"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?

The Role of Women and Their Ties to Eachother

Urban Dictionary defines sisterhood as “a bond between two or more girls, not always related by blood. They always tell the truth, honor each other, and love each other like sisters.” The concept of sisterhood has been adopted by many groups, from close friends, to sororities, to the women of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

In the book “ ‘Strength in Our Union’: The Making of Mormon Sisterhood,” Jill Mulvay Derr examines the relationships between Mormon women over time. The author illuminates how the practice of plural marriage and the extended families that these marriages created strengthened bonds within the community of Mormon women. Unlike other Americans, the Mormon women were able to form attachments due to the unique phenomenon of polygamy. Derr further strengthens her argument that polygamy was a cornerstone in the Mormon women’s groups, by elaborating how female ties in the Mormon community weakened, after the practice of polygamy disappeared from the Church of the Latter Day Saints. In addition, Derr alludes to other practices which cemented ties in the nineteenth century and which lessened bonds in the twentieth century. In the author’s comparison of the two centuries, she proposes, “while nineteenth-century Mormon women’s networks centered in Mormon organization, theology, and family life, the affiliations of twentieth-century Mormon women were far more diversified, and the sense of collective closeness and identity wanted” (Derr, 199).

Although Derr’s points are very well presented, with ample proof, she fails to draw on some categories of Mormon women. While discussing the nineteenth century, the author defends her points with the quotes of the leading ladies, known as the “inner circle” of women, involved in the Relief Society. The piece fails to consider other Mormon women who are not quite as involved in the church and who perhaps are not members of the Relief Society. While looking at the nineteenth century, Derr examines women heavily involved in the Mormon community and pronounces these ladies as highly interactive with each other. When contrasting the book’s assertions to the twentieth century, the author includes the entire population of Mormon women, which are decreed to be not as involved as the previous generations. Derr’s resulting conclusions are highly suspect because her sample varies from century to century.

The speeches by Ezra Taft Benson discuss the role of women in the Church. These pieces emphasize that the place of a woman is at home, especially his speech “To the Mothers of Zion” which is a how-to guide to being a good wife, mother, and homemaker. In another speech, specifically addressing the single ladies, Benson underlines the importance of dating a fellow Mormon in order to obtain a temple marriage. The president’s words mirror the doctrine of the church that clearly states that the role of women is motherhood.

Questions:

1. How did Joseph Smith’s treatment of the role of women differ from that of Benson?
2. Women’s rights advocate for the right of women to choose their own future. The majority of Mormon women choose to raise a family over furthering their education or having a career. Can the Mormon’s stance that having a family is the correct choice be viewed through the lens of women’s rights?
3. How do you reconcile the concept of Benson advocating for solely temple marriages with our previous readings on race and the dearth of interracial marriages in the Mormon Church?

Racism, Racial Perceptions and Racial Integration in Mormonism

Mormons believed that the United States was divinely created to facilitate their perfect expression of Christianity. Distinctively American ideology was absorbed into Mormon theology and American social values permeated the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. From the nation’s inception, varying degrees of racism have found expression in that American ideology. Consequently, it is not surprising that racial discrimination was initially present in Mormon religious beliefs. The relationship between Mormonism and racism after 1978 reflects the church’s attempt to reconcile aspects of its inherently racist theology with the evolution of American social values through a reinterpretation of that doctrine.

Armand Mauss’ All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage illuminates the origin of the racism that is expressed in Mormon theology and attempts to make a distinction between socially tolerant Mormons and their prejudiced religious beliefs. It is essential to note that African Americans were always allowed to practice Mormonism; the issue was their right to the priesthood guaranteed to all male Mormons. In 1852, Brigham Young formally declared that blacks were not privy to access to the priesthood based on their African descent. This fundamentally racist assertion was buttressed by additional presidential proclamations that culminated in 1931 when Joseph Fielding Smith “synthesized and codified the entire framework of Mormon racist teaching” (Mauss 217). The racist justification for the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood espoused by Smith’s book endured until a revelation refuted it in 1978.

Beyond clarifying the origin of Mormon racist theology, Mauss develops a counterintuitive thesis: despite supporting explicitly racist religious doctrines, Mormons are no more prejudiced than the average American. Using quantitative data derived from several surveys of different Mormon wards, Mauss demonstrates that Mormons’ attitude towards race is the same as the rest of the country. Conformity to Mormon orthodoxy leads to religious, not social, hostility towards African Americans. Mauss therefore proves that the Mormons’ support for a racist doctrine stems from their devotion to their faith, not inherent racism.

The revelation in 1978 that denounced racism in Mormon and allowed African Americans to receive that priesthood was delivered by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. The Apostle declared that this alteration of the ingrained theology was the product of a reinterpretation of Mormon scripture and part of God’s overall plan for the Mormons. A revelation from the Holy Spirit “added a new flood of intelligence and light” to the subject and inspired a major shift in Mormon understanding of God’s wills (McConkie 3).

In the time following the official renunciation of racism by the Mormon church, new issues concerning race have presented themselves. Foremost among these, according to O. Kendall White Jr. and Daryl White’s Negotiating cultural and social contradictions; interracial dating and marriage among African American Mormons, is interracial marriages, whether between Mormons or between a Mormon and a non-Mormon. Though the church officially renounced racism, Mormon leaders actively discourage miscegenation. The emphasis put on sealed marriages, now open to African Americans, has highlighted the relatively small number of black Mormons and made finding a black Mormon partner difficult. These teachings and a predominance of white church members bring African American Mormons to an impasse; any possible solution requires the violation of at least one of the church’s commandments.

Is Mauss’ determination that an inherently racist religion does not produce racists valid? What are the implications of the idea that reevaluation of a doctrine can lead to reinterpretation in the context of Mormon faith? Although African Americans can now receive the priesthood, does the LDS church actively attempt to integrate the faithful?

