Page 1 of 1

Maxwell Institute: Don't Overlook Smith as Negative Hero

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:29 pm
by _Gadianton
The Maxwell Institute ought to consider taking their problems with Smith from another angle.

The official portrait is Smith as the puritan who penned the Book of Mormon with ink and quill, a man of duty with no sense of humor or moral fault. But there has always been a little room to adapt his personality to present circumstance. For instance, as the 1950's family man, he wrestled, played ball, and knew how to have good clean family fun and even had a few mischievous "foibles." But with the truth coming out and the expressed need to turn his faults into part of circumstance and "narrative," why not take advantage of some of the ways entertainment is redefining public perceptions and expectations?

When I was a kid, I watched CHiPs, Night Rider, the A-team, and the Dukes of Hazard (when I could get away with it - mom didn't like Daisy's dress standards). The heroes in these t.v. shows were either rebels who wore black leather jackets and cool sunglasses, or outlaws but with the moral right on their side doing the jobs corruption or bureaucracy prevented the established from doing. At worst they were mischievous, had attitudes, and didn't respect authority. But in these weaknesses were their strengths for thinking outside the box or getting things done when red tape incapacitated the fumbling white hats. So to an extent, thanks to the evils of television, there's some room for Joseph Smith to be an outsider. But the media of the eighties didn't prepare the church for but a fraction of Smith's "flaws".

In this century, however, Smith gets a big boost. We can start with Jack Bauer whose altruism is so over the top it comes with personal sacrifices such as getting addicted to heroin in order to infiltrate a cartel. We're introduced to a sense of duty so thick that Jack will kill, torture, and break all the rules the A-team didn't in order to bring justice. But reality digs deeper in The Wire or The Shield. Cop shows where it gets tougher and tougher to tell who the good guys are and what's permitted to exact moral law or raise questions about even the existence or very possibility of the notion. In The Wire, the cops are nearly as corrupt as the dealers. But in the Shield, boy oh boy, Vick Mackey goes a long way in our ability to revere Smith. Here's a guy who gets the temporary results at least, the criminals respect and fear him. The precinct tries to put up with him. But he doesn't just bend rules, he's a dirt bag and a criminal himself. He's a bad husband who cheats on his wife - he likes the girls. He's a bad father, although he loves his kids and those fumbling instances where he tries to be a dad are bait offered to the audience in hope to redeem him. The only rules that matter for Vick are his own "gang" codes that the officers in on his secrets and in his club follow. And that can cover actions like, stealing large amounts of drug money for themselves in addition to breaking rules in order to protect the public. In fact, in one instance, a newer, green officer with high morals and a "black and white" fundamentalist worldview got too close to the details of his operation. So Vick took a gun, shot him in the head and killed him, and then planted the evidence on the drug dealers. It's really left up in the air as to whether any "greater good" is being accomplished at all.

But you just love to watch Vick in action, the king of all bad asses, and if in the end a greater good served, then we've just got to stand in awe over how he achieved it. An audience with a proper respect for Vick is far more ready to accept Joseph Smith's role as a prophet. Because in a world that "real", it might just have been that specific ills such as his penchant for women and especially the wives of his friends was necessary for keeping the respect and submission of his cohorts. It might have been the case that Smith could never have got the church off the ground without being the "Vick Mackey" of religion. And a properly entertained Mormon community might be led to understand this unfortunate matter if the Maxwell Institute can see the advantages present-day entertainment venues offer them.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:48 pm
by _Blixa
OMG. I LOVE YOU.

The metaphor has a lot of promise. Think about the early Mormon "Strike Team," all the in-fighting in the early leadership, people getting kicked out, making nice with Vic/Joe and being let back in. Rigdon as an Aceveda wannabe. The Strike Team as a "sealed" group with secret "doctrines." It almost plays out as a one-to-one allegory.

I can't quite make out who's good enough to be Lem, though.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:22 pm
by _chonguey
Great post! I've been thinking a lot about Joseph Smith and have drawn much the same conclusions.

It's funny to think about Joseph Smith, especially as some sort of philanderer. But that's such a small and narrow view of the whole affair.

Joseph Smith, along with everything else he was doing, was actually preaching the "Sexual Revolution" in 1840's Illinois. Polygamy, plural marriage, whatever you want to call it, was as radical an idea as any other. A system of polyamory where men and women could all "get it on" with the other couples in the Ward. Joseph Smith was teaching and helping institute a society of swingers, more or less.

