging in subsistence agriculture -- established men with enough property to feed a wife taking a much younger wife, who became a burden on her parents as she was largely socially prohibited from working in the fields but was merely replicating her mother's labor in the home.
Not that Joseph Smith had the excuse of being engaged in subsistence agriculture (or needing a wife, really), but "married a 14-year-old" would hardly stand as a scandal in Illinois and Missouri in the 1820s and 1830s.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:47 PM on November 11, 2014 [11 favorites]
The World Famous: " my understanding is that 14-year-old girls marrying was absolutely not common, at all, though it was not entirely un-heard-of. "
Well -- "so common as to be unremarkable," which is far too wordy a way of saying "not common, but not a black swan." It's at the outer edge of the bell-curve age distribution in Illinois for that era, but it's not like people were writing letters going "AND SHE WAS ONLY FOURTEEN!" They'd just be like, "Lucia Bell got married, good ceremony." Such a marriage, lacking other features like pre-existing pregnancy or plural marriage, was neither scandalous nor particularly remarkable (especially if a family had multiple daughters and/or not a lot of property). It was never the norm, but those 14- and 15-year-olds do exert some gravity on the average age of marriage for the frontier because there are a reasonable number of them.
Which is to say we're in general agreement, and that if Smith were just some 40-year-old Methodist preacher marrying a 14-year-old girl on the frontier (and not a polygamist prophet), the reaction probably would have been, "Well, she's young, but good for her, landing a preacher."
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:00 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
Well -- "so common as to be unremarkable," which is far too wordy a way of saying "not common, but not a black swan." It's at the outer edge of the bell-curve age distribution in Illinois for that era, but it's not like people were writing letters going "AND SHE WAS ONLY FOURTEEN!" They'd just be like, "Lucia Bell got married, good ceremony." Such a marriage, lacking other features like pre-existing pregnancy or plural marriage, was neither scandalous nor particularly remarkable (especially if a family had multiple daughters and/or not a lot of property). It was never the norm, but those 14- and 15-year-olds do exert some gravity on the average age of marriage for the frontier because there are a reasonable number of them.
Which is to say we're in general agreement, and that if Smith were just some 40-year-old Methodist preacher marrying a 14-year-old girl on the frontier (and not a polygamist prophet), the reaction probably would have been, "Well, she's young, but good for her, landing a preacher."
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:00 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
my understanding and research about the ages of marriage match up with The World Famous - while not utterly unheard of (wasn't unheard of in rural arkansas in 1994, either), it was certainly not common place - especially when you consider the age gap between smith and his younger brides.
posted by nadawi at 5:01 PM on November 11, 2014
posted by nadawi at 5:01 PM on November 11, 2014
In the 1800s, most women married in their 20s.
http://signaturebooks.com/2011/06/craig-foster-defends-joseph-smiths-underage-marriages/
It was in fact uncommon to see 14 year olds marry, particularly much older men. It's one thing for a 14 year old to marry an 18 year old; another thing to marry a 38 year old. Under coercion and duress, no less.
I also don't see the relevance of the Laura Ingalls Wilder anecdote. What does it have to do with anything if she was dating Almanzo Wilder at 15? She didn't get married until she was 18. Those seem to be quite different things.
Joseph Smith's behavior with these girls is not defensible.
posted by Mallenroh at 5:03 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
http://signaturebooks.com/2011/06/craig-foster-defends-joseph-smiths-underage-marriages/
It was in fact uncommon to see 14 year olds marry, particularly much older men. It's one thing for a 14 year old to marry an 18 year old; another thing to marry a 38 year old. Under coercion and duress, no less.
I also don't see the relevance of the Laura Ingalls Wilder anecdote. What does it have to do with anything if she was dating Almanzo Wilder at 15? She didn't get married until she was 18. Those seem to be quite different things.
Joseph Smith's behavior with these girls is not defensible.
posted by Mallenroh at 5:03 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
i can't find it now, but i read a really interesting post somewhere recently which took excerpts of brigham young's letters to priesthood holders who were inquiring about if a girl was too young or not for polygamy/marriage. from my memory he seemingly kept repeating that it was important to let the girls grow, mature, to let their parents raise them - maybe even mentioning that the mother should be relied on to know when her daughter was ready. i think the post was also talking about ages of first menstruation (and how ours are much younger). if i remember correctly the point was that even in the church it was frowned upon to take wives as young as smith took them.
posted by nadawi at 5:09 PM on November 11, 2014
posted by nadawi at 5:09 PM on November 11, 2014
>'We have a pretty good idea of how early Christians, for example, came to agree on a mostly-unified history of their church ... parts of it are totally mysterious, and sometimes you wonder, "Why did people get so upset about that thing that they were having riots in the street?" or "Why did this thing bother the Romans so much?"'
My classics prof used to say that the Romans assimilated the religions of conquered peoples because, like bread and circuses, they saw no conflict in having numerous religions and it pacified people. They did not recognize the threat Christianity, with its Judaic roots, posed to Rome because it seemed to them simply another of numerous mystery religions--and the rituals not even as gory as the bulls' blood bath practiced by the dominant warrior religion. Don't know how true this was but the first three centuries must have been extremely interesting, in the way Eyebrows McGee points out.
posted by Anitanola at 5:23 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
My classics prof used to say that the Romans assimilated the religions of conquered peoples because, like bread and circuses, they saw no conflict in having numerous religions and it pacified people. They did not recognize the threat Christianity, with its Judaic roots, posed to Rome because it seemed to them simply another of numerous mystery religions--and the rituals not even as gory as the bulls' blood bath practiced by the dominant warrior religion. Don't know how true this was but the first three centuries must have been extremely interesting, in the way Eyebrows McGee points out.
posted by Anitanola at 5:23 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Mallenroh: "I also don't see the relevance of the Laura Ingalls Wilder anecdote. "
By the time she wrote the books like 40 years later, she already felt compelled to fudge their ages so that it would be less scandalous to more modern readers, was the point I meant to make but failed to make completely.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
By the time she wrote the books like 40 years later, she already felt compelled to fudge their ages so that it would be less scandalous to more modern readers, was the point I meant to make but failed to make completely.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
When I was living in cedar city utah my wife and I were driving around out of boredom (there is nothing to do in southern utah in the winter if you don't ski) and saw mountain meadow park. Completely unaware what it was we went in and checked it out. It's a weird thing to find randomly.
They have little metal tubes you look through that show you exactly where the settlers were massacred.
posted by Ferreous at 5:38 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
They have little metal tubes you look through that show you exactly where the settlers were massacred.
posted by Ferreous at 5:38 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Oh wait there is something to do. Go buy singles of high warm high strength beer at the liquor store located on the far outskirts of town and then drink while you're home and have no friends because everyone your age has 4 kids and are complaining to your landlord that they would rent to an unmarried couple.
posted by Ferreous at 5:42 PM on November 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Ferreous at 5:42 PM on November 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
Mallenroh: "In the 1800s, most women married in their 20s."
In the US as a whole, but not on the frontier, where the average age was 19-20, and went up quickly to match the national average when areas became reasonably settled. There are clearly different forces at work on the frontier w/r/t age of marriage for women.
Anyway I'm not that interested in defending Joseph Smith. Someone asked "why is it worse that he married a lot of women than that he married a 14-year-old?" In the 1830s in Illinois and Missouri, bigamy (or polygamy!) was a LOT more remarkable than marrying a 14-year-old, was my point.