Race in Mormon Communities: Fully Integrating Individuals of African Descent into the LDS Church

The United States, throughout the nation’s relatively short history, experienced numerous divisions and controversies due to race and racial policies. From the beginning of slavery to the turbulent Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, the oppression of African Americans colored these social conflicts related to race. Today, one finds evidence of these past race-related problems in the Mormon Church, which only relatively recently, in 1978, allowed men of African descent to obtain equal status in the Latter-day Saints’ religious community.

Bruce R. McConkie, one of the Twelve Apostles of the Mormon Church, explains and elaborates on the 1978 revelation, which permitted men of African descent to receive the priesthood, in his “All Are Alike Unto God” speech. Utilizing well-known biblical language and established church doctrine, McConkie provides a compelling argument in favor of the new revelation. The Apostle focuses much of his speech to the missionary benefits of the new revelation, including the expansion of the Mormon Church’s ability to “preach the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people” (1). Though certainly supportive of the new church doctrine, McConkie does not apologize for prior church policies that discriminated against individuals of African lineage. Rather instead, he simply states that “the time had arrived when the gospel, with its blessings and obligations, should go to the Negro” and that “it doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978)” (3). By carefully studying this speech, by delving into McConkie’s utter loyalty to his faith community, one infers that the Mormon Church continued to practice discriminatory policies throughout their history not due to their personal beliefs pertaining to race, but rather due to their adherence to their religious traditions and culture.

Armand Mauss, an American Sociologist, in chapter eight of his book, All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, delves into the shifting LDS stance towards individuals of African lineage from 1830 to 1978. The Mormon community, after their arduous exodus to Utah in 1847 and Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, prohibited the priesthood to this particular segment of the population. In the late 1970s, years of tenuous public relations finally forced the Saints to revise their doctrine, allowing men of African descent to obtain the high status of priesthood. Mauss employs historical dates, psychological surveys, and religious quotes, including those from the Book of Mormon, to highlight and explain Mormon racism in the context of greater American societal trends.

Though Mauss attempts to remove value judgments from his socio-historical work, the author fails to do so. In his analysis of LDS racial prejudice, Mauss supports the Mormon Church in the face of their discriminatory practices and their unwillingness to change their policies until the late 1970s. The sociologist places blame for the church’s long history of bigoted views on national racism, the lack of stability in the Mormon community in Utah, and misinterpretations of Smith’s words in The Pearls of Great Price. Indeed, Mauss states that groups like the NAACP, when the party charged the Mormon Church with perpetuating harmful bigotry in the secular world, actually lacked “empirical evidence” for such claims (219).

Furthermore, in his assessment of discrimination in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mauss completely ignores the definite presence of other types of historical prejudice in the Mormon community, most notably that against women. Unlike men of African lineage, females, both black and white, never received the priesthood and continue to exist as lesser members of the church (as discussed in class, they do, however, possess the role of motherhood). Any mention of discrimination against women as part of official church practice never appears in Mauss’ work. Ultimately, the lack of depth in his arguments and his unwillingness to make perhaps more bold assertions against discriminatory practices in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints limits Armand Mauss’ arguments and assessments to that of a simplistic report, from which readers may potential make a number of false assumptions concerning Mormon racial and discriminatory practices.

O. Kendall White and Daryl White, in their sociological article “Negotiating Cultural and Social Contradictions: Interracial Dating and Marriage Among African American Mormons,” continue the story of racial policies in the Mormon church, focusing on Mormon viewpoints towards African Americans from 1978 to the present. While strongly encouraging the raising of a family within a matrimonial relationship, Mormons today continue to discourage interracial marriage, particularly between whites and blacks. This social proscription frequently creates personal problems for African American Mormons, who lack an abundance of potential dating and marriage partners who belong to their own race and church.

In comparison to Mauss and his utilization of data, dates, and religious quotes, White and White employ personal testimonies of black Latter-day Saints to support their claims pertaining to the African American Mormon community and to marriage. These testimonies permit the voices of the people involved in the Mormon community to rise above the authors’ own words, creating a poignant, comprehensive picture of the variety of manners in which African American Mormons negotiate their cultural and social contradictions. The employment of individual stories also limits the personal bias of the individual authors, who remain relatively neutral narrators throughout their article. However, White and White’s reliance on oral histories to portray a social theme certainly limits the scope of their claims. The authors fully acknowledge this limitation in the introduction of their article, stating that, “since we do not know how representative their experience may be for black Mormons, we make no generalizations regarding the church as a whole” (86). Overall, White and White provide a narrow, yet genuine portrayal of racism and its effects on Mormon society.

Questions for Class Discussion:

1. How did the Mormon’s status as a persecuted religious minority in America affect its opinion towards people of African descent? Did the Mormons’ status as a persecuted religious minority cause the community to become more tolerant or less tolerant of individuals of African lineage?

2. How has racism in the United States changed its form in the last few decades? Does racism still exist in the Mormon community? Is the Mormon Church simply reflecting and exposing racial tendencies that still permeate the United States as a whole?

3. How does the Mormon community, in their current views towards interracial marriage, reflect greater trends occurring in our society today in relation to interracial dating? Does this lack of enthusiasm for interracial dating permeate mainstream culture? How does this affect society as a whole (hurt, help, doesn’t affect, etc.)?

4. Terminology can be very powerful. The use of certain terms can provoke strong reaction. Why did White and White and Mauss use the term “black” instead of “people of African lineage"? Does this reveal bias? Why does pejoration affect certain terms and not others?

Life Lessons from Missionary Work

Across the street where I live in San Diego, a Church of the Latter-Day Saints stood erect atop a hill, overlooking the surrounding neighborhood. The young men dressed in black suits, cruising by on bicycles were always friendly and polite, yet few open their doors to listen to their mission while even fewer open their hearts to the faith. In the wealthy, established suburbs of southern California, few were willing to change their lifestyles for the elusive promise of salvation. Missionary work is a hard and mostly thankless task; however an essential component known as the companionship ties the individual missionaries together to form stronger bonds between each other and people in the community. The missionary experience is intended to sponsor the personal and spiritual growth of the Mormon youth, while spreading the holy gospels of God.

