Posted by:
oldprofessor
(
)
Date: March 10, 2016 09:14PM
Hiyo. First post on the site, been lurking for a while. Just thought I'd share an item I posted on another site.
"I grew up in Michigan, lived in London for 10 years, and then in Silicon Valley for 20 . For the last three years, I've lived in Salt Lake City, and it's been a revelation. I am not a Mormon, but from my experience, David Mason's observations are sport-on. Many (most?) modern-day Mormons in Utah seem comfortable with the fact that Utah is, to an extent unmatched anywhere else in the United States, a theocracy.
The roots of this belief, and of its political repercussions, run deep. Many Utah Mormons seem to regard Utah as "their" state, rather than as merely one state among 50. When, for example, Mormons celebrate "Pioneer Day," on July 24, they aren't celebrating the many Americans who trekked west in hopes of a better life, but a small band of co-religionists who came to Utah to establish an independent Mormon state. In Utah, Pioneer Day evokes a bigger celebration than the Fourth of July.
If Mormons are dominant in Utah, it's not because they arrived first, or because God promised them the land, but because they vigorously colonized the territory, on orders of Brigham Young, with the goal of creating an exclusive and exclusionary kingdom for fellow Mormons. Utah is mostly Mormon because the Mormons, unlike any other western settlers, sought to create a territory in which one religion (theirs) dominated all others. Although the goal of creating a Mormon state was ultimately thwarted by the US government, every July 24 Mormons still celebrate the success of their forebears in creating a de facto theocracy in the American west.
To wit: I remember hearing one of the Mormon "Apostles" state in a YouTube video that individuals from all faiths were welcome in Utah--as if that "acceptance" was a gift of the LDS church rather than a right guaranteed by the US constitution. This attitude of Utah being "ours" is subtle but pervasive, and it underlies the church's frequent interventions in Utah politics.
Throughout their history, Mormons have sought to create enclaves where they could dominate the local economy and co-opt local politics through the force of their numbers. In 1831, for example, Joseph Smith told his followers that they would one day inherit land held by other, earlier, settlers in Jackson County, Missouri. These territorial ambitions--in Missouri, Illinois and latter Utah--understandably created unease among the local non-Mormon population, not least because the degree of social, economic and political cohesion among the members of the LDS church was and is virtually unprecedented within the history of religion in America.
Today, in Utah, Mormons use their social cohesion and political hegemony to influence policy-making and legislation in ways that have no parallel elsewhere in the United States. Yes, other, less indivisible, religious groups seek to shape US public policy--the Catholics on federal funding for birth control; the evangelicals on school curriculum, etc.--but no other religious group exercises anything like as much influence on state-level politics as the LDS church does in Utah.
Beyond their social cohesion and numerical advantage, there are two other factors that buttress the Mormon's political power in Utah. The first is a religious narrative that emphasizes the persecution Mormons endured prior to their journey west. While the persecution was real, and the violence indefensible, it was in part the product of (a) Mormonism's exclusivist tendencies--which often disenfranchised non-Mormons in Mormon-dominated communities, and (b) the adoption of religious practices, such as polygamy, which were deeply at odds with prevailing social norms. Nevertheless, the persecution narrative is accepted uncritically by most Mormons. This on-going sense of being a beleaguered tribe creates an atmosphere in which heavy-handed efforts to "defend our values," even at the expense of others, are viewed as legitimate.
A second exacerbating factor is the church's top-down leadership structure. The president of the LDS church is not merely the administrative head, but is regarded by the faithful as a "living prophet." Hence the oft-quoted Mormon believe that "once the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done." Obedience, rather than repentance or service, seems to be the paramount Mormon value, and no other large denomination places a similar emphasis on submitting to human authority. This deference to authority makes it very difficult for LDS legislators in Utah to defy the wishes of the church. When church leaders criticize a pending bill, even obliquely, it is quickly amended or withdrawn. While Catholic legislators, for example, may believe in the Pope's divine authority, experience suggests that they find it easier to separate their legislative and religious obligations than do Mormon lawmakers."
This was followed by a rather thoughtful post from someone I assume to be Mormon:
"Big Brutha" says:
"And yet, the Mormons are, to some extent, still beleaguered. Name another denomination or faith that has a Broadway play named after its scriptures which spends most of its time belittling the beliefs of those who adhere to the teachings of the titular text?
We don't have shows entitled: "The Bible!" or the "The Quran!" or "The Torah!" floating around. But it is still culturally acceptable to publicly mock Mormons for no other reason than that they are "different".
Not that this surprises Mormons but it does dishearten them. When Mitt Romney ran for president there was plenty of invective thrown around, not about his policies as governor, but about his faith which reinforced the idea that it is acceptable to speak about Mormons in a way that it is not generally acceptable to talk about other religious groups, and that there is still a great deal of hostility and suspicion towards Mormons in the minds of the general public.
