The following was forwarded to me by a friend. A Facebook comment made today by Natalie Hess, a Provo-based real estate agent, read:
This is going to be bold, so be prepared. I’m so sick of hearing about lds people who are watching & reading anti-lds propaganda & then actually believing it as 100% truth. Seriously use your brains people! Don’t believe everything u watch/read. Consider the source, usually it’s begrudged people coming up w/ this crap!
Richard Dutcher, yes the Richard Dutcher who made “God’s Army” and “Brigham City”, replied:
And this is going to be unpopular. So be prepared.
You have a point, Natalie. But, as one who has studied and researched more Mormon history and doctrine than anyone I know (other than some scholars and published writer friends of mine), there is another side to that coin.
There are so very many church members who are familiar with only material published by the church/Deseret Book. And then they come into contact with something controversial from an outside source (not all outside sources are “anti-Mormon” by the way) and turn to Deseret Book or the church for an explanation and…guess what? There’s little to nothing.
And so they research a little more and find out not only that what some of these outside sources are saying is true, but that the church deliberately hid and/or lied about the information. And then they’re really confused. They’ve trusted in the church, they’ve sacrificed for the church, they’ve LIVED for the church, and then they find out that the church has lied to them, repeatedly.
It can be quite a faith shaker. In many cases, a faith destroyer.
Yes, there are anti-Mormons who lie and cheat (using partial information) and do anything they can to fight against Mormonism. But there are very many historians and scholars with no axe to grind who simply put forth material that is contrary to the church’s official story.
Some of us can manage to live with the cognitive dissonance of holding two contrary realities as somehow both true. Some of us can’t.
Be patient with those who are struggling with information that is shaking their faith. They’ll need your support. It is a hellacious ride which will most likely end in a very painful collision with reality.
It is also a painfully confusing experience to realize that the church you love and have sacrificed for is withholding information from you, while your “enemy” is telling you the truth. So very painful and confusing.
Just for fun, here are some of the ways people find my blog using search engines:
of course you can’t you silly little man
come on, someone tell me, was joseph smith a womanizer or not
batty “eliza snow” diary
husband react to rape
world of warcraft molly
plural marriage joseph smith
who was joseph smith really
can you know your not gay at 16
lds gender identity
why is social change sinning
male and female viewing habits
when feminists diet
lds church close to 76 cedar street
boyd k packer and “for young men only”
the united states catholic church since vatican 2
what does arse mean
did joseph smith cheat
historic population data spanish fork utah
i want to take my name off the lds church records
I (mostly) enjoyed the now-defunct show Invader Zim. The show was funny for its surreal take on consumer culture and the utter incompetence of its protagonist, who was an alien invader attempting to conquer the Earth. Zim was never truly able to blend in as a normal human boy. He covered his bug eyes with contact lenses and donned a wig, but failed to notice that his green skin might stand out. He disguises his robot as a dog, but also gives the “dog” green skin, floppy eyes, and a prominent zipper up the front. He grasps the essentials of normality, but tries too hard where he need not and misses important subtle details. Despite his shoddy disguises, his fellow students believe he is human, although he is universally branded “the weird kid” and is shunned. When his peers notice that he hasn’t got any friends, they think he’s even weirder, so he makes a desperate and bizarre attempt to have friends so he can appear to be more normal. Yet his constant declaration of “I’M NORMAL!” is what makes everyone notice that he is most certainly not normal.
The new PR campaign to re-brand Mormons as everyday folks is getting a similar reaction. Marketing ain’t what it used to be, thanks to an Internet which allows us to eviscerate and analyse media with our cynical digital scalpels. Reactions to the Mormon ad campaign have largely been: this is insincere and is guilty of “results not typical”, this is an attempt to grease the wheels for Romney, this has been nicked from the Scientologists, this is an attempt to make us like them after what they did during Prop 8, fodder for satire, or just plain old WTF.
The commercials are pretty self-explanatory. The Church cherry-picked attractive, interesting people with unusual careers to show off as examples of how NORMAL Mormons are. Today I noticed the @ldsofficial robot
ordering asking Mormons to create profiles for the new mormon.org website. So let’s go have a look at how we find NORMAL Mormons online, shall we?
This little box is now conveniently located on many pages to help you “Discover Mormons who share your personal experience.”
Gender choices? Male or Female. No surprise here. The LDS Church refers to homosexuality as “so-called same gender attraction.” With a binary view of male and female, it’s no surprise there isn’t space for intersex people.
Age? 18-24, 25-34, 35-49, 50-64, and 65+. Pretty logical groupings.