I do think there's a larger and very interesting ethical discussion to be had about the historical practice of older men marrying 14-year-old girls, as recently as 100 years ago in the U.S., as many of those unions were plainly coercive but there were also many examples of women married in their early teens who were delighted with their marriage and had long, happy married lives, but that's not really the conversation about Joseph Smith.
And, if you want to dig into the religious angle, when you read Jane Austen or Lucy Maud Montgomery, the marriage of the local curate/preacher is particularly fraught, not just because he's socially desirable, but because he's in a position of authority that is easily abused and quite open to scandal in the seeking of wives, to the point that -- in Montgomery -- parishes frequently don't want to call unmarried ministers because it "stirs up trouble" in the congregation and if he screws up the wife-picking process, it can ruin his ministry completely and he'll have to be sent away. This is also why some denominations require men to be married before ordination -- they CAN marry, but only BEFORE they're in a position of authority. That's part of the problem with Joseph Smith, that he plainly abused his religious authority in order to gain access to young, female followers (or daughters or wives of followers). He's hardly the first, obviously, but it's a serious (and gross) charge.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:45 PM on November 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
In the US as a whole, but not on the frontier, where the average age was 19-20, and went up quickly to match the national average when areas became reasonably settled. There are clearly different forces at work on the frontier w/r/t age of marriage for women.
Anyway I'm not that interested in defending Joseph Smith. Someone asked "why is it worse that he married a lot of women than that he married a 14-year-old?" In the 1830s in Illinois and Missouri, bigamy (or polygamy!) was a LOT more remarkable than marrying a 14-year-old, was my point.
I do think there's a larger and very interesting ethical discussion to be had about the historical practice of older men marrying 14-year-old girls, as recently as 100 years ago in the U.S., as many of those unions were plainly coercive but there were also many examples of women married in their early teens who were delighted with their marriage and had long, happy married lives, but that's not really the conversation about Joseph Smith.
And, if you want to dig into the religious angle, when you read Jane Austen or Lucy Maud Montgomery, the marriage of the local curate/preacher is particularly fraught, not just because he's socially desirable, but because he's in a position of authority that is easily abused and quite open to scandal in the seeking of wives, to the point that -- in Montgomery -- parishes frequently don't want to call unmarried ministers because it "stirs up trouble" in the congregation and if he screws up the wife-picking process, it can ruin his ministry completely and he'll have to be sent away. This is also why some denominations require men to be married before ordination -- they CAN marry, but only BEFORE they're in a position of authority. That's part of the problem with Joseph Smith, that he plainly abused his religious authority in order to gain access to young, female followers (or daughters or wives of followers). He's hardly the first, obviously, but it's a serious (and gross) charge.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:45 PM on November 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
They did not recognize the threat Christianity, with its Judaic roots, posed to Rome because it seemed to them simply another of numerous mystery religions
I don't think Christianity was really a threat to Rome per se. They had their own strands of monotheistic belief - such as worship of Sol Invictus - that were increasingly important as time went on, so the official conversion to Christianity wasn't as much of a break as one might think. You're going from having deified Emperors to having Emperors claiming to be divinely appointed - it's the other side of the same coin.
I actually think, in some ways, it was the Romans who were the threat to Christianity. Even before it was the state religion the Emperors started meddling in church affairs, deciding on doctrinal disputes, and using the church as a political instrument. It was the Romans who imposed their political structures (popes and vicars and dioceses) onto the church, and the division of the Empire that led to the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. So, you've got the Roman state to thank for turning a small-ish Eastern mystery cult into a world religion, but also for lumbering it with a lot of political and temporal baggage that it still carries.
posted by sobarel at 5:54 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
I don't think Christianity was really a threat to Rome per se. They had their own strands of monotheistic belief - such as worship of Sol Invictus - that were increasingly important as time went on, so the official conversion to Christianity wasn't as much of a break as one might think. You're going from having deified Emperors to having Emperors claiming to be divinely appointed - it's the other side of the same coin.
I actually think, in some ways, it was the Romans who were the threat to Christianity. Even before it was the state religion the Emperors started meddling in church affairs, deciding on doctrinal disputes, and using the church as a political instrument. It was the Romans who imposed their political structures (popes and vicars and dioceses) onto the church, and the division of the Empire that led to the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. So, you've got the Roman state to thank for turning a small-ish Eastern mystery cult into a world religion, but also for lumbering it with a lot of political and temporal baggage that it still carries.
posted by sobarel at 5:54 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
admitted that their founder had up to 40 plural wives
I also have <40 wives.
posted by the jam at 6:01 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
I also have <40 wives.
posted by the jam at 6:01 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
On a practical level, if you find those white-shirted jackasses at your door, and would like to scatter them like crickets before seagulls, just speak this seven-word mantra:
"I used to live in Salt Lake."
They will disappear like salted slugs.
Note--there are mishies in SLC, but they do not seem to do door-to-door messaging.
In my experience that would likely have the complete opposite effect. While on my mission I knew several return missionaries who had served in the SLC and Provo areas. While there aren't as many missionaries out that way, per capita, those that are stay very busy. They do a little bit of door-to-door work, mostly in high turnover places like apartments. Otherwise they have 25-50% of the population effectively out there helping them find people for them to teach.
And they are remarkably successful. The few that I knew rarely went a week without baptizing someone. Something that happened all of about 3 times during my 2 years.
I almost want missionaries to show up at my door. If they do, are they allowed to just talk about their life and how they ended up where they are, etc. I don't want to talk theology, but I find the process of (even though it is generally expected) going to a completely new city or country to convert people fascinating.
That depends quite a bit on the individuals. There is, of course, an extremely strong emphasis to stay on message, as it were. But it would really depend on who was sitting across from you on your couch. I would not expect a lot of small talk though.
posted by ericales at 6:27 PM on November 11, 2014
A weird thing I noticed in southern Utah was that all the missionaries that came to our door were non-whites. I don't really know what it meant, but it seemed a bit strange.
posted by Ferreous at 6:40 PM on November 11, 2014
posted by Ferreous at 6:40 PM on November 11, 2014
“As I was going to St. Ives
I met a man with forty wives.
Every wife had forty sacks.
Every sack had forty cats.
Every cat had forty kits.
Kits, cats, sacks and wives
How many were going to St. Ives?”
The answer will amaze you!
posted by SPrintF at 6:51 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I met a man with forty wives.
Every wife had forty sacks.
Every sack had forty cats.
Every cat had forty kits.
Kits, cats, sacks and wives
How many were going to St. Ives?”
The answer will amaze you!
posted by SPrintF at 6:51 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
> admitted that their founder had up to 40 plural wives
I also have < 40 wives.
Maybe, but how many of them are plural?
posted by sour cream at 6:58 PM on November 11, 2014
I also have < 40 wives.
Maybe, but how many of them are plural?
posted by sour cream at 6:58 PM on November 11, 2014
are they allowed to just talk about their life and how they ended up where they are,
Have you tried drawing out telemarketers like this? You could gain deep insights into the lives of upper-middle-class Indians and prison inmates.
Or not.
Talking to anyone who is an 'always be closing' kind of guy is just not worthwhile.
And becoming that shallow, goal-oriented, faithless, underhanded, and totally untrustable POS is likely the real purpose of the lds mission. Cynical leaders who can turn their theology on a dime don't just grow on trees...
posted by hexatron at 6:59 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Have you tried drawing out telemarketers like this? You could gain deep insights into the lives of upper-middle-class Indians and prison inmates.