Maybe you've never been privy to the presentations held by some Protestant churches on Mormonism. Many of the rest of us have. There is a reason Mormons feel that have to band together. Despite holding many of the same conservative social views, their beliefs and views are generally skewed when not outright lied about in these contexts. It makes it hard to reach out to other seemingly like-minded groups. You will find no comparable Mormon sponsored effort to debunk other religious groups. Mormons know where they differ from other denominations but try to emphasize ways to work together with others.
The reasons that Brigham Young sought to create an exclusive zone should be obvious. Mormons tried the live and let live approach in New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois before finally trekking west. Now, I am not one who will say there were not faults on both sides. There were.
But it makes little sense to blame Mormons for wanting to be left alone to live as they chose in peace after their bitter experiences elsewhere. And if you say they brought those problems on themselves by their clannishness and cohesiveness, then it would seem rather obvious that going someplace even more exclusive would be a natural result.
But even after moving to an area largely devoid of other settlers the Mormons were still not left alone. Even after departing the confines of the United States there were armed incursions by the Federal Government to try to "deal" with them. Considering these efforts and the attempts of other denominations to set up schools t to try to "deMormonize" children in the region, it is hardly surprising if there is a degree of clannishness still in place.
Does it make sense that the LDS church would have less influence in Utah than Catholicism plays in Italy, or Orthodoxy in Greece or Russia or Shia Islam in Iran? All are hierarchical religions with top down structures and they all maintain overwhelming influence in the areas closest to their respective headquarters.
Evangelicals do not have the same centralized structure as the groups mentioned above. They do have serious influence on policies and politics in the states where they predominate but do not function in exactly the same way because they are not organized in the same way.
Again, if you compare apples and apples their are more similarities than differences in terms of these kinds of behaviors between similarly structured groups."
And my reply:
"First, I believe most people of faith feel beleaguered today. Religion of all kinds is increasingly seen as kooky, and believers are regarded as incredulous rubes. On television, in movies, and in the press, religious individuals are almost universally portrayed as hypocritical, bigoted and anti-science. To be a Christian in the 21st century is to be an outsider. Perhaps Mormons have felt this way longer than most, but it is now a universal reality for all people of faith.
As to Mitt, I don't think he caught any more flack in 2012 because of his Mormon beliefs than Barack Obama got in 2008 because of his suspected sympathy for Islam.
I grew up as a Seventh-day Adventist, so I know something of what it's like to be an outsider. Like Mormons, Adventists revere a prophet who grew up in 19th-century New York and who, like Joseph Smith had visions and authored works that are considered canonical by the faith's adherents. Growing up, I was taught to distrust those from other faiths and to look forward to a "time of trouble" when those who worshipped on Saturday (instead of Sunday) would be persecuted. There were no Adventist enclaves similar to Mormon Utah, so I, like other Adventists, grew up around neighbors who thought we were weird for our vegetarianism, sobriety, and aversion to dancing, movies and other forms of popular entertainment.
I also know what it's like to have people from other religions misrepresent one's beliefs, or accuse one of belonging to a "cult." I had to learn to deal with that sort of misinformation and prejudice. But I also learned that sometimes the criticisms were justified. Here and there, my denomination did profess beliefs that were biblically suspect. And Adventists could, and often did, behave in clannish ways. If I had grown up in a community that was predominantly Adventist, I might never have had to confront these realities. I would have been able to take refuge in a culturally homogenous community. That would have been more socially comfortable, but it also would have stymied my intellectual development.
In other words, Mormons are far from the only religion in the US that's been subject to public ridicule or worse. For more than a hundred years after the Pilgrims landed in North America, American Catholics were relentlessly persecuted for their faith. I've never seen a job posting that says, "Mormons need not apply," but that was the reality many Catholics faced in the 18th century.
As to other churches misrepresenting the Mormon faith ...
I don't know what Christian denominations teach about Mormonism, but I do know that Mormons believe all other denominations have apostatized, and assert that Mormonism is the only "true" religion. So it may be a bit optimistic to expect the other side to hold its tongue. In addition, Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon is "the truest book ever written." While I'm not in a position to evaluate that assertion, I can understand why mainstream Christians might regard that statement as blasphemous. To them, the Bible is God's final testimony to those on earth.
I'm sure there are those who've spread untruths about Mormonism, but I wonder if they've been any more culpable in distorting Mormon history than the LDS church itself. I have Mormon friends (in their 40s, 50s and 60s) who until recently had no idea about Joseph Smith's 40+ wives, his use of a peep stone to translate the BoM, the dubious historicity of the Book of Abraham, or other difficult facts about the church's past. Read "Letter to a CES Director," (http://cesletter.com), and you quickly realize that the LDS hierarchy has been at least as good as outsiders at misrepresenting the facts about Mormonism.