I might not believe in the deceit of the movement, the lies, the patriarchy, where men in religious authority abused that authority to use it as unrighteous leverage in the whole scheme. I don't believe in sexual coercion or in retaining the right to choose only for the "men."

But I do believe in the sexual revolution and can appreciate that Smith was preaching it 100 years before it caught up with the mainstream.

Smith, for all his deceit and fraud, was not without his virtues of idea, and you don't throw the baby out with the fraudulent bathwater. :D

The whole problem in all of this is when those who defend the system of Mormonism do so without either understanding of what it is, or ignorance of what it is.

It's funny to realize that the U.S. government marched the army in to Utah in the 1800's because the powers that be in Washington thought everyone in Utah was having a little bit too much sex. It's sad to think that the LDS church allowed itself to get strongarmed in to renouncing Smith's sexual revolution.

It's really just the Christian-fascist Right who pushes back on any and every movment that doesn't agree with their narrow view of morality. The problem with Mitt Romney's candidacy is that he seems to want to agree with them, even though his Mormonism got him kicked out of the club before he ever got started. He avoids any words that might make listener think he has any respect or pride from his religious faith. He cowers behind the 1st Ammendment, not because he couldn't defend the church, but because his entire constituency depends on him denying his faith.

Romney sucks. Go Obama! I think after Romney's anti-Mormon assassination in the political race that the state of Utah should throw their support behind Barack Obama. I'm not sure it will happen, but that will show the Christian Right that Utah's GOP electoral votes is not something to be taken for granted. Believer or not, if you attack my religious background, you get my middle finger, and not my vote.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:25 pm
by _Blixa
chonguey wrote:It's funny to realize that the U.S. government marched the army in to Utah in the 1800's because the powers that be in Washington thought everyone in Utah was having a little bit too much sex.


That's not really why, though. It had more to do with the subversion of the courts and the mail.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:28 pm
by _chonguey
Blixa wrote:
chonguey wrote:It's funny to realize that the U.S. government marched the army in to Utah in the 1800's because the powers that be in Washington thought everyone in Utah was having a little bit too much sex.


That's not really why, though. It had more to do with the subversion of the courts and the mail.


I know, it's an over simplification. But the whole anti-Polygamy fervor in all of it, the so-called "open insurection" was driven by a sense of Puritanical outrage. Those Mormons! They can't do that! The deceit (and eventual manipulation and coercion) in it all was what was the undoing of it in the end, but let's not pretend it's what got it started. It's hard to imagine today people getting worked up about a couple choosing to have a threesome if they wanted, let alone trying to involve the Army to make sure it was enforced.

anti-Polygamy is anti freedom of sexual choice. I don't think that Polygamy is such a great concept per se, but I believe in a couples right to choose it for themselves. Christian-fascists believe in neither.

I'm just trying to appreciate Smith as a 19th Century sexual revolutionary. :)

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:35 pm
by _Blixa
chonguey wrote:
Blixa wrote:
chonguey wrote:It's funny to realize that the U.S. government marched the army in to Utah in the 1800's because the powers that be in Washington thought everyone in Utah was having a little bit too much sex.


That's not really why, though. It had more to do with the subversion of the courts and the mail.


I know, it's an over simplification. But the whole anti-Polygamy fervor in all of it, I think, was driven by a sense of Puritanical outrage. The deceit in it all was what was the undoing of it all, but let's not pretend it's what got it started.

anti-Polygamy is anti freedom of sexual choice. I don't think that Polygamy is such a great concept per se, but I believe in a couples right to choose it for themselves. Christian-fascists believe in neither.


Oh I agree there was plenty of outraged Victorian womanhood mythology in early anti-mormon rhetoric. Which is all the more ironic given that outside of Nauvoo the sexual pleasure dimension of Mormon polygamy disappears pretty fast. And I'll take lustfulness over control of breeding stock any day, myself.

There's also nothing wrong with people choosing how to arrange their own lives, either, in my book. The issue is with particular instances of patriarchal polygyny rather than multiple partners in general. The latter, interestingly, was more like Nauvoo polygamy with its multple instances of polyandry and even some arrangements that defy definition.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:40 pm
by _chonguey
Blixa wrote:Oh I agree there was plenty of outraged Victorian womanhood mythology in early anti-mormon rhetoric. Which is all the more ironic given that outside of Nauvoo the sexual pleasure dimension of Mormon polygamy disappears pretty fast. And I'll take lustfulness over control of breeding stock any day, myself.