Or not.
Talking to anyone who is an 'always be closing' kind of guy is just not worthwhile.
And becoming that shallow, goal-oriented, faithless, underhanded, and totally untrustable POS is likely the real purpose of the lds mission. Cynical leaders who can turn their theology on a dime don't just grow on trees...
posted by hexatron at 6:59 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
i dunno - i've known a fuckton of missionaries in my time and they're all basically 19yr old kids (and a few slightly older women) who are as varied as anyone else - some are annoying, some have that newly trained meth'd out telemarketer feel to them, but a lot of them are just getting through their day doing the thing they think they're supposed to do when they'd probably rather be swimming or texting a crush or listening to music with a little bit of soul or a beat. don't answer the door, think you have the hidden secret to make them scatter, invite them in and offer them a drink, whatever floats your boat, just seems weird to me to vilify them or think they're all the same.
posted by nadawi at 7:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 7:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [10 favorites]
The whole thing about "Egyptian hieroglyphics," becomes a lot clearer when you note that the Rosetta Stone was cracked in 1823, just a few years before Joseph Smith "discovered" the plates.
There was a craze for all things Egyptian during that period, and the hot architectural style was called Egyptian Revival, one of the most famous examples of which is the Washington Monument.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:31 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
There was a craze for all things Egyptian during that period, and the hot architectural style was called Egyptian Revival, one of the most famous examples of which is the Washington Monument.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:31 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
A friend of mine who got his doctrate at UU told me that most of the proselytizers he encountered were Jehovah's Witnesses.
posted by brujita at 7:50 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by brujita at 7:50 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints(Mormons) has admitted that their founder had up to 40 plural wives, some as young as 14, others already married to other men."
The church admission suggests that the marriage to the 14 year old and other men's wives was symbolic and didn't involve sex. (Although it grants the possibility.)
The New York Times summarizes this as "Smith probably did not have sexual relations with all of his wives, because some were “sealed” to him only for the next life, according to the essays posted by the church".
As an atheist who has never met a Mormon, I find this reporting misleading (and inflammatory) since the issue of sex with the underage girl and other men's wives is both automatically assumed and quite central to people's judgement of this story, the founder, and the religion.
On the other hand I find the church essay far too vague on the issue of sex as well. It's really the central issue and needs to be examined inpornographic detail.
Don't tell me that the man had 40 "wives" and that "some" of the marriages were more than afterlife pacts*. A spiritual marriage is conceptually distinct from a sexual marriage, so the inflated number is misleading to an ordinary reader. How many women was Smith a true bigamist with? Evidence is spare... give us a well-considered estimate. I imagine the number of his extra wives that bore children would be a fairly good indicator.
* Note that NYT article suggests that only some of the marriages were spiritual, while the essay suggests that only some of the marriages were sexual.
posted by dgaicun at 8:00 PM on November 11, 2014
The church admission suggests that the marriage to the 14 year old and other men's wives was symbolic and didn't involve sex. (Although it grants the possibility.)
The New York Times summarizes this as "Smith probably did not have sexual relations with all of his wives, because some were “sealed” to him only for the next life, according to the essays posted by the church".
As an atheist who has never met a Mormon, I find this reporting misleading (and inflammatory) since the issue of sex with the underage girl and other men's wives is both automatically assumed and quite central to people's judgement of this story, the founder, and the religion.
On the other hand I find the church essay far too vague on the issue of sex as well. It's really the central issue and needs to be examined in
Don't tell me that the man had 40 "wives" and that "some" of the marriages were more than afterlife pacts*. A spiritual marriage is conceptually distinct from a sexual marriage, so the inflated number is misleading to an ordinary reader. How many women was Smith a true bigamist with? Evidence is spare... give us a well-considered estimate. I imagine the number of his extra wives that bore children would be a fairly good indicator.
* Note that NYT article suggests that only some of the marriages were spiritual, while the essay suggests that only some of the marriages were sexual.
posted by dgaicun at 8:00 PM on November 11, 2014
I simply have to link to the story of Joseph Smith, as explained by South Park. (Wikipedia recap.) They also find it...fishy.
My favorite part: Lucy Harris, smart smart smart.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:15 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
My favorite part: Lucy Harris, smart smart smart.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:15 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
Oh, and I forgot to say that I love how in the link above, Joseph Smith's first wife was all, he just had no linguistic ability to even write this stuff.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:18 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:18 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Nevin: "it's a way of demonstrating to people in the congregation that the outside world is full of hostile non-believers."
That's an interesting point. I know I've done my part to be hostile any number of times. My wife likes to tell them, "I believe differently than you. That's ok, and it's ok that you believe differently than me."
Come to think of it, she's probably done more to break some poor wooly-headed missionaries out of their bonds of faith than I ever did...
posted by notsnot at 9:01 PM on November 11, 2014
That's an interesting point. I know I've done my part to be hostile any number of times. My wife likes to tell them, "I believe differently than you. That's ok, and it's ok that you believe differently than me."
Come to think of it, she's probably done more to break some poor wooly-headed missionaries out of their bonds of faith than I ever did...
posted by notsnot at 9:01 PM on November 11, 2014
Interesting things: Wikipedia has (of course) a list of Joseph Smith's wives, including their age and other marital status. The youngest among the plural-wives who were already married was Zina Diantha Huntington (Jacobs), who was twenty at the time. If teenage marriage were very common you would think that Smith would have plural-married some already-married teenagers. This is not the case.
There is ongoing DNA research to identify descendants of Joseph Smith through Y-chromosome testing. All descendants identified thus far are descended from Smith's first wife, Emma, although this test is intrinsically limited to children in an unbroken male line from the progenitor. Only one daughter was allegedly born to a plural-wife. I don't know if autosomal (i.e., not X- or Y-chromosome) DNA testing has been done to confirm or refute this allegation.
It's quite possible that other children were born to Joseph Smith and his plural-wives, but their history has gone unrecorded: either because they were stillborn or died as infants, or because they were simply never told. Of the nine children born to Emma, four were stillborn or died shortly after birth. This seems somewhat high to me, but not necessarily unusual. Four of Joseph Smith's other (non-adopted) children survived to adulthood; they had twenty-eight children between them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:03 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
There is ongoing DNA research to identify descendants of Joseph Smith through Y-chromosome testing. All descendants identified thus far are descended from Smith's first wife, Emma, although this test is intrinsically limited to children in an unbroken male line from the progenitor. Only one daughter was allegedly born to a plural-wife. I don't know if autosomal (i.e., not X- or Y-chromosome) DNA testing has been done to confirm or refute this allegation.
It's quite possible that other children were born to Joseph Smith and his plural-wives, but their history has gone unrecorded: either because they were stillborn or died as infants, or because they were simply never told. Of the nine children born to Emma, four were stillborn or died shortly after birth. This seems somewhat high to me, but not necessarily unusual. Four of Joseph Smith's other (non-adopted) children survived to adulthood; they had twenty-eight children between them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:03 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
At least locally [missionising is] a way of demonstrating to people in the congregation that the outside world is full of hostile non-believers. It's a bonding ritual that has little to do with actually proselytizing.