I understand your point about Mormons wanting to live unmolested lives, but one has to be honest about the extent to which the early Saints brought some of their trouble upon themselves. Again, this can't be a justification for violence, but to the extent those early Mormons sought to (1) establish exclusive zones of Mormon influence (a defacto theocracy); (2) usurp civil authority; (3) adopt practices, such as polygamy, that were abhorrent to the vast majority of their neighbors, and (4) punish or silence those who objected to their practices, they put themselves at high risk of being disparaged.
Let me provide a contemporary analogy. Suppose I had a house in Salt Lake City and, adopting ancient Jewish practices, I decided to periodically sacrifice an animal on an altar built in front of my residence. Further, assume I was able to talk everyone on my block into following this practice--by convincing them that I was God's prophet and that this practice was required of them. Soon, there'd be dozens of alters. Animals would be ritually slaughtered in view of passersby, and the blood of these animals would run into the city drains. Before long, those in adjacent blocks would start complaining, and I would be ordered to stop the practice. If no law existed that made this practice illegal, such a statue would soon be passed. And if I ignored that law, I would expect my neighbors to take more drastic action.
What if, in addition, I prophesied that the US government was going to be overthrown by my co-religionists, that those who didn't accept the covenant of my faith would be swept away, and that I would become king of the entire world? What if I worked to turn disadvantaged groups against the federal government, and formed a well-armed militia? What if I participated in a mock coronation? Such acts would be perceived as provocative at best and treasonous at worst, but I could hardly expect my secular-minded neighbors to "let me live in peace." Substitute polygamy for animal sacrifice, and you pretty much have description of Joseph Smith's actions in Nauvoo, Illinois. This isn't speculation or slander--it'a fact. Of course those early saints deserved to live in peace, but you have to admit, Joseph was a wee bit provocative. (http://www.mormonthink.com/gra....
If Mormons were more up front about their history, I think others would be less inclined to critique the church. For example, I often read in Mormon publications that Joseph Smith was "martyred." There's no doubt he was unlawfully killed, but it's also true he had trampled on the First Amendment by sending out a posse to destroy a printing press operated by his critics. Joseph Smith's death was a tragedy--but the circumstances are far more complicated than most Mormons know or acknowledge. Neither Jesus or any of the apostles died with a weapon in his hand.
Without doubt, the trek to Utah was motivated by persecution, but it was also motivated by a desire to find space in North Americ where Smith's vision of a theocracy could be brought to fruition. (If your neighbors find your practices intolerable, move to a place where you have no neighbors). Ultimately, though that vision ran smack into the "manifest destiny" of US continental expansion.
Which brings us to the present day. I'm sure you're right that there are groups in Utah that try to "de-Mormonize" the children of LDS families. (I doubt they're very successful). On the other hand, tens of thousands of LDS youngsters are sent out each year to convert non-Mormons. If you're going to proselytize, you have to expect to be proselytized in return. Or to put it more bluntly, don't expect to be left alone if you don't leave others alone.
You ask, does it make sense for the LDS church to have less influence in Utah than the Catholic church in Italy, the Orthodox churches in Greece and Russia, or Shia Islam in Iran? Absolutely! Each of these countries has, or had, a state religion--and in all cases this resulted in religiously-inspired, state-backed tyranny. That was my earlier point. The founders of the United States understood the dangers of conflating religion and politics, and took measures to limit those risks. Hence the concerns of those who live in Utah who aren't Mormons. Nowhere else in the US do you find one religious group so dominant, and so willing to use its political influence. Of course I believe religions have a right to influence the political process, but I don't believe any one religion has the right to dominate the legislative agenda of an entire state.
In Italy, though it is 97% Catholic, only about 15% of the population attends mass regularly. With one of Europe's lowest birth rates, Catholics widely ignore the church's teaching on contraception.
In addition, the Catholic church has very little legislative influence. For example, in 2009, the Italian government legalized the abortion pill, (RU-486), despite protests from the church. It's almost impossible to imagine the Utah legislature ignoring the LDS church's wishes on a matter of similar doctrinal importance.
You're right to note that the LDS church is distinguished from other religions in the degree to which a small group of "apostles" dictate policy and expect obedience in return. There really is no parallel, except, as you note with the clerics in Iran--a hardly comforting parallel. Even the Pope, while claiming to be the spiritual descendent of Peter, doesn't claim to be God's living prophet on earth--as does the President of the LDS church.
All of this makes the influence of the Mormon church in Utah all the more worrying. What do I do, as a Mormon legislator, when I believe I'm being instructed by God to support or block a bill? Simple: I comply.
No other religious leader in a major US denomination would claim to be God's direct representative on earth, nor expect state legislators to regard his opinions as divine fiat. While this may feel entirely comfortable to temple-worthy Mormons in Utah, it strikes outsiders as anti-democratic."
If you've read this far, interested in what you think.