This post could also be titled "A Brief Education on Latter-Day Saints, aka Mormons."
I thought I'd post on a less hot topic, at least to us contributors. If for some reason you do find this post controversial, feel free to let us know.
Here is the deal: I live in an area with very few "Mormons." When people find out I'm Mormon they invariably ask me about my lifestyle choices. The thing that gets me is they always start the sentences with "You're Mormon so that means you're not allowed to..." etc. It drives me nuts.
Although this topic isn't necessarily political in every sense, I thought it was still worthy of a post in light of the recent onslaught in news media talking about how much Mitt Romney's Mormonism played a silent factor in people's refusal to vote for him. Some have even said that they were surprised by how much anti-Mormonism was actually still out there, lurking silently, the modern equivalent of anti-Semitism. And it was surprising to many when Huckabee used "the widow's mite" in his speech and a lot of people seemed to have never heard the phrase before (its from the New Testament in case you were wondering). So maybe a lot of things that I take for granted other people knowing...they really don't know.
Please believe me when I tell you what Mormons believe in the following list. Trust me, I've been Mormon all my life, I grew up around a BUNCH of Mormons in Arizona, I attended college with lots of Mormons in Utah, I married a Mormon. I'm not sure why, but some people believe they know more about my church than I do. Maybe some people don't know why they attend a certain congregation, and do not know what their church believes in and is "allowed" to do...but I'm not one of those people. I'm a very active member of the Mormon faith, so take it with a grain of salt and give me the benefit of the doubt that I know what I'm talking about.
Also, the term 'Mormon' is something that people who are NOT Mormon call us. Back when Joseph Smith founded our religion the members referred to themselves as Saints and those who weren't members called them 'Mormons' after the Book of Mormon was translated and published. We will often say 'mormon' when talking to someone who isn't because they aren't familiar with the term LDS which stands for Latter Day Saint, part of the actual name of our church, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. So historically, the label of MORMON is something outsiders gave us: we didn't give it to ourselves.
Mormons use modern medicine.
Mormons can have blood transfusions. Yes, the blood can be from anyone regardless of the donor's religion. Hopefully the blood bank screened it for infectious blood-borne diseases.
Mormons do not drive around in horse and buggy/carriage. We drive cars. Or ride bikes. Or walk, depending on whether we live in the city or not.
Mormons live everywhere, not just Utah.
The Mormon religion started in NY. Because of hate and intolerance the people were driven out of every town they lived in until they finally fled to the west where they wouldn't be lynched or killed.
The Mormon religion is the only religion in the USA to have had an extermination order signed against it.
Mormons can dance.
Mormons do not have to have 10 children. Mormons are counseled to only have the # of children that they can feasibly care for emotionally, physically, financially. So for one family that might be 2 kids. For another family it might be 7.
Mormons love to party. In fact, Mormons party a lot. And the best part is that we wake up the next morning remembering everything we did with no hangover.
Mormons can be gay without being excommunicated. Let me expound: Mormons are counseled to refrain from unmarried sex. If you're sleeping around there is a great chance you'll be excommunicated if you don't stop. This applies to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. So, if you're Mormon and you're gay you are held to the same standard: no sex before marriage. Since marriage is for the most part illegal in this country...gay Mormons are probably going to have a lonely life. It is actually a really really sad situation. I don't like people joking about it.
Steve Martin is not a Mormon.
Mormons are not required to get married inside the temple.
Mormon women can wear pants, trousers, overalls...whatever they want.
Mormons do not get paid for church service.
Mormons are not required to serve missions.
Girls can serve missions if they desire.
Mormons are not polygamists. Again, let me expound: once upon a time less than 10% of the LDS population practiced polygamy. BUT, it wasn't something that everyone was allowed to do. Men had to be called by the prophet to do so. And, once the church leaders got rid of polygamy anyone found practicing it has been excommunicated. The polygamists that show up on TV nowadays are people who do their whole thing outside of our church. Think Catholic and Lutheran. The Lutherans are not Catholic---they left the Catholic church. Well, the polygamists today are not Mormon. They've left our church. I don't know why this concept is so hard for people to understand.
Mormons pray regularly and then do everything in their power (like work, go to the doctor, etc) to make whatever they are praying about happen. Think Faith in action.
Mormons are encouraged to think and analyze and rationalize their actions. If you were raised Mormon it doesn't mean that you don't know how to think for yourself.