Where I live we get lots of Jehovah's Witnesses, often quite elderly ones. I only engaged in a conversation with them once - I was sitting in a park and one came up to me, and I tend to assume anyone doing this is an acquaintance I have forgotten. He started talking theology at me which was a very bad idea, particularly when he cited Biblical verses. I was "oooh! I know those ones! What about this one and that one? Don't you think Isaiah's prophecy regarding Cyrus is relevant here?"
He was very pissed off. I mean, he literally checked himself before saying goodbye. I presume he didn't want to bless me, even by implication.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:12 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Where I live we get lots of Jehovah's Witnesses, often quite elderly ones. I only engaged in a conversation with them once - I was sitting in a park and one came up to me, and I tend to assume anyone doing this is an acquaintance I have forgotten. He started talking theology at me which was a very bad idea, particularly when he cited Biblical verses. I was "oooh! I know those ones! What about this one and that one? Don't you think Isaiah's prophecy regarding Cyrus is relevant here?"
He was very pissed off. I mean, he literally checked himself before saying goodbye. I presume he didn't want to bless me, even by implication.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:12 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Thirty years ago, my meditation teacher gave me a mala…a simple string of 108 wooden beads. Now and then, I wear it under my shirt to remind me to be aware of the moment (sorry for the cliche) and to take a few breaths and to be grateful. Although temple garments/magic underwear seem to be more of a signifier of devotion to an institutional religion for those LDS members who wear these things, to be generous: this custom is just another signifier of faith. To those of us raised under the umbrella of Calvinism/Puritanism/Americanism, this may seem weird and misplaced. And to those of us who see the saffron thread worn by the Brahmins in India, this may seem to be semiotically identical as a signifier of superiority. Well, it's complicated. Maher smirks at magic underwear, but ironic T-shirts worn as symbolic representations as complicity with the Hipster Cult are not all that different, are they?
posted by kozad at 9:22 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by kozad at 9:22 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
"Only one daughter was allegedly born to a plural-wife."
Thanks. This suggests to me that the "40 wives" headline is insensitive and inflammatory against Mormons. Joseph Smith's true bigamy is being inflated by the media, when in reality he was less of a true bigamist than most non-Mormons believe. On top of that they are casually and haphazardly presenting a sacred figure as a pedophile and an adulterer without any sense that this characterization even deserves qualifiers.
posted by dgaicun at 9:22 PM on November 11, 2014
Thanks. This suggests to me that the "40 wives" headline is insensitive and inflammatory against Mormons. Joseph Smith's true bigamy is being inflated by the media, when in reality he was less of a true bigamist than most non-Mormons believe. On top of that they are casually and haphazardly presenting a sacred figure as a pedophile and an adulterer without any sense that this characterization even deserves qualifiers.
posted by dgaicun at 9:22 PM on November 11, 2014
When no one was looking, Joseph Smith
took forty wives. He took 40 wives.
That’s as many as four tens.
And that’s terrible.
posted by NMcCoy at 9:28 PM on November 11, 2014 [10 favorites]
took forty wives. He took 40 wives.
That’s as many as four tens.
And that’s terrible.
posted by NMcCoy at 9:28 PM on November 11, 2014 [10 favorites]
40 wives psshaw...I got about 115 spouses and MANY of them are wives. Don't think many of them are 14 though.
posted by a humble nudibranch at 10:16 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by a humble nudibranch at 10:16 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
dgaicun, given that Smith's first 'plural wife' was a 16 year old adoptive daughter his wife caught him fucking in the barn, I don't feel there's any need to treat him as some sacred delicate flower. He was yet another man using his made up religion to screw who he wanted.
posted by tavella at 10:19 PM on November 11, 2014 [13 favorites]
posted by tavella at 10:19 PM on November 11, 2014 [13 favorites]
"I don't feel there's any need to treat him as some sacred delicate flower."
That's not what I said. The media should act to convey information both fairly and accurately, and that Joseph Smith had "40 wives" appears to be at least misleading.
But of course fairness towards Mormons is not a high priority in the media or in U.S. culture. And going by the prominent quote used in the 'Book of Mormon' advertisements, the New York Times' prejudices here are quite gleeful and open. So why should I be surprised?
posted by dgaicun at 1:34 AM on November 12, 2014
That's not what I said. The media should act to convey information both fairly and accurately, and that Joseph Smith had "40 wives" appears to be at least misleading.
But of course fairness towards Mormons is not a high priority in the media or in U.S. culture. And going by the prominent quote used in the 'Book of Mormon' advertisements, the New York Times' prejudices here are quite gleeful and open. So why should I be surprised?
posted by dgaicun at 1:34 AM on November 12, 2014
dgaicum: In regards to fairness: imagine how Muslims feel.
In regards to 'Book of Mormon': it was written by a (former?) Mormon, and many of these Mormons didn't have a problem with it. I haven't seen it, have you?
posted by el io at 2:15 AM on November 12, 2014
In regards to 'Book of Mormon': it was written by a (former?) Mormon, and many of these Mormons didn't have a problem with it. I haven't seen it, have you?
posted by el io at 2:15 AM on November 12, 2014
... and that Joseph Smith had "40 wives" appears to be at least misleading.
This is just what the LDS church admitted to, isn't it? I don't see what qualifiers we can put on it without a lot more information than we're ever going to have. On the surface, it is exactly what it sounds like.
Besides, I think his personal behavior, as great or as horrible as it may have been, is insignificant next to the staggering fact that he misled people in matters of faith. Who am I to judge him, but think of how the beliefs he imposed on so many people altered their lives, caused them to make sacrifices they wouldn't otherwise have made. It's hard to calculate the entire impact of it. Surely the LDS church has done a lot of good in the world. But I doubt that, if I can't really get my arms around it all, with a hundred-and-fifty-year remote perspective, well, what calculation could Mr. Smith been making, at the moment he created his church?
posted by newdaddy at 3:48 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
This is just what the LDS church admitted to, isn't it? I don't see what qualifiers we can put on it without a lot more information than we're ever going to have. On the surface, it is exactly what it sounds like.
Besides, I think his personal behavior, as great or as horrible as it may have been, is insignificant next to the staggering fact that he misled people in matters of faith. Who am I to judge him, but think of how the beliefs he imposed on so many people altered their lives, caused them to make sacrifices they wouldn't otherwise have made. It's hard to calculate the entire impact of it. Surely the LDS church has done a lot of good in the world. But I doubt that, if I can't really get my arms around it all, with a hundred-and-fifty-year remote perspective, well, what calculation could Mr. Smith been making, at the moment he created his church?
posted by newdaddy at 3:48 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Joseph Smith referred to them as his wives, so I think that's how we should refer to them. If someone told me they were married to someone, I would not say to them, "no, you're not, you've never had sex with each other" or "no, you're not, you don't have any children together." That would be disrespectful.
I'm glad the Mormon Church has taken this (small) step towards truth-telling. I find it much easier to understand retcons you see in many religions ("well sure the Old Testament said that but it no longer applies") than flat-out lies which can be easily contradicted by the historical record.
posted by chaiminda at 5:13 AM on November 12, 2014 [5 favorites]
I'm glad the Mormon Church has taken this (small) step towards truth-telling. I find it much easier to understand retcons you see in many religions ("well sure the Old Testament said that but it no longer applies") than flat-out lies which can be easily contradicted by the historical record.
posted by chaiminda at 5:13 AM on November 12, 2014 [5 favorites]
On top of that they are casually and haphazardly presenting a sacred figure as a pedophile and an adulterer without any sense that this characterization even deserves qualifiers.
