"The Other Mormons"

Ever since the raid on the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado, Texas, I have been fascinated with “The Other Mormons,” the Fundamentalists. The clothes, the hair, the extremely simplistic lifestyle is so different from my own that it is hard for me to imagine living on a FLDS compound. I unfairly connected their practices and lifestyle with Latter Day Saints, who as evidenced by the reading, are nothing like their notorious counterparts.

In “The LDS Church and Community of Christ: Clearer Differences, Closer Friends,” Russell goes to great lengths to separate the RLDS from the FLDS. He states that though the RLDS defended Joseph Smith, claiming that he did not practice polygamy nor did he write in Section 132, he admits that Smith was a participant. LDS members took issue with the practice of polygamy, the lineal succession of the church, plurality of gods, baptism for the dead and secret temple rituals. These issues led them to reorganize.

1) I found it interesting and admirable that Russell admits that “Joseph Smith was a very flawed human being, but most [LDS members] still see him as a legitimate prophet”. Russell admits that the actions of the LDS to manipulate the way the public and followers viewed Joseph Smith was unfair. In some ways, I think that accepting Smith’s actions as fault and still admiring him is contradictory as the LDS adamantly opposes polygamy. However, I can also understand that forgiving Joseph Smith for his flaws is the right thing to do, since forgiveness is a large part of the Mormon religion. How do you come to terms with the decision of the LDS to forgive Smith and continue to idolize him as the founder and prophet of the Mormon religion as a whole? Does it seem contradictory to you that though LDS members do not support the everyday practices of Joseph Smith, they strive to live by the word of his teaching?

2) Russell describes a radio interview where newly inducted President McMurray was asked whether or not he himself believed the Book of Mormon was based on historical fact. McMurray gave an answer that dodged the question, saying that “the Book of Mormon doesn’t give the tools to determine” whether or not the book is historical. If I was a follower of the Mormon religion, I do not think that I would be able to continue to have faith if the president himself did not appear to wholeheartedly believe in the scripture I dutifully worshipped. How do you feel about the answer McMurray gave to this question? How do you feel about believing in things that cannot be refuted by historical fact?

3) Out of curiosity, what were your personal, preconceived notions regarding the Mormon religion before you enrolled in this class? The only information I knew about the LDS religion was what I saw or heard about through the media, which I now know sensationalizes stories for the entertainment of their viewers. Did you know the difference between the FLDS or LDS followers? I thought that all Mormons practiced polygamy.

Mainstream Mormonism vs RLDS vs Fundamentalists

The first day of this class, we were asked to make a list of facts about Mormonism. Many of them ended up being false, while only a few were true. In my opinion, these two articles capture the driving force for our previous perceptions of Mormonism by exposing the different branches of Mormonism. In these two articles, the authors elaborate on different branches of Mormonism such as the Community of Christ (RLDS) and the Fundamentalists.

Although each varying branch of Mormonism is seeking to go down the path which is most truthful, their beliefs continue to differ from each other. As William D. Russell points out, the Latter-Day Saints Church and Community of Christ have had differing beliefs in the past and continue to in the present. There were four main issues which caused conflict between the LDS and RLDS for at least a century. These issues were polygamy, succession in the presidency, the plurality of gods, and baptism for the dead and other secret temple rituals. As well, in recent times, the LDS and RLDS still have various differences such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the nature of revelation and prophecy, women in the priesthood, homosexuality, apostasy and restoration, and life after death. Overall, the RLDS “tried to be seen as legitimately Mormon and legitimately Christian” to the point which they were characterized as a “moderate Mormonism” (Russell 185).

Another form of Mormonism is Fundamentalism. Fundamentalists believed that “if an ‘eternal principle’ was valid at one time it was valid for all times” (36). This is the basis for one of the major differences between fundamentalists and LDS – polygamy. While the majority of the U.S. and mainstream Mormons denounced polygamy, the fundamentalists continued to believe that it was essential for human salvation.

In my opinion, although there are distinct differences among mainstream Mormonism, RLDS, and fundamentalists, the public image of Mormon appears to just be major views of each group merged into one group. Although only fundamentalists still support plural marriage, the public still perceives that most Mormons support polygamy and have multiple wives. As well, I think that the reason why there is not significant tension between other religious sects and Mormonism is because the RLDS tries to be legitimately Christian.