In “The Mormon Missionary Companionship” by Keith Parry, the junior-senior partnership is explained by the fact that “though novice missionaries will already have undergone a period of intensive instruction at a MTC....novices often draw on the experience of their senior companions, especially in a foreign mission.” (Parry, 184) The companionship is a social mechanism that the Church uses to bond missionary partners and shield them from outside distractions. Two missionaries are paired up to do everything together 24/7. The system concentrates mission work and uses that both partners to keep the other in line. The companionship system is extremely conducive towards the personal growth and social skills of missionaries, as they must learn to compromise and handle disagreements with someone they cannot live without, at least for the duration of the mission. Two people must learn to accommodate another’s wishes in order to have a functional relationship, which helped many on their future marriages. “All the little problems that missionaries have with their companions are the same ones that many people have with their spouses.” (Parry, 198) Learning to live with another person despite their flaws, and to lean on each other for support are extremely important in successful marriages. It can be argued that companionship in missionary work contributes to the low divorce rate in Mormons as they recognize that the solutions to many marital problems is simply communication and compromise. Companionship facilitates the personal growth crucial to successful future interpersonal relationships for Mormon missionaries.

In “Called to Serve” by Jenette Wood Crowley, the missionaries shared their thoughts and experiences converting people at home and abroad. Josh Kirkham, a missionary in Italy, had convinced a Catholic family of the truth of Mormonism but failed to baptize the family. Fearful of being ostracized, the family backed out in the last minute. Kirkham remember being “devastat[ed] because we are taught that if someone knows the truth and they turn it down it’s much worse than them never knowing it.” (Crowley, 19) As a nineteen-year-old with the burden of an entire family’s salvation on his shoulders, Kirkham was extremely affected emotionally by the weight of his missionary burden. Such experiences will certainly cause many missionaries to reconsider their mission and their faith, however the ones who emerge from such painful experiences do so with stronger conversion convictions. Other missionaries reaffirm their faith through the devout converts they encounter. A missionary understood that a man with African lineage “wanted to be baptized because he loved the gospel. In contradiction to the policy, [he] taught him and his wife and his three kids and they were all baptized.” (Crowley, 21) In Brazil, many missionaries encountered converts who were supposedly disfavored by God. Spiritually it is very powerful to see those who believe even though they cannot receive the full benefit of salvation. Through missionary work, many Mormon youths reaffirm their belief through the action of converting and witnessing the faithfulness of others.
The missionary work Mormons perform in their youth profoundly affects the rest of their lives spiritually and socially. The companions and converts they encounter all serve to contribute to the personal growth of the missionaries, however what do you think the primary function of missionary work is? To educate the Mormon youth or to convert the masses?

Another question not completely relevant to my post, why do you think the Mormons of African descent convert to a religion that believes them to be born with sin?

Interest fact: The Curse of Cain Legacy

"Religion: Mormons and the Mark of Cain" in TIME magazine

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878674,00.html

Missions' Effects: Growing Up and Rewards

The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints calls upon its disciples to go forth and “preach the gospel to every creature [...], baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son, and Holy Ghost” (qt. in Hanks, 315). Although not all Mormon youths respond to this calling, many do. The completion of missionary work acts as a rite of passage for many young Saints of both sexes; nevertheless, the system is organized to more deeply reward the male.
For the Mormons that do embark on a mission, the missionary experience changes their outlook on life, forcing them to mature and accept the burdens of adulthood. This rite of passage is manifested in both the necessity to cope with new situations and confront their faith. Within his essay The Mormon Missionary Companionship, Keith Parry invokes the stories of twelve college students who had recently returned from missions, extrapolating that it is the relationship between companions that marks the transition between adolescent and adult. One interviewee states, “Because we couldn’t choose our companions, we had to make the best of the ones we got. This often forced us to learn patience, tolerance, cooperation, and understanding” (Parry, 187). The need to morph to “make the best” of situations drives the missionaries to shed the petty, uncompromising stubbornness of childhood and take up a mantle of maturity. Furthermore, an intense immersion of religion propels missionaries into adulthood. According to Jenette Wood Crowley’s Call to Serve: An Oral History of Mormon Missions, a compilation of former missionaries’ experiences in the field, serving a mission is a profoundly religious process. Many attest to having a hard time adjusting to not being in a “spiritual state of mind” after returning (Crowley, 27). That former religiosity forces adolescent missionaries to partake in self-reflection and define their lifetime desires and “eternal goals,” both very adult concerns (Crowley, 28).
Although it is clear that serving a mission brings about maturity, wisdom and self-reflection, the direct emotional returns are greater for males than for females. From both Crowley’s and Parry’s stories, there seems to be a larger network of brotherhood than of sisterhood. This provides more opportunity for bonding. Additionally, men can participate in more rewarding missionary experiences. Sisters are only given the authority to “preach the gospel” whereas elders can also perform “gospel ordinances” (Hanks, 322). While this is not a hard and fast line of demarcation between the duties of men and women serving the Church, it still prevents women from attaining the same degree of reward from their missionary experiences. One sister writes, “We get discouraged and upset--but all that is forgotten as we watch someone we have grown to love enter the waters of baptism” (Hanks, 330). Her intention was to dismiss such concerns, but it is likely that if she were permitted to personally baptize that loved one, her elation would be much greater.
Considering these outcomes of a mission trip, what do you think are the other effects? Why would some missionaries come back saying “a missionary converts himself” while others very disillusioned (Crowley, 29)? Also, given that women are more successful missionaries than men, why are they not permitted to perform as many duties as their male counterparts?