Ha, sacred figure. Man, I need to stop procrastinating and finally get around to starting that religion I've been meaning to.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 5:54 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
Ha, sacred figure. Man, I need to stop procrastinating and finally get around to starting that religion I've been meaning to.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 5:54 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
Anyone curious about more details can find many compiled at The Wives of Joseph Smith. In the NYTimes and in the comments above Helen Mar Kimball was mentioned due to her age, but the heartbreaking doublethink in her accounts of her experiences stands out as well.
posted by roystgnr at 6:37 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by roystgnr at 6:37 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
Mormons seem nuts because it all happened so recently. Similar impossible happening get a total pass in mainstream Christianity because they happened so long ago, when magic was real and dinosaurs walked the Earth, I guess.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. One of my main problems with (the more literal varieties of) religion is the claim that the universe was made especially for humans, when looking around, it seems the opposite is true: we know of one band, a few kilometres thick, around the surface of one planet which can support human life, as it happens to have the correct combination of an oxygen rich atmosphere, available surface water, acceptable temperatures and manageable surface gravity. This planet is one of many orbiting our star, which is one of 200 billion in the galaxy, which is one of 170 billion in the bit of the universe that we can see. Doing a back of the envelope calculation, about 0.000000000000000000000000001% of our solar system is habitable to humans. In light of how massive/tiny those numbers are, it seems so... arrogant, so provincial, so insular to believe that humans have this special place in everything.
Now, no one goes around thinking about how big the universe is all the time, it's just not how people work, and you'd go mad pretty soon if you tried. However, when something akin to a bible story is re-told in a modern setting, I think the mask slips a little because it's relatable, which isn't what you want from a myth. If someone told me a story of Jesus turning water into diet coke, I'd think it sounds sillier than the actual story, because I'd think 'Oh, someone obviously just made that up', or 'it's definitely too good to be true'. So yeah, I think there is inherently this provincial undercurrent running through all religions, because I think they were made by humans for humans, so end up giving way too much importance to humans. However, because the origins of Mormonism are so much closer to us than the origins of other religions, the undercurrent tends to come to the surface, where it's noticed and mocked much more often.
posted by Ned G at 7:04 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I pretty much agree. One of my main problems with (the more literal varieties of) religion is the claim that the universe was made especially for humans, when looking around, it seems the opposite is true: we know of one band, a few kilometres thick, around the surface of one planet which can support human life, as it happens to have the correct combination of an oxygen rich atmosphere, available surface water, acceptable temperatures and manageable surface gravity. This planet is one of many orbiting our star, which is one of 200 billion in the galaxy, which is one of 170 billion in the bit of the universe that we can see. Doing a back of the envelope calculation, about 0.000000000000000000000000001% of our solar system is habitable to humans. In light of how massive/tiny those numbers are, it seems so... arrogant, so provincial, so insular to believe that humans have this special place in everything.
Now, no one goes around thinking about how big the universe is all the time, it's just not how people work, and you'd go mad pretty soon if you tried. However, when something akin to a bible story is re-told in a modern setting, I think the mask slips a little because it's relatable, which isn't what you want from a myth. If someone told me a story of Jesus turning water into diet coke, I'd think it sounds sillier than the actual story, because I'd think 'Oh, someone obviously just made that up', or 'it's definitely too good to be true'. So yeah, I think there is inherently this provincial undercurrent running through all religions, because I think they were made by humans for humans, so end up giving way too much importance to humans. However, because the origins of Mormonism are so much closer to us than the origins of other religions, the undercurrent tends to come to the surface, where it's noticed and mocked much more often.
posted by Ned G at 7:04 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Josephine later wrote, “Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith”.
Sylvia Sessions Lyon, plural wife of Joseph Smith, from the "Wives of" link above. For what it's worth.
posted by newdaddy at 7:06 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Sylvia Sessions Lyon, plural wife of Joseph Smith, from the "Wives of" link above. For what it's worth.
posted by newdaddy at 7:06 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
dgaicun - it's really coming off like you've only read the essay presented by the lds and the new york times piece and literally nothing else ever on the issue of polygamy and the mormon church. you might want to poke around a little bit more and educate yourself. there is overwhelming evidence that smith practiced polygamy (and polyandry) and quite a bit of that evidence supports somewhere between 30 and 40 wives. these numbers are supported by multiple mormon historians.
posted by nadawi at 7:07 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 7:07 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
although LDS is the world's fastest growing church
I've heard this same claim made about many religions. I wonder where the data comes from.
posted by Pararrayos at 7:09 AM on November 12, 2014
I've heard this same claim made about many religions. I wonder where the data comes from.
posted by Pararrayos at 7:09 AM on November 12, 2014
the wiki page on growth of religion is interesting. seems like by pure numbers islam is the fastest growing faith in the world (but that doesn't seem to account for different sects within the religion). the lds seem to get crown for fastest growing in america - but poking around at sources and other searches i can't determine if they mean that in the usa the mormons are growing the fastest or if they mean that the mormons are the american religion that is growing the fastest world wide (or even that if you take their inception date and today's date and average the membership numbers that the mormons had the fastest over all growth historically). it's definitely a slippery type of claim that lots of religions use with lots of unseen qualifiers backing it up.
posted by nadawi at 7:22 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 7:22 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Joseph Smith was a manipulative dick. Read the LDS holy book The Doctrine and Covenants, specifically section 132 where god, through Joseph Smith tells his wife Emma that he should really let poor Joe get it on with whomever he wants or else god is going to smite her ass. But she'd better not be getting busy with anyone else or again with the smiting. Go ahead, read the whole thing and see if this is the biggest pile of hooey ever put together by someone looking to justify what he'd been up to. I mean, god doesn't allude to it, he calls her out by name.
54 - And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
posted by misterpatrick at 8:53 AM on November 12, 2014 [11 favorites]
54 - And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
posted by misterpatrick at 8:53 AM on November 12, 2014 [11 favorites]
Yeah, he also loved browbeating women into sleeping with him, for example Zina Huntington, because otherwise god would kill him and it would be their fault. Not to mention poor 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, who was told that otherwise her family might go to hell.
Joseph Smith was a monster.
posted by tavella at 9:11 AM on November 12, 2014 [8 favorites]
Joseph Smith was a monster.
posted by tavella at 9:11 AM on November 12, 2014 [8 favorites]
"My classics prof used to say that the Romans assimilated the religions of conquered peoples because, like bread and circuses, they saw no conflict in having numerous religions and it pacified people. They did not recognize the threat Christianity, with its Judaic roots, posed to Rome because it seemed to them simply another of numerous mystery religions--and the rituals not even as gory as the bulls' blood bath practiced by the dominant warrior religion. Don't know how true this was but the first three centuries must have been extremely interesting, in the way Eyebrows McGee points out."
… except that they martyred Christians for about 300 years. They treated Christianity as a threat to their imperial cult because it came about after the collapse of the pluralistic Republic, during which they were much more syncretic with local religions and mystery cults. But by the time that Christianity was investigated under Augustus, it was found to be an atheistic superstition, not a proper religion (based on honoring rites and traditions). Hellenized Judaism was tolerated, but Christianity was seen as a radical offshoot.