Furthermore, I think that the differences exist for varying reasons. In my opinion, the differences between RLDS and LDS seems like it’s based on religious interpretation. For example, the historicity of the Book of Mormon appears to be more based on religious purposes rather than personal desire. On the other hand, the difference between LDS and fundamentalists do not seem as legitimate because the main difference is polygamy. Although it is not certain, there is still a possibility that the fundamentalists continued to practice polygamy for personal desire rather than for religious purposes.

- What role do you think the differing forms of Mormonism play in the public perception of Mormonism?

- Do you think that the reason differences exist among the groups is based on legitimate religious interpretations or is it due to personal wants?

The "Other" Christians

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Christian, since it believes in the divinity of Christ. However, the Mormon Church was founded as a restoration of God’s mission on Earth. This identity naturally condemns all other religions as based on misguided interpretations. Certain inherent differences in faith, practice and world view delineate the Mormon Christians from all other Christian faiths. Historical turmoil between Mormons and other Christians has further widened the gap between the two groups. “Besides history, another obstacle to mutual understanding is terminology—our respective theological vocabularies” (Robinson 13). Similar words carrying different meanings create difficulty in communicating faiths. These difficulties in understanding lead to unnecessary criticism and condemnation from both sides. As Robinson argues, more often than not, confrontations between the faiths stem from a criticism of what is said, while what is meant by both sides of the argument is the same.

The teachings of Mormonism do indeed differ from those of other Christian religions, but this holds true for any distinct religious group. I believe that the day-to-day practices of the faith and the moral code promoted by the faith, however, would be perfectly acceptable in any Evangelical community. As time passed, mainstream Christians began to try to understand Mormonism in a more thorough manner. I believe that Richard Mouw’s apology represents the marked change in Christian solidarity toward Mormons. As “Evangelicals and Mormons have worked together on important matters of public morality” (Mouw 1), the two faiths could come to realize the many things that they had in common and stop fighting over theological differences. I agree with Mouw’s argument that Mormons and other Christians have a lot to offer each other, and that the ever-increasing communication between the two groups will benefit all parties involved.

Despite all of these moves toward unification, Mormons are still viewed as separate from other Catholics. Jan Shipps points out that Christians need to point to someone as other and that the Latter Day Saints serve this purpose (Shipps 348). There exists a common notion of Mormons as a separate religion: Christian but also not Christian. I believe that this stems from the development of the Mormon faith in a time when Christian faiths were firmly established in America. Mormons are still seen as very different followers of Christ by the overall Christian faith. As Shipps points out, Mormons are the ideal target because of inherent differences in the faith, and they are singled out among Christian as the other.

In all, the Mormon faith has continually grown more and more public and, as a result, the mystery surrounding the Church of Latter Day Saints has dissipated. The progress has been slow, but Mormons have begun to be acknowledged as mutual members of the Christian family. As the twenty-first century progresses, I hope and believe that the Mormon faith will continued to gain acceptance among other Christian faiths.

Do you agree that the similarities between Mormonism and other Christian faiths outweigh the differences, and that these differences could be overcome by closer communication between the faiths?

What do you think increased Mormon interaction with other Christian faiths would lead to?

Do you have any personal stories of Latter Day Saints that prove or disprove any of the points made in the reading?

What do you think about the demarcation of the Mormon Church as the other Christian religion?

Religious Repositioning

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have throughout most of their history been in conflict with Evangelical Christians. A major source of this conflict is the desire of both groups to define an "other", and an outside group. Mormons fill this role for Evangelicals and Evangelicals fill this role for Mormons mostly because of their antagonistic and often violent histories. Mormons historically saw all other Christians as "gentiles" and all other Christians chaffed at this label (Shipps, 345). Another reason Evangelicals and Mormons conflict is that both sides judge the other by relying on stereotypes.