Ethnicity? Oh, dear. Your choices are “Asian”, “Black or African-American” (oh, that’s darling), “Caucasian or White”, “Hispanic or Latino”, “Native-American” (I have never before seen this term hyphenated), and “Pacific Islander”. This is just . . . a horrible idea. Ethnicity is an insanely complicated subject, and one that isn’t even worth delving into for a project like this. Acting as if there are only six ethnicities in the world (ethnicities, I might add, that are using explicitly American words to describe them) is beyond stupid for a religion that is international enough to know better. “Black or African-American”? Really? Given the LDS Church’s sticky history on the topic of race, you’d think they’d have thought this through a little better. The term “Black or African-American” does not address the myriad of ways people of African descent describe themselves. Dear white American cisgender males writing the code for mormon.org: please just remove this section. I understand what you were trying to do, but believe me it does not aid you in your goal. Perhaps try grouping people by geographical region, not the colour of their skin.
Oh, you do have that? But it’s buried on the advanced options page? Ah, I see. You should scrap the advanced options page and just leave a few options in that widget that appears everywhere else. Keep age and geographical region. Gender is probably fine too, as at least it serves advanced notice that Mormonism has strict gender roles. But toss the ethnicity and the “previous religion” options. “Select Previous Religion” as a drop-down menu is a subtle way of saying “read why these Mormons discovered that their previous religion was an abomination full of false teachings.” Just don’t go there. It’s a tacky marketing ploy used by telecoms who want to convince mobile phone users to switch carriers.
The good of this campaign? Diverse faces will now be in front of visitors to mormon.org, not the same old white men in their boring dark suits with their boring red or blue ties. The bad? Stories are filtered, sanitised, and Correlated. It’s assumed that the personal experience of a mormon.org visitor will be identical to someone who is the same gender or race, demonstrating that the proprietors of mormon.org don’t see a problem with labelling people. Even worse, the labels are limiting. They’re biased toward a middle-American view, not a global view, of ethnicity. There isn’t even a category for mixed race. I suppose we no longer threaten to kill people for “mixing blood” but we certainly don’t make them feel included.
This tool is useful, but it would be vastly improved by dropping the assumption that a person with the same gender or ethnicity as you will share your “personal experience.” The age limitation makes more sense. Mormons under 18 are not featured, wisely avoiding marketing religion to people who are underage in the majority of countries. It makes more sense to me that people would have life experiences in common based on their age group, not their race or their gender. This is race and gender essentialism at its most blundering and reflects the awkward truth that Mormons do treat people differently based on their race and gender. (Women don’t have priesthood, Native Americans and Blacks are dark because their ancestors displeased God.)
If Invader Zim taught me anything, it’s that running down the street shouting “I’M NORMAL!” is a very good way to get people to pay attention to how strange you are. The new mormon.org is very pretty, but it smacks of trying too hard, which is just going to make people notice how bloody peculiar those religious nutters are after all.
I want to end my discussion of polygamy on a constructive note. I’ve elaborated on my belief that polygamy is a problem because Joseph Smith engaged in sexually inappropriate activity and leveraged his position as a religious leader for personal benefit. (Perhaps at some point in the future I’ll also tackle it from a theological, LDS belief-based standpoint rather than the social angle.) My conclusion was that the LDS Church is in a massive bind when it comes to polygamy, and that its current approach to the issue is dishonest. A question I’d like to look at now is whether or not there is a way out.
There are three options for the LDS Church in dealing with polygamy:
- Publicly disavow it and make the necessary changes to LDS scripture, teachings, and rituals to remove polygamy as a doctrine
- Publicly accept it as a doctrine and cease attempts to whitewash the issue
- Attempt to deflect attention from it, conceal it whenever possible, and make no attempt to deal with the issue
Option 3 is what they’ve been going with since the 1920’s, and this means the issue rears its ugly head every few years and causes a PR headache. It’s also the most dishonest approach and causes damage to the Church’s reputation and the well-being of its members. To demonstrate an example of how the LDS Church does this, I’m going to use a very simple and high-profile example. The LDS Church recently launched a makeover of mormon.org, which now includes member-submitted testimonials and introductory information about the religion. This is a fair source for me to analyse because:
- It’s public-facing and intended to be a point of first contact for people interested in Mormonism
- It reflects the most up-to-date policy on how to present information about Mormonism
- This official source represents what the LDS Church wants its members, investigators, and the general public to believe
Let’s have a look at the page that introduces Joseph Smith to outsiders. It’s a simplified version of Sunday School stories we’ve all heard plenty of times. The first few sections provide good background, and although the section “A Prophet of God” can be quibbled over due to cherry picking from the multiple accounts of the First Vision, it sticks more or less with the 1838 account, which has been considered the official version for quite some time.