Just saying, that's a weird contention for a classics prof to make, since it's so widely contradicted by the historical record. Rome may have underestimated the threat of Christianity in the long term, but in the short term they very much overestimated the threat.
posted by klangklangston at 9:17 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
… except that they martyred Christians for about 300 years. They treated Christianity as a threat to their imperial cult because it came about after the collapse of the pluralistic Republic, during which they were much more syncretic with local religions and mystery cults. But by the time that Christianity was investigated under Augustus, it was found to be an atheistic superstition, not a proper religion (based on honoring rites and traditions). Hellenized Judaism was tolerated, but Christianity was seen as a radical offshoot.
Just saying, that's a weird contention for a classics prof to make, since it's so widely contradicted by the historical record. Rome may have underestimated the threat of Christianity in the long term, but in the short term they very much overestimated the threat.
posted by klangklangston at 9:17 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
I've heard this same claim made about many religions.
"Fastest growing church" != "fastest growing religion".
It wouldn't surprise me if the LDS Church is the fastest-growing church, even if Mormonism (or even Christianity, generally) isn't the fastest-growing religion or even close to it. Quite a few fast-growing religions (e.g. Islam) lack central churches.
The LDS Church is actually a sort of weird counterargument to claims that centralized religious authorities (like the Roman Catholic Church) have been outcompeted by decentralized religions.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:39 AM on November 12, 2014
"Fastest growing church" != "fastest growing religion".
It wouldn't surprise me if the LDS Church is the fastest-growing church, even if Mormonism (or even Christianity, generally) isn't the fastest-growing religion or even close to it. Quite a few fast-growing religions (e.g. Islam) lack central churches.
The LDS Church is actually a sort of weird counterargument to claims that centralized religious authorities (like the Roman Catholic Church) have been outcompeted by decentralized religions.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:39 AM on November 12, 2014
A couple of other things. The Mormons try to preempt the history of native America, by stating the Native Americans are of the twelve lost tribes of Israel. Now a professor at Utah State is trying to re-date the ancient Barrier Petroglyphs from 8-10,000 years ago, to exactly 2000 years ago, this makes a Sunday school lesson to back up Mormon claims Jesus of Nazareth walked the Americas. The newspaper article only has to happen once in church manipulated media then it becomes fact. Those panels are much older and have nothing to do with Christianity of any type.
Then Mormons are the largest consumers of porn in the US, this has been a matter of public discussion, but it simmered down after it first came out. In the local papers LDS women defended the use as a marital aid.
The papyrus from which the Book of Joseph came, showed up at auction a few years ago, It was translated before the sale, it is a business document and deals with utterly secular matters. You can bet that is stored somewhere never to be seen by a reputable translator ever again.
Very magical things did happen in Utah eons ago. Look up The Sego Canyon Petroglyphs to see what I mean. This site though a state park is slated to become an oil shale transport road.
posted by Oyéah at 11:05 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Then Mormons are the largest consumers of porn in the US, this has been a matter of public discussion, but it simmered down after it first came out. In the local papers LDS women defended the use as a marital aid.
The papyrus from which the Book of Joseph came, showed up at auction a few years ago, It was translated before the sale, it is a business document and deals with utterly secular matters. You can bet that is stored somewhere never to be seen by a reputable translator ever again.
Very magical things did happen in Utah eons ago. Look up The Sego Canyon Petroglyphs to see what I mean. This site though a state park is slated to become an oil shale transport road.
posted by Oyéah at 11:05 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Joseph Smith was a monster."
Can we refrain from saying things like this? Statements like this are unlikely to change peoples opinions, and aren't helpful to any sort of civil discourse. I don't see how any practicing Mormon could do anything with this statement other than view it as a personal attack.
posted by el io at 11:05 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Can we refrain from saying things like this? Statements like this are unlikely to change peoples opinions, and aren't helpful to any sort of civil discourse. I don't see how any practicing Mormon could do anything with this statement other than view it as a personal attack.
posted by el io at 11:05 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
This fastest growing church does this by having a lot of kids, often at least four per household. Mormons receive a patriarchal blessing that often discusses how many children they will have. They do not purge their rolls of non- practicing. Born to to Mormonism is the bump in numbers. To become a non-Mormon you either have to publicly really annoy the church, as Kitty Kelly has, or go through a length paperwork maze, including meetings. They don't drop people from their rolls, their membership numbers rest on newborns and the disaffected. They have no problem willfully destroying the ecosystem in Utah in favor of business and increase of their numbers, because prophesy says this will be destroyed, and they will all gather in Nauvoo when this happens. Incidentally the garden of Eden is supposed to have been there, on the Mississippi, amazing the ancient Israelites who wrote the book on this stuff, didn't remember this.
posted by Oyéah at 11:22 AM on November 12, 2014
posted by Oyéah at 11:22 AM on November 12, 2014
" They have no problem willfully destroying the ecosystem in Utah in favor of business and increase of their numbers, because prophesy says this will be destroyed."
Sounds Christian to me.
posted by el io at 11:28 AM on November 12, 2014
Sounds Christian to me.
posted by el io at 11:28 AM on November 12, 2014
agreed with a lot of that, Oyéah, but for what it's worth, getting removed from the rolls is pretty streamlined these days (with a built in 45 day waiting period). there are even websites built by ex-mormons to help walk people through the process.
posted by nadawi at 11:31 AM on November 12, 2014
posted by nadawi at 11:31 AM on November 12, 2014
I don't see how any practicing Mormon could do anything with this statement other than view it as a personal attack.
If they cannot separate their religious beliefs from a man who raped children in his care, *an orphan adopted as his own daughter*, then that is their problem and not mine.
I have no more sympathy for them than I would for pagans trying to shut down discussions of MZB's abuse of children.
posted by tavella at 12:53 PM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
If they cannot separate their religious beliefs from a man who raped children in his care, *an orphan adopted as his own daughter*, then that is their problem and not mine.
I have no more sympathy for them than I would for pagans trying to shut down discussions of MZB's abuse of children.
posted by tavella at 12:53 PM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
54 - And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
Geez but that must be entirely freaky, to see your own name called out in scripture like that.
posted by newdaddy at 12:56 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Geez but that must be entirely freaky, to see your own name called out in scripture like that.
posted by newdaddy at 12:56 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Now, no one goes around thinking about how big the universe is all the time, it's just not how people work, and you'd go mad pretty soon if you tried.
Well, actually, uh... no, wait, you're right. I'm pretty much stark raving bonkers, and, well...
*breaks off midsentence and stares at the sky intently again, feeling the planet wobble drunkenly beneath him*
posted by loquacious at 12:56 PM on November 12, 2014
Well, actually, uh... no, wait, you're right. I'm pretty much stark raving bonkers, and, well...
*breaks off midsentence and stares at the sky intently again, feeling the planet wobble drunkenly beneath him*
posted by loquacious at 12:56 PM on November 12, 2014
But in more local news the Mormon church is pretty much indefensible, even as a modern-day "mainstream" religion it behaves pretty much exactly as any other harmful cult behaves, from the social ostracization of ex-members (or even questioning members) to the edicts about sexual behavior and diet and even the appropriate clothes to wear, day in and day out.
I was raised in that church, and I am not at all on board with any kid-glove treatment of it, nor any comparisons to mainstream Christianity. It's a true cult to the point of being occult.
(Which also has problems, but Joseph's 40-ish wives aren't one.)
It breaks my heart that it probably breaks my mom's heart that none of her children are active members any more, but it's not the "inactive/ex members" part that's the real problem, but the very harmful, wrong idea that we're going to some lesser heaven or not permanently part of her afterlife or something.