Mormons are not baptized until they are at least 8 years old so that each individual can make the choice to get baptized for themself, as opposed to having your parents decide to have you baptized when you're a baby and incapable of decision-making.
Mormons believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are 3 separate persons.
Mormons believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are united in purpose: to bring to pass the eternal life and salvation of mankind.
Not every Mormon woman knows how to sew.
Mormon women are encouraged to get as much education as possible.
Some Mormon families have the dad as the main breadwinner. Some have the mom and the dad both working to bring income. Some have the mom working while the dad stays home.
Mormons are encouraged not to drink coffee or alcohol.
Mormons can eat beef, pork, chicken, and any other meat that used to be alive.
Yes, Mormons can eat eggs and use vaccinations that have egg protein in them.
Mormons go to church for 3 hours on Sunday so we don't have to go during the week. A couple decades ago some church meetings were held during the week, but this was changed to make it easier for members to attend all their meetings. Its more convenient to do all things churchy in one block on the Sabbath.
Mormons read the bible, regularly.
Mormons believe in life after death.
Mormons believe in life before birth (that we exist as spirit children of our Heavenly Father before coming to earth to recieve a body and have mortal experiences which help us grow and become better individuals).
Mormons believe that for the most part everyone will go to heaven.
Mormons are encouraged to not smoke. It isn't healthy.
Mormons can drink soda pop. And carbonated beverages.
Mormons can watch tv. And cable tv. And they often go to the movie theater.
SO...I think we're pretty normal. I'm not sure why some people hate us and are anti-Mormon, but there are people out there who are willing to hate anything they don't know much about.
Or perhaps they hate what they fear and fear usually comes from a lack of understanding.
Putting Some Rumors to Rest
Posted by Amy on 2/15/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Great post, Amy! I have tiny nitpick about the gay part.
Mormons are permitted to be gay, and are even allowed to be "out of the closet." However, the church puts intense pressure on homosexuals to attend "conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy."
These therapies are supposed to turn them heterosexual, but in practice at most 3% of homosexuals can actually change their sexual orientation, although most professionals agree that even this estimate is absurdly high. For those who cannot change their sexual orientation, reparative therapy can be very psychologically and emotionally damaging. The practice has led to a large number of suicides. The therapy is not endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, or the American Academy of Pediatrics. None of these bodies will license a therapist who uses this technique. These counselors may be practicing illegally.
Also, you are right to say that homosexuals are held to the same standard as as other Mormons: no sex before marriage. However, the church does not recognize any marriage in which both partners are the same gender. That means that even when two gay Mormons of the same gender are married to each other legally, they are considered unmarried sinners by the church.
I know this from first hand experience. I was Mormon for 19 years before I left the church. I personally experienced the harm of reparative therapy and I'm lucky to be alive after that experience. After that, I couldn't remain in the church, although I still have many friends and family who are active members.
Yeah. You need to define Mormon, because many of those things aren't true for all people who claim to be Mormon - so, Amy, you need to define Mormon as "Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in good standing." Most of the "sectarian" Mormons still refer to themselves as Mormons, so, for instance, saying that Mormons don't practice polygamy would only be true if you define Mormons as I have above. Sorry, this is both a nit-pick and an important point of clarification. By the way, good post. I'd like to do a part-two someday.
For some reason blogger was having technical problems when I first posted and not everything I typed showed up. But it is all there now.
Ok, Jackson: all I said was that gay people would not be excommunicated for simply being gay. I'm sorry you had a bad experience.
Rick: by definition a "Mormon" is a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This is the definition of Mormon. If you don't belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints you aren't mormon. Period! Someone from the RLDS church is not a Mormon.
Jackson, I had no idea. I'm very sorry for what you went through.
Interesting post, Amy! I hope we have some non-member readers who will pop in and give us some more to talk about.
Also, Rick, in regards to your comment about defining a "mormon"... click here to see exactly what the church has to say about it.
conceded...Just don't try telling them that.:)
Amy, excellent post. And, yes, Mormons can DANCE. Julianne Hough, anyone? Mmmm...
Jackson, while I lack your firsthand experience, I don't think that the Church officially pressures homosexual members to attend therapy. This is not to say that some misguided local leaders or family members have not encouraged this. Certainly there's no Church support for anything abusive. In any case, I'm sorry for your bad experience. :(
Mike, unfortunately, this has been the Church's position for many years. While I can't point to a specific document in which the Church officially endorses it, the practice is well known in the gay Mormon community (there are more of us than you'd think). It's so prevalent that the HRC criticizes it in their profile of the Church. (Warning: This article was written prior to the Church's release of "God Loveth His Children," which relaxed the church's stance on homosexuality, so some other things it says are inaccurate.)