Mormon Families vs. Non-Mormon Families

From the 1800s, when polygamy became public, to the present day, Mormons have faced resentment and prejudice for various reasons. As anti-Mormon sentiment became strong when polygamy was introduced, anti-polygamists found more flaws in the Church of Latter Day Saints. Even today, people are intolerant to Mormons because of their movement’s past and the supposed differences between the general public and Mormons. Although Latter Day Saints may have different religious practices and beliefs, their lifestyle and familial interactions do not vary greatly from non Mormons’ habits and relationships.

Tim B. Heaton, Kristen L. Goodman, and Thomas B. Holman in “In Search of a Peculiar People: Are Mormon Families Really Different?” explain why many believe there are inherent differences between Mormons and non-Mormons by introducing the connection between religion and family. The link is based on that religion and family deal with the same concern – love or selflessness in relationships. The authors further that these two establishments have a “symbiotic relationship (87)” because religion shapes daily exchanges and supports family interactions, while a family provides an environment for “religious socialization (88).” Because “according to the Mormon doctrine, the family plays a central role in human salvation”, many believe that Mormons’ relationships would differ as their religion does from the public norm. Mormons do have different religious beliefs but as it’s pointed out in Heaton, Goodman, and Holman’s piece, it does not cause significant differences within their interactions.

Surprisingly, as stated before, although religious differences exist, many aspects of Mormons’ familial interactions do not diverge significantly from non-Mormons. Data was taken from the National Survey of Families and Households to evaluate areas such as religiosity, marriage and divorce, childrearing values and behavior, sexual behavior, household division of labor, role evaluation, disagreement and conflict, kinship, and quality of life to compare and contrast Mormons and non-Mormons. When analyzing theses areas, it was found that the only areas that actually had significant differences were that there are higher rates of church attendance for Mormon men and women, more Mormons are married, they have larger families and lower income, and they’re more likely to disprove of premarital sex and pregnancies. Every other area did not have any differences that were too noteworthy. The few differences and similarities lead me to believe that “Mormons and others differ more in attitude than in actual behavior (104).”

Questions:

Do you think that there were any unaccounted factors that would cause even greater differences between the lifestyles of Mormons and non-Mormons?

If there are not such vast differences, why is that Mormons are still looked with such disdain?

Do you think any of the behaviors in each area of familial interactions have evolved? How so? If so, was it significant?

Is there any aspect of Mormon’s human interactions that has vast differences that has gone unnoted?

Assimilation: How much is too much?

“While assimilation is sometimes accomplished in part by increasing tolerance and other changes within the host society, it usually requires much more change on the part of the deviant movement itself.” (pg 24)

As evidenced by the previous readings, the American sentiment towards Mormonism was plagued by negative feelings regarding the follower’s practice of polygamy. The Mormons tried assimilation, at both the corporate and grassroots level, as the nest step towards acceptance by the American population. In doing so, however, they were forced to abandon some of their religious beliefs.

It seems that Mormon leaders went to every extent to adapt to the mainstream and secure their place in the American culture. They revised hymnbooks, taking cues from Protestantism, adopted the Boy Scout Program and worked to improve Brigham Young University in hopes that it would be seen as a legitimate institution. Mauss states that these changes “must have been mind-boggling for some of the states.” At the same time Mormonism became less mysterious to the American public, it became less steadfast in its values. Testimonies, specifically, were once of high importance in the religion became of lesser importance as they switched focus from accounts of personal witness to feelings of gratitude.

The article states that the Mormon people became extremely successful in material terms, and realized that in order for them to become even more so, they would have to compromise some aspects of their faith, including serving alcoholic beverages in their hotels and advertising adult programs on their radio stations. This situation makes it appear as though Mormons were forgoing their traditions in exchange for money. Mormons wanted to assimilate into the American way of life, however I think that Mormon leaders were sending the wrong message by abandoning the values the so vehemently defended to the American public essentially in exchange for monetary means.

To what extent should the Mormons, and present day subcultures, forget their traditional values and change their ways in order to fit into the general population? What are some positives and negatives that could come from assimilating on either those who are assimilating and the general culture? For example, my great-grandmother prohibited my grandfather and his brothers from speaking Albanian, their first language, once they started middle school so that they would become more “American.” Consequently, my grandfather cannot speak a word of Albanian today. A somewhat similar phenomenon is happening in where I am from in southern California with the Mexican immigrant population.

Anti-Mormonism

Anti-Mormonism and the question of Religious freedom provided by the Constitution
The Anti-Mormon sentiment prevalent in society during the late 1800’s contributed greatly to the Supreme Court decision to deny the Mormon’s right to practice polygamy. Though polygamy had been outlawed in the United States for years previous, Mormons had continued to practice plural marriage on the grounds that the religious freedom provided by the Constitution protected them from legal repercussions as long as they attributed their practice to religious reasons. This notion, though perhaps previously unchallenged, was firmly refuted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds v. The United States in October 1878 in which the court stated that the Constitution provided only for the protection of free religious thought and this protection did not extend into the realm of religious practice. Chief Justice Waite cites the main reason behind this decision as stemming not so much from a disproval of polygamy, which had already been established, but instead from the inability for a government to properly preside over its people if man’s “professed doctrines of religious belief” were considered superior to the law of the land.

While the issue of simultaneously ensuring autonomy and maintaining government effectiveness has always posed problems for America and democracy in general, the means through which Congress here tries to establish the power of the government over the individual is proved to be too far-reaching for other members of society. In George Cannon’s response to the Supreme Court decision he writes, “I had hoped that the Court would give to this question-one of the most important that has ever been submitted to it-the most calm, profound, and unprejudiced attention; that they would examine it thoroughly and exhaustively, and render a decision that would be read with interest and delight by every lover of freedom and the rights of man,” expressing his disappointment at the lack of thorough analysis with which the court had enacted its decision. He then asserts that a more proper law would state that Mormons and religious people in general have every right to engage in those practices determined by their religious beliefs, as long as their practice does not interfere with the rights of their fellow men. His expression of a wish that Congress would have viewed the issue with an unbiased view sheds light onto the role that Anti-Mormonism most assuredly played in this uncharacteristically far-reaching Court decision. Had not the issue of polygamy been so hotly contended by so many members of society, Congress would have perhaps been more inclined to view the issue of religious freedom on a broader scale and see that the extensive effects of a decision to endorse government intervention in any religious practice were both invasive and Unconstitutional.