The section “A Leader of Christ’s Church” glosses over the basics of church structure but slips in the one-sided, vague reference to “persecution” that early Mormons suffered. We could quibble some more here over the fact that much of the “persecution” was deliberately provoked by Mormons who barged in on neighbourhoods, disrupting the locals’ way of life, and were nasty to people who asked them to quit it. However, there were incidents where innocent Mormons who had not engaged in provocations were harmed, so I can let that pass as a statement with a pro-LDS slant rather than a total lie.
Until now, I can’t really take mormon.org to task for failure to include nuanced discussion of Danites, the Salt Sermon, and whether there were angels, one personage or two personages present at the First Vision. It’s an introductory document, and I can hardly blame them for condensing information and putting their best foot forward. But now we arrive at “A Devoted Husband and Father”. Here is the entirety of the text of that section, with my comments in boldface. I’ve marked lies (meaning factual errors and misrepresentations of fact) with numbers in superscript.
“The heavy burden of leading the Church did not distract Joseph from his responsibility to his wife and children1, it increased his love for them2.”
It’s fair to say that Smith did love his family, but without a statement from Smith supporting this, implying that the mantle of leadership increased that love makes this misleading and falsely sentimental.
“One of the later Prophets of the Church told the members, ‘No success can compensate for failure in the home.’ The statement came more than a century after Joseph Smith died, but Joseph had exemplified the idea all his life.3“
All his life? He didn’t fail Emma when he was tried for vagrancy for a treasure hunting scam and had a “revelation” telling her to quit grumbling about his dodgy activities? When he and Emma had to live with the Whitmers, Newel K. Whitney and Isaac Morely because he couldn’t make enough money to pay the rent? When he took plural wives without the other wives’ consent? When his sexual relationship with Marinda Johnson riled up a mob that broke into his house to tar and feather him and left the door open, causing his adopted child to die of exposure?
The bar must be fairly low if engaging in socially unacceptable actions that causes a chain of events resulting in the death of a baby isn’t failure in the home. I would accept a statement that said Smith did the best he could, or that he never stopped loving his family amidst the chaos of his life, but to say he is the perfect example for family life is a lie. This is hero-worshipping propaganda.
“Even though Joseph was constantly persecuted4 and imprisoned on false charges,”5
Liberty Jail is the best example of the “false imprisonment” claims Mormons make. When Smith was arrested, it was after a series of escalations involving many Mormon provocations of native Missourians that came to be called The Mormon War. Mormons had caused a massive amount of trouble in Missouri, and vigilante action on both sides left the state government utterly fed up with the presence of violent religious extremists. As the official leader of the Mormons and their militia, Joseph Smith was responsible for the violence and provocations of his people. He could have been executed as a military combatant, but another general intervened and decided he should be tried as a civilian. He was held for four months without charges in Liberty Jail, which is improper legal procedure, but given Smith’s involvement with Sidney Rigdon and the Danites, not necessarily unjust. Considering the brutal winter’s effect on travel and the fact that Missouri was only semi-civilised at that time, it’s not shocking that he wasn’t brought to court right away. Had Smith been tried for his role in the 1838-39 conflicts, he would probably have been convicted of many charges such as destruction of property, conspiracy to commit murder, inciting others to commit murder and destroy property, disturbing the peace, and so on.
Let’s not forget that Smith was in Missouri in the first place because of his illegal activities with the Kirtland Safety Society. Fleeing money troubles or looking for a bailout wasn’t unusual for Smith; when he moved from Palmyra to Harmony, he was only able to avoid arrest for debt default because Martin Harris had bailed him out. When he was murdered in Carthage Jail, he was awaiting trial on 100% legitimate charges of destroying a printing press. Joseph Smith was often in legal trouble, but it was almost always a situation of his own making due to mismanaging assets given to him by others or by encouraging Mormons to be a nuisance in a new neighbourhood. There were occasions where action taken against him was illegal, such as when he was tarred and feathered and when he was shot to death. But these actions didn’t take place in a vacuum, and they were conducted by people who felt their property, way of life, or family honour was at stake and did not feel the law was doing enough to protect them. It takes considerable provocation to actually be chased down by an angry mob, and Smith provided plenty of provocation.
So this sentence is only halfway completed, but it’s already a blatant lie and will mislead newcomers to Mormonism into thinking that Joseph Smith was never guilty of the crimes for which he was legitimately arrested.