Actually, this is an improvement from the kinds electro-shock therapy that the church used to endorse, and which the Church funded through BYU.
I also am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it is a long name, but worth it to reiterate.
I do not agree we are fairly normal. I used to think that, before I went back to get my MBA.
We believe in absolute truth. That is way different than so many, who believe in "find your own truth", diversity of values, and so on. There is a lot of moral swaying going on that is seen as perfectly acceptable, as long as the person is "true" to themselves.
Also I have noticed my convictions and hope affect the way I live my life more; I am not so scared about what scientists or social scientists are saying; my beliefs trump that.
Science does not trump our beliefs. If science proves Jesus never existed, was not resurrected, etc., then science has more work to do, not religion.
We really believe it!
Hey, Amy, this post is featured at the Deseret Morning News website (see the link on our front page). Way to go!
Jackson, I too want to say that I'm very sorry for your experience. I've thought about the comments on this post all day and wanted to add a link to a recent article that was featured in the Ensign October 2007 I have found to be a helpful and important article on the subject:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e5cbba12dc825110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
As for different methods of therapy, homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness by mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists, as electroshock therapy used to be considered an acceptable treatment for mental illness. I think these are two good examples of the fact that we all still have a lot to learn about same-gender attraction, inside and outside the boundaries of the church.
I have a couple of comments, but first let me apologize for entering this discussion a little late. My main doorway into the LDS blogosphere is the LDS page on Topix.net, which only linked to this site today.
Amy, I appreciate posts like yours that take a thoughtful approach to countering prejudice and rumor. You have done a good job of explaining some key points from the perspective of a Latter Day Saint. However, I doubt your words will persuade those who don't share that perspective.
Consider how certain things look from the outside.
Consider first your point about the term "Mormon" being "something that people who are NOT Mormon call us."
Bruce McConkie addressed this issue decades ago, writing in Mormon Doctrine in 1979 that "unofficially and by way of nickname, members of this restored Church have become known as Mormons, a name which is in no sense offensive or objectionable to them” (pg. 513). Has something changed since 1979? If McConkie is right, why even bring this matter up? The issue strikes outsiders as petty.
But here's my main point. It's no wonder that Mormons would prefer to be called Saints, because, as you might have noticed, the word "saint" has extremely positive connotations. It suggests an exceptional degree of piety, moral rectitude, closeness to God, etc., etc. If you are a Saint and I am not, does that not imply that you are better than I am? Should it really surprise you to discover that some of us gentiles consider you guys a tad arrogant?
Suppose I started a new church, named it The First Church of the Heavenly Heroes, and then decreed that my followers henceforth be known, not as Davidians, but as Heroes. My guess is that those outside my church would not consider my followers particularly heroic, and, being alert to the connotations of the term, would refuse to call us Heroes. They might even get a bit of a chuckle out of my arrogance. Even you might consider me a bit arrogant.
As for the definition of "Mormon"--definitions are not handed down from on high. Like all word meanings, they emerge out of social usage and consensus. Simply saying that "by definition a 'Mormon' is a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" is not enough to make it so--even if you do stamp your foot a bit by adding, "Period!"
If you want your definition to stick, you'll have to fight to make it stick, and one of those you'll have to fight is me. I happen to think it makes much more sense to use "Mormon" to refer to all the churches claiming descent from Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon--not just the LDS Church but also the RLDS, FLDS, Strangites, etc. As an outsider, I don't see any reason to reserve the "Mormon" brand for one of Smith's progeny and not the others.
You might also ask yourself whether your exclusion of other churches from the Mormon family is not just as obnoxious as the Southern Baptist exclusion of your church from the Christian family.
Just as I don't see any reason to reserve the "Mormon" brand for one group of Book of Mormon readers and not the others, so I don't see any reason to reserve the name "Christian" for one group of New Testament readers and not the others. I don't see how you can possibly tell the FLDS they're not Mormon and then turn around and complain when the Baptists say you are not Christian. You can't have it both ways.
(If you'd like a little historical background on these questions of definition and exclusion, you might want to get your hands on McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and read the definition of "Church of the Devil." You might want to pay attention particularly to the way the definition changes from the 1958 to the 1979 edition.)
