DiscussMormonism.com

I have a little rule I follow when trying to understand the development of Mormon history and doctrine: Follow the Polygamy. This is the Mormon version of the phrase often heard in politics, "Follow the Money." The idea being that if you want to know why a politician says or does something, follow the money trail. By comparison, if you want to know why something developed or changed in Mormon history/doctrine, the best way to do this is to connect it with polygamy.

By the way, this also explains why so much of Mormon history is fundamentally misunderstood by the average member. Said member knows nothing about polygamy and is not able to talk about it at church, therefore he/she has no way to understand it.

But here's the insight I just had. Since the way to understand doctrinal development is to understand polygamy, what happens if there is no polygamy? Easy, there is no doctrinal development, i.e. no new revelation.

Now I'm obviously being a bit facetious here, but I think there may be something to this.

And as a clarification, I mean revelation in the "Chapel Mormon" sense of GAs speaking authoritatively. Lots of Brigham's nonsense never made it into the canon (and so is disqualified as a revelation by "Internet Mormons"), but the church members sure thought it was revelation.

I know you are being half-serious, but it seems like the general pattern for new religious movements is the initial charismatic leader generates a lot of new, divergent content, but then that peters out over time and eventually ossifies into the plodding cultural evolution we are familiar with in all religions. This pattern seems present the new religious movements besides Mormonism from the 19th century that have marched on. That this is present in Mormonism is easily understood when you view it as an anthropologist, but is in tension with the Mormon self-image of the Church being one of continuing revelation.

One of the appeals of Mormondom was this idea that all these fantastic miracles and examples of God intervening directly in human affairs and actually talking to people about new things wasn't just for scriptures of old, but are real and happening in this very day. But now, I think if you're a Mormon you have to settle for a sort of limited dispensation surrounding early Mormonism that runs counter to Mormonism's sell-job.

EAllusion wrote:I know you are being half-serious, but it seems like the general pattern for new religious movements is the initial charismatic leader generates a lot of new, divergent content, but then that peters out over time and eventually ossifies into the plodding cultural evolution we are familiar with in all religions. This pattern seems present the new religious movements besides Mormonism from the 19th century that have marched on. That this is present in Mormonism is easily understood when you view it as an anthropologist, but is in tension with the Mormon self-image of the Church being one of continuing revelation.

One of the appeals of Mormondom was this idea that all these fantastic miracles and examples of God intervening directly in human affairs and actually talking to people about new things wasn't just for scriptures of old, but are real and happening in this very day. But now, I think if you're a Mormon you have to settle for a sort of limited dispensation surrounding early Mormonism that runs counter to Mormonism's sell-job.

Well said. Since the advent of Correlation, orthodoxy and orthopraxy in Mormonism seem to be surrounded by an ever-constricting circle. In a sort of slow-motion process, rather than add new revelation, they are weeding out some of the old. Makes for a much less interesting religion.

AS,
Do you seen a connection between polygamy and the black issue?

Fence Sitter wrote:AS,
Do you seen a connection between polygamy and the black issue?

No, I don't. Even the best of rules have exceptions.

Fence Sitter wrote:AS,
Do you seen a connection between polygamy and the black issue?

It seems like this may be a genre of porn but I am not sure.

I think AS is right, but I think EA is also right.

Because NRMs are based on the dreams and desires of the leader, in this case Joseph Smith's interest in the ladies, the revelations in some way were bent in a direction to expand his notoriety, and then cover his slips or grant future prospects with women. The close friends are taken in under the leader and get their cut if they're loyal, but once the leader is gone, you've got this explosion of greed from among the inner circle to live the dream. But it's unsustainable. The in-fighting alone about who gets the prettiest and youngest girls is a destructive force. The religion will go into decline unless the next leaders use the last bits of revelatory power left to get the corruption under control.

Please apply to something that is recent - your choice:

1. Only one pair of earrings per female
2. No flip-flips (the style of shoe) in church

Those are fairly "Chapel Mormon-y" and will help me see what you are talking about (I think it's an interesting theory)


H.

LDSToronto wrote:Please apply to something that is recent - your choice:

1. Only one pair of earrings per female
2. No flip-flips (the style of shoe) in church

Those are fairly "Chapel Mormon-y" and will help me see what you are talking about (I think it's an interesting theory)


H.

I'll take a stab at it. Polygamy forever associated the church with sexual licentiousness and weirdness, in the broader culture. Because of that underlying reputation, the church goes far out of its way to present itself as upstanding, chaste, and normal. Multiple earrings and flip-flops, like beards and colored shirts, don't present the "normal" image.

Runtu wrote:

LDSToronto wrote:Please apply to something that is recent - your choice:

1. Only one pair of earrings per female
2. No flip-flips (the style of shoe) in church

Those are fairly "Chapel Mormon-y" and will help me see what you are talking about (I think it's an interesting theory)


H.

I'll take a stab at it. Polygamy forever associated the church with sexual licentiousness and weirdness, in the broader culture. Because of that underlying reputation, the church goes far out of its way to present itself as upstanding, chaste, and normal. Multiple earrings and flip-flops, like beards and colored shirts, don't present the "normal" image.

That's an interesting take, Runtu. As a point of refutation, I'd say that the church looks less normal when they focus on small, superficial elements.

Here's how I might approach it: Polygamy set the LDS aside as a peculiar people. This legacy of peculiarity has posterity in today's practices. Superficial displays, such as one set of earrings, white shirts, no beards, no flip flops, those are today's markers of peculiarity.

Of course, I guess it all depends on how we interpret the original theory - both viewpoints could work.

H.