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?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
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.
Monday, February 8, 2010
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?
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?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
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?
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:
- 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?
- 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?
Monday, February 1, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)