There's also nothing wrong with people choosing how to arrange their own lives, either, in my book. The issue is with particular instances of patriarchal polygyny rather than multiple partners in general. The latter, interestingly, was more like Nauvoo polygamy with its multple instances of polyandry and even some arrangements that defy definition.


Absolutely! I disagree with the whole manipulative control over the system that "Prophets" like Warren Jeff's try to exert, or that is practiced by most of today's Fundamentalist polygamists and what was the Utah system under Brigham Young.

Smith's idea was far more radical. The multiple sealings of multiple men to multiple women was "opening" a big pool of "wife swapping" (so to speak.) Women had multiple "husbands" and men had multiple "wives."

Sure, Smith was denying it from the get go. All of those in on the Nauvoo "swing" scene tried to keep it completely underground. But let's not fail to see the difference between what Smith and the early Saints were doing, and the retrograde system it eventually became.

I like Smith's version. ;)

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:39 am
by _Dr. Shades
Hmm, Joseph Smith as larger-than-life pioneer of the sexual revolution 120 years ahead of his time. . . I like it!

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:18 am
by _chonguey
Dr. Shades wrote:Hmm, Joseph Smith as larger-than-life pioneer of the sexual revolution 120 years ahead of his time. . . I like it!


Thanks, for some reason it has been rolling around in my head for a while now. That and the fact that Utah has the largest "swingers" community in the nation only after Florida.

He set the stage in the Book of Mormon. Jacob 2: 24-30

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be bone wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.


He knew he was witting his own religious story, and his own religious authority in the process. He set down a few Biblical references to make it clear that it can't be a sexual free for all. However, there is the reservation in verse 30, and the critical key: the granting of God to change the rules of the game for with his say so. Joseph's say so.

He set the stage years before it went in to effect. He had to roll it out slowly with those who could be trusted to not let the puritans go nuts. But the stage was set. Indeed, the Christian Right and the puritans are still going nuts that the sexual creeds of the past were being swept away during the 1960's, and they still are crapping themselves now.

"Plural" Marriage as the God-sanctioned excuse for "open" relationships and plurality of spouses? You better believe that's part of the legacy of Joseph Smith that is also denied as a part of being behooven to the "continuing revelations" of the Mormon Hierarchy.

This is the cat that can't be let out of the bag if you need to convince people if the latest "change in course" from on High. When that happens, the full on suppression mode kicks in to high gear, and like so many of the teachings of Joseph Smith, they are suppressed and the definition of sexual morality gets redefined for the conservative-Mormons and those who hang on to every word.

Just like it led to the rise of a new anti-gay sentiment in the Mormon church since the 1950s, when prior to that many gay and lesbian Saints seemed to live in peace and full-fellowship. Read Quinn's Same-Sex Dynamics book for more information on the legacy of that since the turn of the 20th Century in Mormondom.

When the Lard changes the "rules", some of Mormonisms very appealing sexual morality had to go way of the dodo to appease the Federal Government and the Christian Right at the time. The Christian right is still-infighting on it since the Christian Right can't seem to make their mind whether it is more important to hate gays or to hate Mormons. I hope they both lose that debate. Mormons for Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!

Their seems to be many, MANY non-traditional "Mormons" who still practice the faith, so to speak. "Husbands" have multiple "wives" and yes, many, many "Wives" have multiple "Husbands." Get it? The guys in SLC don't want the sheeple to realize this anymore, as it totally undermines the double-bind authority.

I've been "ExMo" in Utah for about 4 years now and only now have I seen the truth. The "great" exmo parties that I have been to. All the girls and guys who can't wait to hook it up on exmo forums. It all makes a lot more sense why Polygamy caught on like it did. And holy shiz, it was right in front of my face the whole time.

SLC is a great place to live.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not use the "S" word, or any of its variants, in the Terrestrial Forum.]

I cleaned it up so it can stay in the Terrestrial Kingdom. :D

I'd really love to hear what Sister Charity has to hear on my scripture discussion. What do think this scripture means, Sister? ;)