Jan Shipps argues that most of the tension between the two groups is inherent in the different names, "The same principle holds for religion. Names matter. They matter a lot." (Shipps, 341) Names matter because they give people a short hand for categorizing. Names have also deepened the separation between members of the LDS faith and Evangelicals. Members of the LDS faith embraced the term Mormon because it set them apart (in their minds and the minds of the country at large). To LDS members "Mormon" meant someone who followed the true church of Christ. To outsiders the name historically meant someone that practiced polygamy, created trouble where they went, and should be converted back to Protestant Christianity. In his introduction Robinson raises an interesting point concerning the Mormons' desire to be called Mormons :"The statement is sometimes made that Latter-day saints now want to be known as Christian when in the past we did not" (Robinson, 19). This distinction could be one of the reasons that Protestant and Evangelical Christians so often refuse to recognize Mormons as Christians.

Despite all the superficial differences (those based in the different names and stereotypes), Mormons and Evangelicals share many of the same socially and politically conservative values. Jan Shipps notes this in her chapter (354), Moral Majority and Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell noticed this and invited the Mormons to join the Moral Majority, and Richard Mouw recognizes the similarities and apologizes for the harsh and quick judgments of past Evangelical leaders. Yet there is still a tension between everyday Mormons and everyday Evangelicals.

1. Why are there still conflicts and prejudices between Mormons and Evangelicals? Is it due to faulty definitions provided by each party (the LDS missionaries often do not know what they are talking about and television preachers are seen as portraits for all Evangelicals) or is it due to the historical differences between the two groups (the Evangelical persecution of the polygamous and cult like Mormons)?

2. What importance does the proselytizing nature of each religion play in their conflicts? Should Mormons continue to try and convince Evangelicals (and vice versa) that they are wrong or should both groups just accept each other as they are, recognize each other as fellow Christians and focus on non-believers? Is it even possible for either group to accept the other or will there always be the desire to convert the other?

Kitsch, Movies, and Mormons: Pop Culture in the LDS Community

The use of kitsch has become exponentially popular within the Mormon community. The toys, clothing, and paraphernalia representing LDS values and beliefs have been used to help boys and girls understand the expectations for them in the Mormon faith (Riess, 3). However, many of the images imitate designs and slogans associated with the "mainstream" non-Mormon pop culture. The images on the kitsch are pulled from things that the Mormon religion traditionally object to, such as a TV show that features unmarried cohabitation and pre-marital sex and imitating the logo symbol of a clothing company whose advertising does not necessarily promote chasity and modesty (Riess, 2).
Kitsch also solidifies gender roles within the Mormon faith. Kitsch for girls emphasizes domesticity and home-bound religious life while boys pictures and toys encourage outside material and professional success. The author, Jana K. Riess, asserts that the kitsch that talks about virtue and chasity are usually geared toward girls and there are rarely any products aimed at boys (Riess, 4-6).
The high demand for such items reflects the way Mormons "insist that gender roles are eternal"and use kitsch to emphasize what their expectations are for young adult Mormons (Riess, 8).
Ed Halter's article "Missionary Positioning: Indie Cinema Attempts a Mainstream Conversion" offers a look at the growth of Mormon indie and commercial film. It seems that the most successful and popular films are those that parody or spoof common practices in the Mormon life such as missionary work, dating, and door-to-door scripture education. Many Mormon directors and screen writers are trying to shake off the stereotypes of Mormons in films by producing large scale films and introduce them to a larger audience. However, their success is limited by the culture boundaries between Mormons and non-Mormons and displaying controversial topics such as homosexuality.
What is interesting about kitsch and filmmaking is the fact that the LDS Church does not have a direct influence on the production of these materials. They are developed by independent companies that cater directly to the Mormon lay community.

Why would the LDS Church allow independent copmanies to mass-market products that have such a large impact on its followers without review and oversight from church officials?


What would cause the Mormon community to associate themselves with popular products and designs that do not reflect their most valued beliefs and morals?

Do you think stereotypes can change when the issue at hand reaches a wider audience and has more exposure?