Now please allow me to cite your words on the polygamy issue:
"[O]nce upon a time less than 10% of the LDS population practiced polygamy.... Well, the polygamists today are not Mormon. They've left our church. I don't know why this concept is so hard for people to understand."
What I find hard to understand is the CURRENT STATUS of the DOCTRINE of plural marriage. Yes, I'm aware of the Woodruff Manifesto. I'm aware that the Church does not perform plural marriages. But does the Church still "believe in" the doctrine of plural marriage? Does the Church still hold that if a man espouse a virgin, and she be not espoused to another man, then it cannot be adultery? In other words, what's the current status of D&C 132?
I'd like to know, but no one seems to want to tell me. Obviously, this question is not answered merely by saying the Church no longer performs plural marriages. The question cuts more deeply than that. To address current practice but ignore underlying doctrine is evasive--and evasiveness breeds suspicion.
(The same holds true, BTW, for the doctrine of exaltation. Forget the silly question about whether Jesus and Satan are brothers--does exaltation result in being LIKE a God, or in actually becoming a God? Is LDS doctrine monotheistic, henotheistic, or what? Not that I personally have any problem with polytheism. I'm with the ancient Greeks--and the Battlestar Galactica scriptwriters--on that one.)
Here's another reason why your answer to the polygamy question is hard for us outsiders to understand. We naturally tend to think that, if LDS doctrine is revealed truth, then it ought to be universal truth. Ergo, if polygamy did not constitute adultery THEN, it ought not to constitute adultery NOW. Sure, polygamy is not PRACTICED now, but statements about practice do not by themselves answer questions about belief.
Consider an analogy. I happen to believe there's nothing immoral about drinking a glass of wine with dinner. However, if wine were outlawed, I would stop drinking it. I would cease that practice out of a general respect for the law, and perhaps also for fear of being caught and punished, but NOT because I had suddenly come to believe wine-drinking to be immoral. My practice would change, but my belief would remain the same. And if the law were revoked, I would resume my old habit of drinking wine with my dinner.
So, suppose wine-drinking has been outlawed. Imagine a dialogue that begins when someone asks me--
"Do you think it's immoral to drink wine?"
And I answer--
"Wine-drinking was outlawed ten years ago, and I have not had a glass in all that time. I obey the law and plan to continue doing so."
"Yes, yes, I know that. But what do you BELIEVE? Is wine drinking immoral or not?"
"Like I said. Wine-drinking was outlawed ten years ago, and I have not had a glass in all that time. I obey the law and plan to continue doing so."
"No, no--that's not what I'm asking. Legal obligation and personal moral belief are different things. I'm asking about belief and you're answering about law."
"Like I said. Wine-drinking was outlawed ten years ago, and I have not had a glass in all that time. I obey the law and plan to continue doing so."
"You're starting to sound like a broken record. Your answers seem pretty evasive."
"Why are you prejudiced against my religion?"
That's how the Church's handling of polygamy looks from my side of the fence: evasive.
FWIW, I see the same pattern in Elaine's comment. To say that Mormons are "not normal" and "way different" because they believe in "absolute truth" is evasive. When outsiders ask about the "Mormon difference" they're asking about what distinguishes Mormon doctrine from other kinds of Christian doctrine. Belief in absolute truth is something that distinguishes Mormons from secular humanists, but certainly not from evangelicals, Baptists, etc. Elaine is simply diverting our attention from those things that trouble other Christians to something those other Christians can admire. Even were it true, which it's not, her answer is evasive.
Just sayin'.
--David
Anonymous David, Followers of Christ in the New Testament referred to themselves as Saints. Hence we follow their example. I could talk more but I'm sure other contributors will have comments. All I'm going to say is that your thoughts remind me of the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.
David, welcome to the site! Your comment has moved me to research, so I will address your latter points when I'm less inclined to take a nap than I am right now, but let me address your questions on nomenclature.
My understanding of the situation is that, as a body, we don't insist on non-members calling us "Latter-day Saints" as opposed to "Mormons", though we might prefer it, for reasons you've noted! :) I think you misrepresent Amy's claim about non-members coining the term Mormon to imply that we don't use the term, or look down on those who do. We certainly do use it, constantly; it's a very convenient name which illustrates one of our big departures from "mainstream" Christianity - the Book of Mormon.