“his first thoughts were always for his family.”6
This is a bit of a generalisation, as his letters from Liberty Jail focused on many things beyond his family. I would move on and say that I had bigger fish to fry, but it seems by “family” mormon.org is only referring to Emma Smith and her offspring. What about the rest of his family? Do the plural wives not matter? Are they less important than Emma, or worse, are they inconvenient people who need to be deleted from the record? Do their lives, sacrifices, and contributions mean less than Emma’s? Even if Smith’s first thoughts were always for his family, his actions were generally for himself.
“He wrote to his wife, Emma, while he was imprisoned in Missouri, ‘Tell the children that I am alive and trust that I shall come and see them before long. Comfort their hearts all you can, and try to be comforted yourself all you can’ (‘’I Was with My Family’: Joseph Smith As Husband, Father, Son, and Brother’ Brent L. Top, Liahona, December 1992).”
I don’t doubt that Smith probably felt wretched whilst in jail and probably missed his family dearly. But the effect this had on the rest of his family is omitted. Joseph Smith also wrote some rather tender things to his plural wives. Presenting Emma as his only wife is lie by omission #2 about polygamy.
“Facing unjust punishment,7 he only thought of his family’s well-being.”8
This is just a repetition of the previous misleading statement about Joseph Smith’s criminal record.
“Joseph lived the doctrine he preached9 — that strengthening our families should be the focus of our lives because they are the only things we can take with us when we die.”
Smith wasn’t living the doctrine he preached, because he preached monogamy and practised polygamy. I don’t think Smith was really strengthening his family when he used deception to marry his one legal wife and then failed her so thoroughly. He threatened her with death in D&C 132, and completely failed to provide a stable home environment or steady income during their entire marriage. He was not strengthening his family when he failed to inform Emma about taking additional wives, and he was not strengthening his family when he had her publicly lie on his behalf in the wake of the John C. Bennett scandal. When Smith died, he left his wife a pregnant impoverished widow. By the standards of his own day, he was not a particularly competent husband and father, even without taking polygamy into consideration.
The only positive spin we can put on this claim is that although he did frequently abuse his privileges, it does seem that Smith may have genuinely believed that he was the key to getting into heaven, and that by sealing as many people as possible to him he was guaranteeing their salvation. The whitewashing in this statement steals the focus from the revolutionary doctrine of families that last forever.
“When his life was in jeopardy, Joseph relied10 on his faith in Christ not only to sustain himself, but his wife and children as well.”
And his wife . . . and his wife . . . and his wife . . . and his wife . . . and his — oh, sod it. This is lie by omission #3, as well as a misrepresentation of the reasons his life was in danger. It must be incredibly important to the LDS leadership that people believe their lies about polygamy, because they’ve repeated them several times in a very small and important document. Smith appropriated people’s wives, their daughters, their money, and their trust, and frequently mismanaged them. Angry mobs in frontier cultures have killed for far less.
Goodness, that’s ten lies in 219 words. The next section, “A Martyr of the Restored Gospel” is equally problematic, but since I’m focusing on public, official LDS lies about polygamy I won’t use the same level of scrutiny. The worst part is this:
He did not die in public with the sympathy of the world, he was shot by a mob while he was locked in a jail on false charges.
This is splitting hairs, but he did die in public, propping himself up against the well outside the jail. It is correct to say that the world at large had no sympathy for him, and he was shot by a mob that probably believed he would escape the legal process — again — and took matters illegally into their own hands. But he was not in Carthage on false charges. Smith ordered the destruction of a printing press, which is a violation of the First Amendment. Telling prospective Mormons that Smith was innocent of any crime on the day he died means that when they repeat that lie, they will look like fools to their friends and families who know better. Lying to prospective members about this issue only strengthens the arguments of counter-cultists who say that the LDS Church brainwashes its members into believing whatever they say. There is one gem in the muck:
He was not a perfect person, not a deity.
If only the anonymous copywriting drone at the Church Office Building had kept that in mind when writing the rest of this rubbish. The Church is not obligated to put its dirty laundry on display, but if it claims to be God’s One True ChurchTM, then it had better not use lies to draw people in.
So there we have it; strategy number three seems to be a massive failure in terms of its ability to be honest with prospective and current members, as well as the ammunition it provides to opponents of Mormonism. However, it’s mostly effective. Many members learn to Doublethink past the issue, or remain ignorant because of the strong unspoken taboos that exist around non faith-promoting speech. But what of the other two paths available?
There are two ways to come clean on polygamy: embrace it or reject it.