Questions
1-How specifically do you believe Anti-Mormonism influenced the Supreme Court decision? Do you believe that it was a natural byproduct of society’s disdain, or should the Court in theory have remained unsusceptible to this outside influence in its decision?
2-How much did the issue of slavery play a part in the heavy anti Mormon sentiments of the time period?
3-Do you agree with the disappointment expressed by George Cannon, or do you support the Supreme Court’s original decision to protect only religious beliefs and not practice?

Anti-Mormonism Sentiment

From its outset, the Mormon faith was the subject of persecution just about wherever its members are. Its inherently different religious views and claim to be the “restoration of all things” angered other the Christian sects that existed in America at the time. Mormons had to move constantly in order to avoid persecution, eventually ending up in Utah, where they had no neighbors to anger. However, the existence of polygamy in the Western reaches of the United States caused many to associate the Mormon faith with everything that America was trying to leave behind.
The outrage against plural marriage arose from the long-standing tradition of monogamy as the status quo. Society’s reverence of single marriage as a time-honored tradition to be upheld at all costs, and polygamy was seen as one of the two major threats to this institution. “Divorce and polygamy, so the theory went, were twisted strands, already strangling society through the destruction of marriage” (Gordon 174). Polygamy was seen as a threat to marriage as it should be in society. It was seen to destroy marriage in a similar way to divorce. The avid outcry against polygamy began to pick up steam and eventually caught the attention of those in charge of the country.
Spurred on by many dissenters, the federal government began to raise questions about the legality of polygamy, and the matter eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. “The weakness in the system exposed by Mormon polygamy, they argued, could topple the whole structure. In the wrong hands, precious liberties were perverted into justifications for licentiousness” (Gordon 40). The Mormon polygamist movement was seen as something that took advantage of the freedom in America and the start of what could become a rush of immoral developments that could follow. The Constitution offered the citizens freedom, but many argued that polygamy blatantly crossed the line of American freedom and utter freedom.
Once the issue reached the Supreme Court, polygamy was doomed to be outlawed. The massive public outcry from the northeastern United States forced the Supreme Court to deem plural marriage illegal. The reasons stated didn’t really matter, but involved calling the precedents of English law, in which polygamy was punishable by death. The opinion of the court was stated as “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people” (Waite 3). The polygamous nature of the Mormon Church was seen as a barbaric and very un-American establishment by the majority of the American population. The American ideal was seen as a philosophy of restrained personal freedom, not a free-for-all attitude as polygamy implied.
Questions
1. Mormonism suffered because it came to being in the religiously focused climate of nineteenth century America. How do you think Mormonism would fare if it had never existed until now and started up in today’s climate?
2. Do you think the opposition to Mormonism arose from a religious objection or from a defense of the Constitution?

Anti-Mormonism in the 19th and early 20th Century

The place of women in the history is the Latter-day Saints is very interesting. As we read over the last couple weeks, women could be either especially strong willed like Emma Hale Smith or they could bend to pressure like many of the young wives Joseph Smith married. Thus women had an important role within the church. Women also had a crucial role outside of the church, specifically in the opinions of outsiders. In fact all the while that the Federal government was trying to punish and disenfranchise the Mormons, public opinion was rather obsessed with Mormon women first seeing them as victims then as criminals. As Sarah Barringer Gordon puts it, “Indicted as fornicators, with no vote, these women had gone, in less than a decade, from being called victims to being labeled criminals” (181). Gordon’s book tracks the progress of public opinion which first saw the women as victims of abusive and capricious husbands then as complicit criminals who deserved punishment. Gordon claims this turn of opinion was caused by “Congress’s turn to coercion in the second half of the 1880s” (148).

The women also played a large role in the prosecution of polygamists. Many plural wives were taken to the stand in an effort to gain testimony. However this goal of the prosecution was not reached because often the witnesses would “simple ‘forget’ the material elements of the crimes associated with plural marriage” (Gordon, 162). The women especially would forget if the husband had other wives or where the other families lived. Here the victim became complicit in the crime.

Another striking part of the reading was the passage in which Justice Reynolds compared polygamy to human sacrifice and the practice of sati, in which bereaved wives were made to jump on the funeral pyre of their deceased husbands. To link polygamy with two such religious practices was a very strong statement which shows how the wider community felt about polygamy, that is was destructive, barbarous, and potentially violent. This view of the polygamy links back to the early public opinion concerning women, that they were victims. To combine the two would show that the public originally thought that polygamy was a disgusting and dangerous practice that endangered and abused women. As time went on only the latter half of the opinion changed because polygamy was always hated by outsiders.

Questions:

1. Is it fair to link polygamy with sati and human sacrifice? Do the latter traditions have anything in common with the first? Does polygamy hurt anyone? Or was Justice Reynolds just exhibiting his prejudice when he compared the three?
2. Concerning the women of the LDS, are they victims of monstrous polygamy or are they equal perpetrators of the crime? Are they a combination of the two?