Thankfully I only rarely even consider the Mormon church these days. I'm certainly not sitting here bitterly stewing about how it may or may not have ruined my life. It's essentially been a part of my past since the first day I could form vaguely independent thoughts, which was probably around 6 years of age, if not earlier.
I do, however, still chafe at the lives it is still ruining.
posted by loquacious at 1:06 PM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
I was raised in that church, and I am not at all on board with any kid-glove treatment of it, nor any comparisons to mainstream Christianity. It's a true cult to the point of being occult.
(Which also has problems, but Joseph's 40-ish wives aren't one.)
It breaks my heart that it probably breaks my mom's heart that none of her children are active members any more, but it's not the "inactive/ex members" part that's the real problem, but the very harmful, wrong idea that we're going to some lesser heaven or not permanently part of her afterlife or something.
Thankfully I only rarely even consider the Mormon church these days. I'm certainly not sitting here bitterly stewing about how it may or may not have ruined my life. It's essentially been a part of my past since the first day I could form vaguely independent thoughts, which was probably around 6 years of age, if not earlier.
I do, however, still chafe at the lives it is still ruining.
posted by loquacious at 1:06 PM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
It seems odd to me that the LDS Church is portrayed as admitting for the first time that Joseph Smith was married to multiple wives.
His geneological record in the church's database has shown for years that he was married to somewhere between 30-40 women. I'd think the church would have blocked several of these search results from familysearch.org a long time ago if they were considered defamatory to the prophet?
In the 1800's, when most LDS were following Brigham Young to the West, while another group of LDS stayed in Missouri, one of the big arguments between the groups was whether Joseph Smith's plural marriages were "real" marriages with sex and everything. Guess which side of that argument the Salt Lake City branch of the church was on?
I was ten or eleven when I heard about polygamy in Primary (Sunday School) and thought my teacher was crazy wrong. Afterward I asked my mom if polygamy was right, and would I ever have to live it. She said it was so that more righteous spirits could be born to righteous families, and she told me that I'd probably be my future husband's only wife in this life, but maybe in the Millennium (after Jesus returns) or after the resurrection, my husband might need to marry more. This was in the 1980s among the mainstream LDS, not FLDS or any other offshoot. I guess when you're raised in it, it doesn't seem weird; it wasn't until I got much more aware of gender issues that I started to have a real problem with it.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 1:25 PM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
His geneological record in the church's database has shown for years that he was married to somewhere between 30-40 women. I'd think the church would have blocked several of these search results from familysearch.org a long time ago if they were considered defamatory to the prophet?
In the 1800's, when most LDS were following Brigham Young to the West, while another group of LDS stayed in Missouri, one of the big arguments between the groups was whether Joseph Smith's plural marriages were "real" marriages with sex and everything. Guess which side of that argument the Salt Lake City branch of the church was on?
I was ten or eleven when I heard about polygamy in Primary (Sunday School) and thought my teacher was crazy wrong. Afterward I asked my mom if polygamy was right, and would I ever have to live it. She said it was so that more righteous spirits could be born to righteous families, and she told me that I'd probably be my future husband's only wife in this life, but maybe in the Millennium (after Jesus returns) or after the resurrection, my husband might need to marry more. This was in the 1980s among the mainstream LDS, not FLDS or any other offshoot. I guess when you're raised in it, it doesn't seem weird; it wasn't until I got much more aware of gender issues that I started to have a real problem with it.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 1:25 PM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
One of the things that's always fascinated me about the Mormons is how they seemed to decide as a group that they wanted the Holy Land to be in America, so it was. Yes, Smith was a con man, but I think that the congregation really wanted to believe, and still want to believe to the greatest extent possible, that Adam and Eve lived here after they were expelled from the Garden of Eden, and that the Second Jerusalem would be built in Independence, Missouri. This really struck me when I happened to go through Carthage, Illinois, and visited the jail where Smith was lynched (or "martyred", as the LDS docent, who was moved to tears (or was a really excellent actress) when she told the story, would have it). Ditto for Nauvoo, a short distance up the Mississippi from Carthage, a town that exists mostly thanks to LDS tourism. In a way, despite the LDS being pretty much the opposite of what I believe (or don't), I sort of envy them for having that kind of awestruck credulity, like William Blake wondering if those feet in ancient times walked on England's mountains green.
posted by Halloween Jack at 1:35 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 1:35 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Bentobox Humperdinck: "It seems odd to me that the LDS Church is portrayed as admitting for the first time"
One of the things that's interesting about the LDS Church is that despite being extremely well-organized, they still don't have a professionalized clergy; the religious leaders are just random dudes who are good Mormons who have had no special professional training for ministry. (That is unusual in a religion this large, wealthy, and organized; although the youth of Mormonism may explain it because professionalization of clergy often takes a few hundred years.) Faiths that don't have a professionalized clergy (Quakers, evangelical Christians) often have an academic arm that's considerably in advance of the priesthood in term of the latest academic ideas, because there aren't any particular educational requirements to join the priesthood and you have men (almost always men!) with significant institutional authority who are responsible for teaching others but who have no formal training and may have little education of any sort. So you've probably got lots of Mormons who were taught -- by church-approved officials! -- odd, twisted versions of Joseph Smith's story growing up, and have never heard anything official to the contrary.
The other thing is that folk beliefs die hard, whether they're folks beliefs of members of the religion or folks beliefs ABOUT the religion ... there's a significant minority of Catholics who still won't donate organs because of a folk belief that it made you ineligible for heaven/bodily resurrection what with your body being incomplete. Even though the Catholic Church went on a CAMPAIGN about it when organ transplantation became successful (Jesus wants you to donate your organs! save a life! God will grow you a heavenly liver, it's fine!), it's kicking around in odd little corners of the Church 40 years after organ transplants became viable life-saving procedures. And in terms of folk beliefs ABOUT religion, every time the Pope talks about science, the media goes all, "POPE SAYS FOR FIRST TIME CATHOLIC CHURCH SUPPORTS EVOLUTION!" even though evolution is in the damn catechism and this is neither new nor news. Folk beliefs are really powerful. I'm sure there are lots of Mormons who learned a folk catechism about Joseph Smith; and I'm sure there are lots and lots of journalists whose "knowledge" of the LDS is basically entirely folk beliefs!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:25 PM on November 12, 2014 [17 favorites]
One of the things that's interesting about the LDS Church is that despite being extremely well-organized, they still don't have a professionalized clergy; the religious leaders are just random dudes who are good Mormons who have had no special professional training for ministry. (That is unusual in a religion this large, wealthy, and organized; although the youth of Mormonism may explain it because professionalization of clergy often takes a few hundred years.) Faiths that don't have a professionalized clergy (Quakers, evangelical Christians) often have an academic arm that's considerably in advance of the priesthood in term of the latest academic ideas, because there aren't any particular educational requirements to join the priesthood and you have men (almost always men!) with significant institutional authority who are responsible for teaching others but who have no formal training and may have little education of any sort. So you've probably got lots of Mormons who were taught -- by church-approved officials! -- odd, twisted versions of Joseph Smith's story growing up, and have never heard anything official to the contrary.