Thus your logical question, why are you "Mormons" and not the other Book of Mormon users? The big issue, which you perceive as nitpicky but I think has some relevance, is that using the term "Mormon" for all churches with their origins in Joseph Smith includes several denominations which operate outside the law; most notably, the FLDS. Let me pose a hypothetical of my own: suppose the mainstream media referred to the Westboro Baptist Church (the funeral picketers - I will not give them the respect of a website link) as "Baptists". From their name, I infer that they consider themselves to be of the Baptist tradition, so why not? This would not sit well with mainstream Baptists, nor would you expect any reputable media source to leave any doubt that the WBC is clearly outside of what society perceives to be "Baptists". Similarly, referring to Warren Jeffs as a Mormon causes us to cringe, as we expect that this will engender confusion in the casual reader about whether or not he's associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or, more importantly, whether we condone his illicit activities. It obfuscates the fact that we are a law-abiding people, and this concerns us.
As you say, word definitions "emerge out of social usage and consensus". My evaluation of the consensus is that a Mormon is a member of the big church. In my experience with members and non-members alike, that's the most sensible use of the term. Others may disagree - as you point out, the SBC doesn't fancy us to be Christians - and that is their right, but I think this position is pretty defensible.
Hi, David - Good points - I'd like to address them from my point of view - not even close to representative of the general body of the Mormon Church, just one LDS guy's opinions. - - obviously, the name deal I disagreed with, that' why I said it earlier.
- - I flat out do not believe there is anything wrong with the doctrine or practice of polygamy as given in D&C 132+ - I do, however, think that the wive collecting fiasco that happened later is a misrepresentation of that doctrine. Thus it's suspension.
- - I tell everyone that I'm a polytheist - I think if any LDS person is totally honest with themselves, the will come to that conclusion too. The original creator of Galactica, by the way, was Mormon - but I'm sure you knew that.
- - now, what that MEANS - as far as polytheist and exaltation, etc, is up for debate (so much for absolute truth.)I think that with us, as with any religion, the absolute meaning of our "absolute truth" is up to each individual to decide - I'm sure that my "take" on stuff is vastly different than many other Mormon's take, and I'm okay with that. Hope that helps.
Mike, I appreciate the analogy you present: Fred Phelps' WBC is indeed to the SBC as Warren Jeffs' FLDS is to the LDS. You're right to say that using the same term to describe FLDS and LDS is indeed likely to confuse casual readers by, as you say, obfuscating the fact that the LDS are a law-abiding people.
But guess what? NOT referring to both groups as Mormon is ALSO likely to confuse casual readers--by obfuscating certain other facts, such as the degree to which the LDS and FLDS really DO share a great deal of history and theology.
Both classification schemes highlight as much as they conceal. Obviously, one definition benefits the LDS and the other the FLDS, and I certainly don't blame you or Amy or anyone else for favoring the one that favors their own church. But neither definition is "natural" or pre-given in reality. When you argue that Jeffs is not a Mormon, you're engaging in linguistic politics. To simply assert (as Amy did) that "If you don't belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints you aren't Mormon, period!" makes as much sense as to assert, "If you're not a Republican you aren't an American, period!" Both statements are self-serving bluster of precisely the same kind, and aren't going to get you very far with anyone who thinks.
I can certainly understand why "referring to Warren Jeffs as a Mormon causes [you] to cringe." I feel the same way when someone refers to, say, Menachem Begin (the terrorist-cum-Israeli prime minister who blew up the King David hotel) as a Jew. But guess what? By any plausible standard, he WAS a Jew. Or rather, it would be extremely difficult for me to persuade others to accept a definition of "Jew" that would exclude him but still include me. I could try to do it, but I doubt I'd succeed.
So it makes more sense to me to say something like this: Look, people, once upon a time, long ago, the Jews were a pretty homogeneous group of people. If you knew someone was a Jew you pretty much knew what they believed. But time and history and modernity have done their work, and today there are all kinds of Jews--orthodox Jews, ultra-orthodox Jews, conservative Jews, Reform Jews, twice-a-year Jews, Jews who want to share Israel with the Palestinians, Jews who want to kick them all out and blow up the Dome of the Rock. Jews were once even polygamous, just like the Mormons, and while most Jews don't believe in polygamy today, many of them don't reject it as a matter of principle, since God seems to have commanded it at one time. In fact, there are (gasp!) STILL polygamous Jews today! (They're from Ethiopia.) Get used to it.