Rise and Fall of Plural Marriage

Kathryn Daynes examines the rise and fall of plural marriage within Mormonism in the first two chapters of More Than One Wife. Chapter one traces the development of polygamy from the Mormon settlements in Kirtland and Nauvoo. Joseph Smith’s revelation about plural marriage was seen as a commandment from God and another initiative toward the “restitution of all things” (21). Daynes argues that the belief system of the Mormons was receptive to the practice of polygamy. Their belief that God’s will was revealed to Joseph Smith as his prophet and that practicing polygamy would lead to their salvation when the soon-coming Christ returned to Earth, made their acceptance of the controversial revelation much easier. She also describes the way Mormon communities were different from the other American households, which focused on the immediate family. When plural marriage was officially announced on August 12, 1843 of created a chain reaction of events that led to the murder of Joseph Smith and his brother and the exodus of the Mormon community to a settlement farther west.
Chapter two, Plural Marriage under Mormon Control, discusses the ways in which Mormons were repeatedly persecuted because of their marriage system. When the Mormons settled in Utah they tried to create an isolated community to govern themselves but the United States government issued a series of laws that tore down their legal system that supported their polygamist beliefs. Having their property taken away and being disfranchised by laws such as the Edmunds-Tucker Act led to the issue of the Manifesto, which halted plural marriage in the Mormon Church.
The Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 and the Official Declarations are revelations from God to his prophets that began and ended polygamy for the Mormons. Both issued harsh consequences if the decrees were not adhered to.

Questions:
The title of Chapter 2 Plural Marriage under Mormon Control implies that the Mormons had complete control of their belief at some point. Do you think that their history in America supports this?

In Doctrine & Covenants Section 132 there is a section that speaks directly to Emma Smith about her role as the wife of Joseph Smith and her acceptance of a plural marriage. Is it possible that Joseph added this to the initial revelation after Emma’s fierce rejection of the practice?

Polygamy: a Godly Act or One Driven by Lust

One of the most known traditions of Mormons that is known to many is the practice of polygamy, a practice that has forever tainted Mormonism since its arrival. Joseph Smith experienced numerous conflicted feelings on the subject that is made apparent in both Richard Bushman's Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling and Linda King Newell's and Valeen Avery's Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith. Though the two works focus on Joseph Smith's history and motivational purposes behind polygamy, the two pieces take on contradicting analyses of the tradition and its origins.

In Bushman's Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, the perspective of the work takes on a more personalized tone directed towards Smith and his personal experiences and emotions as he came upon his revelations of polygamy. This piece focuses primarily on the devotion that Smith possessed in order to continue on with his new found, mandatory act of plural marriages. Smith's conflicted emotions on the subject are made apparent as he continuously disputes his actions with his wife and hides the numerous marriages he obtains. Throughout Bushman's piece, Smith's reasoning for committing polygamy is intensified and mentions numerous times in order to convince readers that his actions were purely religiously driven and lack any form of lust or even a love connection between himself and his wives aside from Emma. Also, Emma;s true character in this piece is made out to be an unreasonable jealous person while portraying Smith as an innocent, devout messenger from God.

In Linda King Newell's and Valeen Avery's Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, the approach used is a more modern, feminist driven analysis on the subject of polygamy and Smith's history concerning it. Smith is made out to be a lustful man who disregarded the conflict that his practice of polygamy created in society simply because he wanted numerous wives as opposed to the contrasting, strictly religious motives offered in Bushman's piece. Emma's disapproval of the practiced was justified and made very apparent in this piece as well, making Joseph seem like a selfish, uncaring husband.

Discussion Questions:

1.) Smith acknowledges the controversy that his new practice conjures up in both pieces, yet he continues marrying numerous women for varying reasons. The causes of the mysterious destruction of his revelations permitting this act are unknown but one this for certain: "If Emma destroyed the document, she did so with Joseph's permission" (Avery). Why do you believe the act of polygamy, which was encouraged as a part of salvation, was completely dismissed upon the destruction of the written document as opposed to being revived? Especially if Smith claimed that he would be punished by an angel if he did not practice polygamy?

2.) In both pieces, it is made apparent that Emma was very independent on her thoughts about Smith's practices as she focused on one in particular; polygamy. Why do you believe Smith took all of the trouble that she put him through when he had numerous wives that he could easily have left her for? Why did he devote all of his time and attention to Emma and her kids while basically ignoring his other wives?

Interpreting Joseph Smith on Polygamy

Richard Bushman, author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, and Linda Newell and Valeen Avery, authors of Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, wrote concerning the beginnings of polygamy in the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The two pieces take from the same reservoir of historical information, as evidenced by several of the exact same quotes, for example: “I have placed my life in your hands therefore do not in an evil hour betray me to my enemies” (Bushman, 95) (Avery, 438). However the perspectives and the interpretations of personal accounts and research varies dramatically between the two pieces. The portrayal of Joseph Smith in relation to polygamy displays the authors’ different opinions.

Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith disparages Joseph from the very beginning of chapter seven. The authors suggest that Smith practiced and taught polygamy even though he was aware that it might destroy his people and cause his own death. Smith’s continuation of the practice while knowing the consequences seems to imply that he knew he was doing something wrong, especially since he initially kept Emma from knowing about his other wives. The authors also conjecture about the causes for Smith to institute polygamy. They mention rumors such as that Smith was a “brilliant imposter”, that he had an “insatiable sexual drive”, and that “Emma was frigid and unresponsive” (Avery, 97). None of these speculations were discredited, leaving the readers to wonder if Smith really was an egotistical selfish womanizer. The bare presence of these rumors in a historical piece displays the low opinion that the writers had concerning Smith on the subject of polygamy.

Both pieces of literature concede that historians don’t agree on the number of wives Joseph had. They both put forth different figures. Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith suggests 27, 48 or 84, which are really high. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling presents that the number of wives probably ranged between 28 and 33, a conservative estimate in comparison to the other book’s numbers.

Bushman treats Joseph Smith more kindly. He presents the idea that Smith felt forced to marry additional women because an angel threatened to slay him with a sword. By Bushman’s accounts Smith is to be pitied; he is risking his marriage, his followers, and his freedom to follow God’s will and marry more women. The author specifically mentions that Smith did not marry women for their bodies and that his bond with them was “impersonal” (Bushman, 440). This suggests that Smith simply treated a marriage with his other wives as a business transaction and that nothing too untoward occurred. Bushman does not judge Smith harshly for proposing and partaking in polygamy; he takes a more understanding stance to the issue.