Mormons and Popular Culture

Though their ideals often do not reflect those of the greater American public, Mormons are not immune to the trends of modern society. In an attempt to remain culturally relevant while also upholding the values of their religion, the Mormon community has transformed mainstream ideas to fit with their morals. As the Mormon community has grown in number and increasingly spread across the country, it has become more susceptible to the effects of mainstream society. While Mormons are not “in a headlong drive toward cultural assimilation” (Riess 4), they have certainly been influenced by cultural factors present in the rest of America.
Many of these influences have been manifested in various forms of kitsch. T-shirts, posters, jewelry, and films have all been produced by Mormons and marketed toward the Mormon community. While the actual products and slogans have been adopted from the rest of the country, the Latter-Day Saints have molded this merchandise to purport their beliefs. Symbols such as the Nike swoosh, the Calvin Klein typeface, and the Hard Rock Café logo have all been transformed to depict some LDS emblem or teaching. Ideas such as female domesticity, male financial responsibility, abstinence, and other Mormon teachings are emphasized by the different product lines that have been marketed towards this faith based community. However, these products that have been adapted from mainstream culture often carry connotations that do not correlate with the beliefs of the Church. So while utilizing the CK font (a brand which uses racy and sexual advertising to market underwear) to advertise CTR rings (“Choose the Right” rings worn by many young Mormons to often represent chastity and dedication to the faith) may on one hand show that Mormons are attempting to fuse their beliefs with cultural symbols that have influenced many of the young church members, it also represents a certain level of confusion as to the role of Mormonism and its conservative values in a decidedly less traditional modern-day America.
The Mormon struggle to define their place in today’s society is one which every faith and general group of people faces. In a consumer world driven by flashy advertisements, racy television, and controversial celebrities, any group of people who attempts to define themselves by a strict set of morals is sure to find barriers in integrating into this culture.
1-What does the Mormon utilization of mainstream memes (such as Nike or Calvin Klein symbols) indicate about their perception of these symbols in society? What does it say about the way Mormons view themselves as a niche group of the greater United States community?
2-Mormons struggle to identify with popular culture seems to contradict areas of their history in which they have shunned modern society all together and advocated their independence and separation from it. How do you feel about the evolution of their beliefs, and what do you think has caused this change? Does it make sense in the context of having an ever expanding range of followers, or does it represent a more softened and less dedicated community of Latter-Day Saints?

Sisterhood: An Act of Unification or an Means of Oppression?

Throughout history, the Mormon religion and culture has been judged by the American society for their differing beliefs on the values in life. The stereotypical view of the Mormon faith and culture in the United States has been completely perverted especially when concerning the role of women. It is viewed that women are oppressed citizens in Mormon societies with a lack of rights when compared to men. There is a common misunderstanding that suspects that women are secluded off from the rest of society and ignorant to their surroundings as they are left in the homes of their husbands without a voice to be heard, but this common misconception is incorrect because many women do find a connection and relationship amongst each other. This bond and role of sisterhood plays a major role in the lives of women in the Mormon faith and culture.

The idea of sisterhood that was uniting women of the Mormon society was augmented with the role of plural marriages. It may be assumed that the idea and practice of plural marriages would create a division amongst women in the households of their husband but quite the contrary occurred. Plural marriages allowed the women to find a common bond amongst each other and helped them unite as a whole family and work hard and thrive together when raising their children and living in peace. Derr highlights the importance of plural marriage and its contributions to the strength and unification of the women as she described throughout the text that plural marriages were a method of sanctifying the common bonds between women in the general society.

Derr also describes how women were very content with their role in society and their distinct separation from men. They felt no need to fight for equal rights and freedom because they believed that they knew and understood their role in society. The sphere of sisterhood was enough for them and they were satisfied especially with their own unique unification with one another.

Discussion questions:

1.) Do you feel that in the past and also in the present concerning women apart of the FLDS that women were truly aware of their potential in society and the things that they could accomplish beyond raising a family? Why do you think that a majority of the women chose to keep their constrained and limited role in society as opposed for furthering their education? Do you think it is because that is what they consider the norm and are not aware of the many opportunities that they can pursue or that it is a lifestyle that they truly yearn to strive for?

2.) How do you think Joseph Smith’s view on the role of women in the Mormon society help structure and impact the beliefs that were formulated concerning sisterhood and unification? How did the words of the prophets affect the differing roles of women over time in Mormon culture?