All in all, there are good Jews and bad Jews, Jews who believe much as you do and others who believe some pretty wild stuff about God's plan to nuke the Arabs or about homosexuality causing earthquakes or about the Golem or whatever. The discovery that someone is a Jew tells you pretty much nothing about that person. About all it tells you is that they share some minimal amount of biological or cultural descent or affinity, and an even more miniscule amount of belief and behavior, with other Jews. But that's it. The person might be liberal, conservative, hate homosexuals or support gay marriage, be polygamous or monogamous, or whatever. That's just the way it is.
In the long run, this makes much more sense to me than trying to get the public to believe that Noam Chomsky is Jewish and Meir Kahane is not, or that monogamous Ukrainian immigrants are Jewish while polygamous Ethiopian immigrants are not, etc.
In fact, the current LDS strategy on this issue might prove to be counterproductive. Implicit in the idea that "Mormon" refers ONLY to members of the LDS Church is the idea that "Mormonism" is monolithic. In the unlikely event the Church makes its definition stick with the public at larger, then fine. But if it fails to make that definition stick, it will make its problem worse than it was before. When people (inevitably) hear Warren Jeffs described as a Mormon, they might be more likely to think of him specifically as a member of the LDS Church rather than just as some wacky Mormon.
Isn't that precisely what the casual observer would think if, from one source they've heard that Jeffs is a Mormon, and from another source they've heard that "Mormon" refers only to members of the LDS Church?
--David
Anonymous David (I refer to you as such to distinguish you in my mind from Big Bald Dave, to whom I am married ;)):
That is a very interesting point regarding self-labeling re "Jews" and "Mormons". I've never thought about it in that context, but that makes perfect sense to me, and in fact I will probably appropriate the analogy for my own convenience next time I face this question from someone else, if you don't mind. :)
I'm going to have to do some researching on some of your other points as well, but thanks for providing me with some food for thought.
May I ask how you have come to study Mormonism is such apparent depth (I'd venture to say most Mormons aren't that familiar with McConkie, let alone non-members)?
Wait, did I just refer to us as "Mormons"? Should that rather be "Saints"? Hmmmm. :)
I'll go ahead and say it. You are quite clever, David. To be honest, many of your comparisons are too unfamiliar to me to say definitively if they have any relevance at all or not. However, I am leaning toward "not."
Jews of many types are indeed labeled under the broad appellation "Jew." But it is not just because of their shared religion, or culture even. To say someone is a Jew has as much reference (if not more) to their ethnicity as it does to the beliefs that he or she holds. For this reason, I find the Jewish analogy to people adhering to the teachings of Joseph Smith a bit obtuse. There is no ethnic element to being a Mormon.
Even disregarding the above argument, I would still disagree on a technicality. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is no self-identification of members. No one claiming to be LDS has any basis for doing so unless his name is on the records of the Church in Salt Lake City. As a Church, the LDS organization has been since its inception as strict as can be imagined about who is part of the Church and who is not, on an individual basis. The central, authoritative structure of the LDS Church is a far cry from the decentralized determination of fellowship in Judaism; I therefore strongly disagree with a comparison of one to another when it comes to the identificative legitimacy of derivative groups.
I'd mostly just like to know why you've gone to such efforts to defend Warren Jeffs' inclusion under the nickname "Mormon." You say it is "linguistic politics" and claim that LDS has something to lose one way and FLDS the other. I agree that the LDS Church has much at stake in separating itself from excommunicates such as Jeffs. What I think is less compelling, though, is the assertion that FLDS stands to gain if they can be called "Mormons." Can you not see that they know they are outside of the fold? Why else would they have officially renamed their church? You assume that they wish to be associated with the LDS Church and so wish to fall under a category commonly known to refer to the LDS Church, but I don't know that that is true. If the LDS Church has lost its way from the fundamentals, as they believe, I should think they would want, as we do, to be seen as separate and distinct entities. And their actions have shown this to be the case. I would like to see evidence that FLDS obtains a real or perceived benefit from being called Mormons.
In any event, I will continue to argue for what I understand to be more factual and disambiguating coverage of Mormon issues in a media environment long hostile to the LDS Church. I'm sure you can appreciate that; just go ask the Anti-Defamation League what they do for a living!
P.S. You ought to be more careful with the word "obviously." Not everyone is as smart as you, so please help us understand why your claims are true instead of ramming them down our throats with that terrible word.
David, Huh? You're kidding right?
Wizzle, I'm sorry you are so easily persuaded by intellectual nonsense.