A total rejection of polygamy would require the following actions, all performed in public and all officially announced by the President of the Church. They’d have to strip section 132 from the Doctrine and Covenants, acknowledge that Joseph Smith was mistaken to ever introduce the practise in the first place, and acknowledge that while the Church still believed he restored the Gospel, he abused his privilege and for that God allowed him to be removed from his office. They’d need a rewrite of all language in the temple marriage ceremony and the Proclamation on the Family that alludes to men or God having multiple spouses and establish a policy that permits people to be sealed to only one spouse at a time. This would ripple out to negate other doctrines, such as the idea that women give birth to spirit babies in the afterlife. Sealing couples and families together would become a metaphorical rather than physical reality. Families would be together in the sense of all being in heaven at one never-ending barbeque, but the doctrine of men would going on to become creator-gods of their own worlds without end would probably be sidelined or discarded altogether, as the traditional doctrinal explanation for how those worlds are populated would disappear. Mormon heaven would start to look like Christian heaven, except 99% of the world’s population would be in the Telestial Kingdom and not in Hell.
Without the doctrine of polygamy and the way it affects Mormons’ understanding of the characteristics of God, man’s destiny to become a god, Mormonism would be a plain vanilla variety of Protestantism with their work of Bible fanfiction and horribly ugly knickers to add flavour.
The other option is for Mormons to embrace polygamy and their role as peculiar people. This may not necessarily mean a return to the doctrine, as it is still illegal in most countries where Mormons are found. A return to honesty could mean richer histories and discussions, as the lives of polygamous families would no longer be a taboo subject. Plural wives in the family tree would not be a cause for confusion or shame but would be accepted as just another part of the family. Modern Mormons who chose to could probably live the principle, as society is at a point where state-mandated heterosexual monogamy is no longer enforced. It would destroy decades of PR work done by the Church to convince the world that Mormons are mainstream and probably cause a lot of people to leave but it would mean acceptance of a doctrine that has always been part of Mormonism.
Positive upsides could include a reconciliation with the FLDS which might make that community less closed and vulnerable to their abusive leaders, a cease-fire on the gay community due to now being part of the alternative marriage crowd, and embracing Mormonism’s history with no apologies. (Except for the big apology about being so neurotic over it for the last century.)
Either approach would cause massive upheaval in the Church, so it won’t be addressed any time soon. Accepting or rejecting polygamy would cause social and doctrinal earthquakes, but if Mormons really want to “do what is right, let the consequence follow,” they’ll stop lying about it.
Plenty of conversation has focused on inclusive versus exclusive definitions of Mormonism. Organisations are free to define what they are and are not. After all, if there are no defining criteria at all, an organisation would vaporise and cease to exist. While I fall on the side of the argument that the LDS church is too rigid. I don’t believe anything Jesus said justifies throwing people out, and I oppose the generally hostile environment that exists inside chapels when it comes to dissent, alternative thought, and concerns of those outside the structures of authority.
The existence of the bloggernacle, which is populated with believers, doubters, and post-Mormons, is proof of this. If the LDS church supported lively dialogue and debate, the discussions that go on at various Mormon blogs would happen at church, not online.
That’s why I found it puzzling and sad that the Bloggernacle, a word that conjures up the idea of an enormous tent full of individual and equal voices, would decide to follow the pattern of the LDS church and provide an orthodox definition of what is and what is not part of the Bloggernacle.
This action is largely meaningless. The Internet is by nature an open thing. Anybody can set up a blog and while I suppose Bloggernacle.org is free to say who is and who isn’t part of their little clique, anybody can make what they like of the Bloggernacle. Unlike within the LDS church, declarations of authority made by a web site are meaningless. There’s no threat of shame or excommunication. Anyone can participate, and those who are idiots, trolls, wise, or kind are identified for what they are by the community. The announcement of Bloggernacle Times’ new online orthodoxy was a mixed bag;
Throughout 2010 the rebooted Bloggernacle Times will feature the best posts, blogs, and bloggers of the Bloggernacle as chosen by a representative group of Bloggernacle
elitebloggers. We will not post very often but enough to herald and attempt to better define this wonderful community. No doubt this venture will irritate the heck out of a lot of you. Nevertheless, we hope you will join us.
It is important to determine what style any written publication will have, so readers seeking particular content can find it. But, tongue-in-cheek though it was, I don’t like the way that “elite bloggers” are described as the new apostles of online orthodoxy. If it’s really a bloggernacle, shouldn’t it seek out the best of all Mormon-oriented writing? While I appreciate the honesty that everyone is welcome to read, even those who don’t like what they do, it is disappointing to think that a group using the word that represents Mormondom on the Internet — the only place where Mormons can be diverse and outspoken in their opinions — would try to be as limited in defining what makes a good Mormon as the LDS church can be.