The other thing is that folk beliefs die hard, whether they're folks beliefs of members of the religion or folks beliefs ABOUT the religion ... there's a significant minority of Catholics who still won't donate organs because of a folk belief that it made you ineligible for heaven/bodily resurrection what with your body being incomplete. Even though the Catholic Church went on a CAMPAIGN about it when organ transplantation became successful (Jesus wants you to donate your organs! save a life! God will grow you a heavenly liver, it's fine!), it's kicking around in odd little corners of the Church 40 years after organ transplants became viable life-saving procedures. And in terms of folk beliefs ABOUT religion, every time the Pope talks about science, the media goes all, "POPE SAYS FOR FIRST TIME CATHOLIC CHURCH SUPPORTS EVOLUTION!" even though evolution is in the damn catechism and this is neither new nor news. Folk beliefs are really powerful. I'm sure there are lots of Mormons who learned a folk catechism about Joseph Smith; and I'm sure there are lots and lots of journalists whose "knowledge" of the LDS is basically entirely folk beliefs!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:25 PM on November 12, 2014 [17 favorites]
I agree about folk beliefs. The Mormons are doing their best to correlate everything. But it's awkward to have to take back or modify a teaching that was presented as Eternal Truth, so sometimes the official approach is not to address things, just de-emphasize them. It allows people who believe completely contradictory stuff to sit next to each other in church for years and both be very happy "knowing" they're in line with the church's official teachings.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 11:16 PM on November 12, 2014
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 11:16 PM on November 12, 2014
Little late now, but just to put in that I got a lot of really good and useful knowledge from this thread, especially from The World Famous (as usual). The whole discussion was especially helpful to my own experience; I've always been a lifelong, evidence-based scientific atheist (and pretty forthright about it), but spending the last few months learning all about the Church has really turned my viewpoint around, and my baptism's on Saturday. Go figure.
posted by The Zeroth Law at 12:42 AM on November 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by The Zeroth Law at 12:42 AM on November 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
despite being extremely well-organized, they still don't have a professionalized clergy
There may be a slight angle to consider that defies comparisons:
Businessweek: The Mormon belief in the spiritual value of financial success goes back to 1830, when the religion’s founder, Joseph Smith, announced to his followers that God had told him the following: “Verily I say unto you, that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal.” In other words, historian Quinn translates, “whether it’s investing in a merchandising store, or tannery, or a lumber mill, or a hotel, or a bank—all of which occurred under Joseph Smith’s leadership—according to that 1830 revelation, it’s all spiritual.”
A book jacket description from the historian mentioned:
Converts to Joseph Smith’s 1828 restoration of primitive Christianity were attracted to the non-hierarchical nature of the movement. It was precisely because there were no priests, ordinances, or dogma that people joined in such numbers. Smith intended everyone to be a prophet, and anyone who felt called was invited to minister freely without formal office.
Not until seven years later did Mormons first learn that authority had been restored by angels or of the need for a hierarchy mirroring the Pauline model. That same year (1835) a Quorum of Twelve Apostles was organized, but their jurisdiction was limited to areas outside established stakes (dioceses). Stakes were led by a president, who oversaw spiritual development, and by a bishop, who supervised temporal needs.
At Smith’s martyrdom in 1844, the church had five leading quorums of authority. The most obvious successor to Smith, Illinois stake president William Marks, opposed the secret rites of polygamy, anointing, endowments, and the clandestine political activity that had characterized the church in Illinois. The secret Council of Fifty had recently ordained Smith as King on Earth and sent ambassadors abroad to form alliances against the United States.
The majority of church members knew nothing of these developments, but they followed Brigham Young, head of the Quorum of the Twelve, who spoke forcefully and moved decisively to eliminate contenders for the presidency. He continued to build on Smith’s political and doctrinal innovations and social stratification. Young’s twentieth-century legacy is a well-defined structure without the charismatic spontaneity or egalitarian chaos of the early church.
Historian D. Michael Quinn examines the contradictions and confusion of the first two tumultuous decades of LDS history. He demonstrates how events and doctrines were silently, retroactively inserted into the published form of scriptures and records to smooth out the stormy, haphazard development. The bureaucratization of Mormonism was inevitable, but the manner in which it occurred was unpredictable and will be, for readers, fascinating.
posted by Brian B. at 6:38 AM on November 14, 2014
There may be a slight angle to consider that defies comparisons:
Businessweek: The Mormon belief in the spiritual value of financial success goes back to 1830, when the religion’s founder, Joseph Smith, announced to his followers that God had told him the following: “Verily I say unto you, that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal.” In other words, historian Quinn translates, “whether it’s investing in a merchandising store, or tannery, or a lumber mill, or a hotel, or a bank—all of which occurred under Joseph Smith’s leadership—according to that 1830 revelation, it’s all spiritual.”
A book jacket description from the historian mentioned:
Converts to Joseph Smith’s 1828 restoration of primitive Christianity were attracted to the non-hierarchical nature of the movement. It was precisely because there were no priests, ordinances, or dogma that people joined in such numbers. Smith intended everyone to be a prophet, and anyone who felt called was invited to minister freely without formal office.
Not until seven years later did Mormons first learn that authority had been restored by angels or of the need for a hierarchy mirroring the Pauline model. That same year (1835) a Quorum of Twelve Apostles was organized, but their jurisdiction was limited to areas outside established stakes (dioceses). Stakes were led by a president, who oversaw spiritual development, and by a bishop, who supervised temporal needs.
At Smith’s martyrdom in 1844, the church had five leading quorums of authority. The most obvious successor to Smith, Illinois stake president William Marks, opposed the secret rites of polygamy, anointing, endowments, and the clandestine political activity that had characterized the church in Illinois. The secret Council of Fifty had recently ordained Smith as King on Earth and sent ambassadors abroad to form alliances against the United States.
The majority of church members knew nothing of these developments, but they followed Brigham Young, head of the Quorum of the Twelve, who spoke forcefully and moved decisively to eliminate contenders for the presidency. He continued to build on Smith’s political and doctrinal innovations and social stratification. Young’s twentieth-century legacy is a well-defined structure without the charismatic spontaneity or egalitarian chaos of the early church.
Historian D. Michael Quinn examines the contradictions and confusion of the first two tumultuous decades of LDS history. He demonstrates how events and doctrines were silently, retroactively inserted into the published form of scriptures and records to smooth out the stormy, haphazard development. The bureaucratization of Mormonism was inevitable, but the manner in which it occurred was unpredictable and will be, for readers, fascinating.
posted by Brian B. at 6:38 AM on November 14, 2014
« Older The Living New Deal | The Rise of the 'In-Between' Model Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
One particular thing that caught my eye was the claim that, since the Book of Mormon has "Hebraisms" in it, it must be a legitimate translation. OK, fair enough: We actually see this a lot in older translations of the Bible: it's actually hard, for example, to say what Gothic sentence structure looked like, because about the only texts we have are (nearly) word for word translations of the Bible from the Greek, and, for a less extreme example, if you look at the King James, etc., you see that the translators did a lot of mimicking the Greek and Hebrew sentence structure, even at the expense of things sounding funny in English.
So I poked around, and followed the cited link about Hebraisms, which, since it's from a book, only had some of the text, and the one thing visible was basically "saying "plates of brass" instead of "brass plates"". Some further poking around led to sites like this, and has some further things like using "It came to pass" a lot, some particular types of sentence constructions, etc.
The problem is that nobody seems to address the fact that these things would also happen if Joseph Smith was consciously or unconsciously mimicking "Biblical style", see what I just said about the King James Bible above.
posted by damayanti at 1:43 PM on November 11, 2014 [45 favorites]