David-Just because two churches have similar doctrine does not mean they are the same church. Should I call Catholics Baptists because they both use the bible and believe in Christ? Your quote about the comparison of Mormons to LDS and Republicans to Americans has no validity whatsoever. Americans are not defined by political assignment. America only refers to a geographic region. Mormons on the other hand, ARE defined defined only as those who believe in ALL of the LDS doctrine, not just parts.
Your rant about the different kinds of Jews does not relate to mormons. You could say there are molly Mormons, jack Mormons, Once a month Mormons. All are still Moromon. They still believe in the same doctrine.
Don Pablo
Hi Wizzle--I research Mormon history and theology as preparation for the courses I teach in American literature. In my early American lit classes I assign excerpts from the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, plus the King Follett discourse.
Part of my interest is simply in tracing the movement and development of certain ideas through American literature and culture. Joseph Smith's ideas are present not only in the LDS Church, but also in the RLDS, FLDS, Strangite, etc. From an academic perspective, I have no interest in which of those churches has gotten Smith's ideas "right," or which has inherited his "real" authority, or whatever. To me, they're all "Mormon" because they all spring from Smith's novel theology. They're all equally Mormon in the genetic sense. Whether they're all Mormon in some doctrinal sense is what seems to be at issue in this thread. Much of the public seems to think they are, most likely because of the historical kinship. Since the Church can't rerun its own history that kinship will always be there, always dogging the Church's efforts to change the linguistic habits of the public.
Am I really guilty of "ranting" (Don Pablo), of “ramming” my arguments “down [y]our throats” (KWS), of just being “clever” (KWS), and of posting “intellectual nonsense” (Don Pablo)? Jeepers.
Anyway, thanks for reading my comments, Wizzle!
--David
Anonymous David, according to your argument on what qualifies a Mormon as being Mormon, all the protestant religions ought to be considered Catholic due to their common heritage. After all, they share that common history don't they? And they have all sprung from the Catholic church's theology. Even though they have taken parts of Catholic doctrine that they agree with and have rejected others...they're still Catholic in that genetic sense!
I think most Protestants will tell you this logic is wrong. I agree. It doesn't apply to Protestants just as it doesn't apply to religions that have broken off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I really am getting a kick out of this comment thread. Other than Jackson's comments the majority of comments have been arguing about the defining point of what makes someone a "Mormon." I will take my church's stance and support that. You can click on my earlier comment if you'd like to read it. At the end of the day, people can argue all the intellectual point they like, but it really doesn't change truth.
The original reason I wrote this is because I just wanted to state a slew of things that I, personally, have been asked. We've been mistaken for Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Quakers, the list could go on. So many people haven't realized that we could use modern medicine or go out clubbing or to movies, but the biggest scandal that people can write about on here is whether someone whose church broke off from ours should be considered Mormon???
People, I'm done. At the end of the day whether someone is considered a Mormon or not doesn't have anything to do with the price of eggs or finding inner peace. This really is just too ridiculous and breaks down into a silly "intellectual" argument that doesn't have any footing in reality. And it really detracts from the intent and purpose of the original posting. You can make whatever reasonable argument (in your mind) for considering anyone and everyone ever connected with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's history a "Mormon" but I will stick with their own position. After all, they are the ORIGINAL "Mormon" Church. Therefore I believe their position takes a little more credence than college professors or an excommunicate's.
Wow, I guess this just goes to show you that what one brings to a situation influences how we perceive it and how we react as much as what actually happens.
I'm as Mormon as anyone on this blog and I was not offended by Anonymous Dave's comments, sorry! I kind of feel like I should be after reading the other responses, but nope. And thanks for your sympathy, Don Pablo, but I'm a smart lady even if I am barefoot and pregnant, and I can take care of myself.
It made sense to me. No analogy is perfect on every level and in every detail. And Don Pablo, you must not know much about the different doctrines present in the different "branches" of religions that call themselves and consider themselves to be "Judaism". There's at lteast as much difference there as there is in the different "branches" of "Mormonism" (quotes used extensively to show that this is as discussed in this thread, not necessarily the final word in these definitions).
Why is everyone so upset? I'm actually laughing here - I'm usually the first one to get all serious and call someone out, but I just didn't see what the big deal was here. Amy, you did mention the definition of "Mormon" and the semantics of Mormon vs. Saint vs. Whatever in you original post, and that's the direction the comments seem to have taken for the moment. That's just the way it goes! It's not a dissertation to defend, just a jumping-off point for discussion, I thought...