On a side note, I find it very interesting that the historical piece, which is extremely critical of Joseph Smith and plural marriages was written by women; whereas, a male wrote the book which treats Smith more gently concerning polygamy.

Questions:

1) Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling discusses at length Joseph Smith’s reluctance to take on plural wives. Morman Enigma: Emma Hale Smith mentions how Emma must have felt on various occasions. However historical proof of feelings and emotions is lacking and what exists can be open to interpretation. In your opinion how does an author prove the thoughts and feelings of another person? How much evidence is needed to support the author’s proposal? Is it impossible to prove conclusively people’s thoughts and emotions (such as Emma and Joseph Smith’s on polygamy)?

2) A strong bond exists between Emma and Joseph. Emma was the most influential person in Joseph’s life. They cared for each other deeply as evidenced by small actions such as Joseph asking a family to let Emma to take care of their daughter in order to cheer Emma up. If Joseph Smith believed that his and Emma’s marriage would end at death, then why did he wait so long to seal Emma “for time and all eternity”?

The Interplay between the Bible and The Book of Mormon

The Christian Bible is unequivocally the most significant text ever authored based solely on the sheer volume of individuals that have been exposed to its influence. Reproduced in more languages and greater quantities than any other single book in human history, the Bible has become a largely ubiquitous concept, regardless of religious tradition or physical location. In some circumstances with appropriate societal stimuli, such as the nineteenth century New England ripe with Revolution ideals, a feverous religious ethos is the consequence of a biblical super-saturated populace.

In the excerpt from Philip L. Barlow’s book "Mormons and the Bible: the Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion", the religious scholar considers the indirect impact of the Bible on Joseph Smith’s formative period and how this directly affects the Book of Mormon. Beyond determining that Smith had definitively read some portion of the Bible, and was thus familiar with some essential scriptures, prior to his dictation of the Book of Mormon, Barlow focuses on the myriad ways the Bible ultimately affected the Prophet and are expressed in his “third testament” (Barlow, 40). Barlow posits that it was not the physical or intellectual act of reading the Bible that profoundly affected Smith’s dictation. Instead, the historian argues that the ethos created by the ubiquity of the Bible is subtly manifested in the Book of Mormon. For example, the religious language Smith uses subconsciously throughout the text is based on popular vernacular that has integrated biblical vocabulary.

Barlow identifies and explicates parallels and discontinuities between the King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon to highlight subtly biblical influences in the latter text. Fundamentally, the Book of Mormon is intended as a “restoration of the truths, ordinances, and priesthood of all eras or ‘dispensations’, including Old Testament” to the pure state of Christianity, and a fairly high degree of correlation between the texts is expected (18). However, Barlow maintains that both parallels and discontinuities belie biblical influence. Parallels demonstrate the inseparability of biblical Christianity from the Smith’s worldview. Deviations from the King James Version are indicative of Smith’s dissatisfaction and desire to return the scripture to its accurate condition. Additionally, Barlow addresses an anomalous aspect of Smith’s amendments compared to other religious texts: being that Smith directly inserts himself into the Book of Mormon. The Prophet includes his existence and even attempts to define himself and his work as the realization of various biblical prophesies. The Second Book of Nephi, Chapter 29, explicitly addresses the creation of texts such as the Book of Mormon while the Fourth Nephi, Chapter 1, Verse 49, alludes to the creation of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith.

The excerpts from Barlow and the Book of Mormon raise several questions regarding the true nature of the interplay between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Is the Book of Mormon an independent “restoration” of the true words of God, as claimed by Joseph Smith? Or is the Book of Mormon a byproduct of the Bible saturated ethos that conditioned Joseph Smith? Neither question addresses the veracity of the contents of the Book of Mormon or the Bible; responses should consider historical and linguistic analyses. Additionally, what does Joseph Smith's inclusion of himself in the Book of Mormon indicate about Joseph Smith?

The Book of Mormon: Biblically Inspired, Divinely Guided

Everything we create possesses unique qualities and characteristics; however, nothing we create stands alone. We continuously borrow from other sources: we expand and reflect existing works. The process of writing does not fail to do this. Writers gather and blend the ideas, language, and themes from existing passages to develop their own distinctive text.

Academic writers are no exception to this particular practice. According to Joseph Harris in the introduction of his writing handbook Rewriting, academic writers constantly respond, by rewriting and reinterpreting, to the established texts. In his first chapter, “Coming to Terms,” of his writers’ manual, Harris didactically elaborates in plain language on this practice of borrowing and responding to academic prose. When incorporating an existing text in one’s own writing, Harris proposes that one must first “come to terms” with the text. In other words, one must define the purpose, note key words and passages, and assess the limitations and positive characteristics of the established work. When borrowing from another source, complete understanding of the initial work becomes necessary.

Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon faith, certainly borrowed from existing works when writing his religious text, the Book of Mormon. According to Phillip Barlow, author of Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion, Smith lived and breathed in the Bible-saturated culture of Western New York. Barlow claims that Smith frequently read the King James Bible and was perhaps more aware of the Bible’s contents, messages, and language than historians previously have guessed. Smith’s exposure to the King James Bible certainly reveals itself when reading the Book of Mormon. In the first chapter of his book, Barlow first analyzes the process and timeline by which Smith created his religious work. Barlow then methodically connects particular elements of the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon. The language, events, and themes of the Book of Mormon strongly reflect those of the King James Bible; however, Smith, in the writing of the Book of Mormon, altered some grammatical and lexical elements of the King James Bible, a fact which Barlow demonstrates by placing together almost identical passages from the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon and highlighting the differences and similarities between the two texts.