I'm not "upset" as in angry, or uncalm. I just think that on this particular point we're not going to convince each other that our own position is 'correct'. Since no one, outside of Jackson and the responses to him, have wanted to discuss anything else on this post there isn't anything left for me to say. We've all got better things to do than sit around and argue semantics. That is all I meant.
David, I'm curious what you thought about my response to your questions...as I was the only one who answered all of your questions:)
Rick, I appreciated your comments very much. You seem quite comfortable with and open about the more radical aspects of LDS theology. Not that it's only LDS theology that is polytheistic, open to polygamy, etc. In fact, I've never quite understood how the mainstream Christian idea of Satan as a sort of lesser God locked in battle with Yahweh is all that different from polytheism. I mean, we all agree the ancient Greeks were polytheists, and how would one define their "gods" if not as immortal beings with a certain set of supernatural abilities that would also seem to apply to the "angels" of the Judeo-Christian tradition? It seems to me that mainstream Christianity and Judaism manage to call themselves monotheistic only by naming all their lesser gods "angels." I think Joseph Smith was exactly right in seeing the polytheism in the Hebrew Bible.
As for Battlestar Galactica--the original blew, yet the new series is the best thing since The Honeymooners. But here's what I want to know: what's up with that brief glimpse of an LDS temple at "Fort Joseph Smith" in Starship Troopers?
Yeah, I guess I just have a bad reaction to the word "obviously." And you should be proud to be called clever! I wrote it more sarcastically than I meant to, but I do respect how much thought you've put into your arguments. I disagree with calling your comment a rant and saying that it was in any way nonsense. I continue to disagree with you, for the reasons above (I note that the substance of my post merited no response at all!).
I wish I could help more with the polytheism and polygamy, etc. I defer to my colleague Rick, who has done much more pondering and studying on those topics. Also, unfortunately, I never saw Starship Troopers.
Thanks KWS, thanks everyone. One more note, this time on the media environment in which so many of these issues play out. Check out the language used in two recent MSM stories on the FLDS Church. I offer the snippets below as evidence that the MSM, however hostile it has been in the past, appears to be watching its step these days.
First, from “Polygamist Leader Faces Ariz. Charges,” by the Associated Press, we read things like this:
“Jeffs, 52, the former leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is scheduled to appear in court....”
“Jeffs was named president, or prophet, of the FLDS church in 2002....”
“The mainstream Mormon church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, renounced polygamy more than a century ago, excommunicates members who engage in the practice and disavows any connection with the FLDS church....”
Nowhere in this story are Jeffs or the FLDS Church referred to as Mormon. The LDS Church, by contrast, is referred to as the “mainstream Mormon Church.” (What’s happening, I suspect, is that all the publicity surrounding the FLDS Church is making the LDS Church look “mainstream” by comparison. That is, all this publicity might on balance be good for the LDS Church.)
Second, from “FLDS compound poised for more construction,” in the Rapid City Journal:
“The Pringle-area compound reportedly occupied by members of a polygamist sect appears to be preparing for expansion....”
“The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a polygamist sect formerly headed by Warren Jeffs....”
“It is not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormon church based in Salt Lake City, which renounced polygamy more than a century ago and excommunicates members who engage in the practice.”
Again, Nowhere are Jeffs or the FLDS Church referred to as Mormon. And again there’s a scrupulous effort to distinguish LDS from FLDS.
--David
I am entering this discussion space very late … late enough that most of you are probably past the issues that Amy’s excellent post shook from the rafters. So, I will restrain myself to addressing just one question that hasn’t been answered even though some of the issues discussed here prompted considerable thought and some research.
Anonymous David asked: ”But here's what I want to know: what's up with that brief glimpse of an LDS temple at "Fort Joseph Smith" in Starship Troopers?”
I have seen the movie; I had to even though I knew I was going to regret it. Robert A. Heinlein made several references to Mormons in his body of work but, there was no such reference in “Starship Troopers”. I have read the book several times (>6) but I checked with the “Heinlein Concordance” to be sure. In my opinion the makers of the movie added that scene in an attempt to add an authentic Heinlein touch to a screenplay that had little in common with the base text beyond the title and humans fighting bugs. It really was a bad movie on so many levels.
Thank you to Amy, Anonymous David, Jackson, Rick and others for your thought provoking comments and discussion.
Eric
Thanks Eric! I've never read Starship Troopers, so I didn't know there were Mormon references in the book. FWIW, I think the film is great satire. I still can't watch it without cracking up.
Medic!
--David
Post a Comment