The similarities of between the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible highlighted in Barlow’s Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion become even more apparent when reading the selections from the Book of Mormon. These particular collections historically chronicle the lives and fates of Nephi and his descendents as they flee Jerusalem, receive messages from the Lord, begin and end cycles of wickedness, and search for the Promised Land. Written in 17^th century prose and filled with noted biblical language, the selections closely parallel the well-known stories in the King James Bible, including, among others, the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus’ birth, and the Lord’s Prayer. Smith’s employment of elements from the King James Bible both legitimizes and simplifies his own work for his Christian audience.

Questions for Discussion:

1. How did Smith explain some of the discrepancies between the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible? Why did Smith choose to do this?

2. While the events portrayed in the selections from the Book of Mormon occur in the late first century B.C. and early first century A.D., do elements of Smith’s 19^th century culture appear to influence the Book of Mormon?

3. Why did Smith choose to write in 17^th century prose? Does this make the work more “legitimate”?

4. The Book of Mormon was advertised as a companion to the Bible. Is it possible to fully understand the Book of Mormon without reading the Bible? Can the Book of Mormon stand alone as a religious work?

Emergence of Mormonisn

The two passages, “Joseph Smith — History” and “Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition,” both tell of the origins of the Mormon religion. Nevertheless, they address the topic in two completely different ways. The former is Joseph Smith, Jr.’s first-hand account of his upbringing, work and persecution. On the surface, it is merely a retelling of the events leading to the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but under closer inspection, the reader can see Smith’s appeal to nonbelievers to consider the religion. He includes such details as his own indecision and alienation to make the religion more accessible. By mentioning his own hardships, he seeks to prove that believers in his faith are no different than mainstream Protestants; if the founder, a man gifted with God’s work, suffers from human troubles, so must the others. Smith likewise elaborates on his visions. His vivid imagery is there to reinforce the idea that these scenes are not mere hallucinations but visions detailing his task before God. All in all, the piece elucidates the origins of the religion in order to bring acceptance from nonbelievers of that time period.

Contrariwise, the second piece summarizes Smith’s role in the creation of the religion while drawing upon modern interpretation of historic events and their influences on Smith. Ian Shipps, the author, gives the reader perspective: he really puts the founding of the religion into context. He considers the mentality of the era, dwelling on the common view of the time period, which was that the world had already been enlightened by science. He states that others regarded the Mormon movement as superstitious and thus a threat to the educated world. Of course, such a benighted view lead to an irrational fear and ironically actions that would threaten a civilized world. Shipps then hones his historical microscope in on the actual environment Smith developed his ideas in. He looks at the consequences of Smith’s upbringing and the religious landscape of the second Great Awakening’s Burned-over District. He suggests that without this environment Smith could not have founded the Mormon religion, for without the religious supersaturation Smith would not have questioned and searched for his beliefs, and without his supportive family he probably would not have set out on his endeavor.

In conclusion, both works examined the birth of Mormonism; however, they possess different focuses. Keeping that in mind, what do you think is the difference between a historical view looking back to the birth of Mormonism and a real time period view? Also, consider Joseph Smith for who he is. How would he be different if he had been born into different circumstances (ie. lacking the Enlightenment culture, religious upheaval and loving family) and still had his visions? How would the modern world be different in light of that?

On a less serious note, can we just say that I think this is a really weird facial expression? Is he smiling or is he not? Joseph Smith might be the new Mona Lisa. http://www.mormontemples.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/joseph-smith.jpg

Emergence of Mormonism---Dual Views

The burgeoning of Mormonism is viewed both canonically and historically in the two assigned reading documents, “Joseph Smith---History” by Joseph Smith and “Mormonism: The Story of A New Religious Tradition” by Jan Shipps. The first, “Joseph Smith ­---History” are excerpts from Smith’s autobiographical account as the prophet regarding the origins of Mormonism. This explains the rationale behind the Mormon faith by the creator of the sect, and allows us to consider the Mormon faith from the Latter Day Saints’ perspective. This shift from the general public’s paradigm allows bilateral analysis of the emergence of Mormonism, especially due to the negative media Mormonism receives over faith-based controversies. “History” provides a detailed account of Smith’s visions and ensuing persecution, which relates his experience with those of biblical prophets such as Paul, similarly harassed for their beliefs. The visions are described with formal prose closely imitating the Bible, while the imagery associated with divine beings also match traditional biblical descriptions. Such theological details strengthen the faith of LDS as the prose helps to legitimize their belief.

In “Mormonism”, the early history of the LDS is detailed through a more historical-documentary manner than “History”. In terms of bias, though the author Jan Shipps is a scholar in Mormon history, she is not a LDS which credits her work with more impartiality. Historically, “’inside’ and ‘outside’ perceptions of what was happening differed at practically every point in LDS history.” This means that both sides contribute significant bias to chronicles of major events, thus making it hard to distinguish the truth behind the words. To holistically approach the beginnings of Mormonism through the life of Joseph Smith, Shipps detailed and analyzed his family life and history to better understand the environment that raised a future prophet. Many of the facts revolving around Mormonism’s humble beginnings were unearthed and disparities between them and Mormon accounts of the story can be used to evaluate the merit behind the statements made by both.

The spiritual condition of America during Smith’s visions was highly volatile, even fanatically zealous. Smith introduced his new beliefs in the midst of the Second Great Awakening (1790 to 1840’s), and so was naturally greatly distrusted by the general public and prominent religious figures. In the battle of sects, Smith’s intention to purify Christian belief by introducing an entirely new sect doomed his nascent faith to slander and persecution. Although people were widely returning to church, it created tension between church leaders as each fought for popularity, influence and new converts. And as suggested by “Mormonism”, the progression of scientific enlightenment and Protestant Reformation did not lend much credibility to Smith’s visions, nor did its church hierarchy reminiscent of the public of oppressive medieval feudalism improve its cultural image.

In your opinion, what is the effect of early adversity on the Mormons? What disparities do you think are most significant between Smith’s “Histories” and Shipps’ book? Why do you think these disparities are significant? What do you think is the most important reason why Mormonism was so persecuted in the early days?