Mormonism and Christianity, Inferior Philosophies?

[_Cylon]

Yes, my childhood was in the '70s. I don't think the mainstreaming really picked up steam until the late '80s or early '90s. That's my recollection from my own point of view, at any rate.

That utterly sinks a personal theory that I'd been developing that the growth of the Mormon Church from the 60s-80s was a function of the Nixonian "silent majority" asserting itself in American society. If Mormonism was still keeping itself from the mainstream as late as the 1970s, it presumably wouldn't have had much appeal for that conservative demographic.

As I understand it, Mormon growth from the 60s-80s was a result of missionary success outside the US (mostly in Latin America) and high birthrates within the US. Mormon leaders were still preaching against contraception through the 70s (and maybe even the 80s). I think even back then there weren't a whole lot of converts in the US.

[_Kishkumen]

It's really just a broad point that Smith's time and culture didn't commit him to a literalistic interpretation of scripture. He consciously chose to go down that path, with overt themes of anti-rationalism and anti-Unitarianism. This is what I've learned from reading about his life. He was a participant in early American debates on the nature of scripture, not a redneck among a society of rednecks who didn't know any better (I appreciate this is undoubtedly an oversimplification of your views).

Fair enough. I just feel that the Book of Mormon is our single best witness to what Joseph Smith's take on the Bible was at the time. My impression based on his portrayal of the Bible therein is that it is one book that contained the pure gospel but was compromised by the interference of wicked men. At no point does he address the internal complexity of the book in the sense you were talking about.

What he does seem to be saying is that other people can come forward with their own books, and that those books, if they are not corrupted, will bring a testimony that will compensate for the corrupted nature of the Bible. They add another witness and one that is potentially superior because it has not been modified. Joseph looked at those words in italics in his Bible, and he saw the fiddling of priests. When he "translated" the Bible, it was these parts he was most eager to tweak.

I think all of that speaks volumes about his understanding of the Bible and his view of how scripture might be legitimately created. None of this includes, to my understanding, sees the internal complexity of the Bible in a positive light. It seems instead to be about regretting this complexity and assuming it is a bad thing. The Book of Mormon is better in the eyes of Smith because it contains the pure ancient gospel, without that fiddling, and without the "reaching beyond the mark" of the Jews, so to speak.

That utterly sinks a personal theory that I'd been developing that the growth of the Mormon Church from the 60s-80s was a function of the Nixonian "silent majority" asserting itself in American society. If Mormonism was still keeping itself from the mainstream as late as the 1970s, it presumably wouldn't have had much appeal for that conservative demographic.

Mormons have for a long time added generous numbers to the ranks of fringe conservatism, paleo conservatism, tax protesting, the John Birch Society, et al. I would say that my experience growing up was a family that was much closer to the kooky conservative end of the spectrum, except for my one grandfather who was an old school Democrat. I first heard some of the famous conspiracy theories about evil Democrats as a child. My parents talked down the Kennedys and MLK. Both of them really hate the Democrats, and I mean hate. No exaggeration. My other grandfather received John Birch newsletters.

One of my branch presidents held John Birch Society meetings in his house for a brief time. He kicked them out when they refused to admit that Joseph Smith was the greatest American who ever lived.

Imagine that. A man who was, in point of fact, treasonously organizing a shadow theocratic world government, albeit in embryo, and this branch president--not knowing those facts of course--was pissed off when John Birchers would not call Smith history's greatest American.

I can't fathom those depths of bizarre.

But he is far from alone.

But I don't think you are actually incorrect. It was the LDS Church's outside role in stopping ERA that created this diabolical marriage between the Religious Right and the LDS Church. I do think that Mormonism was sought out by people who had more conservative, and even crackpot conservative, social and political views. To this day I have relatives who believe all the BS about Whitewater, Clinton murders, etc. I grew up with Rush Limbaugh playing in my kitchen every day. We're talking about gutter pseudo-conservatism here.

[_Johannes]

My impression based on his portrayal of the Bible therein is that it is one book that contained the pure gospel but was compromised by the interference of wicked men. At no point does he address the internal complexity of the book in the sense you were talking about.

I agree, and I regret it if I seemed to be suggesting otherwise. He clearly displaced the problems of the scriptural text onto the "great and abominable church". (Although, when I think about it, he did acknowledge the possibility of problems internal to the canon when he threw out the Song of Songs.)

Mormons have for a long time added generous numbers to the ranks of fringe conservatism, paleo conservatism, tax protesting, the John Birch Society, et al. I would say that my experience growing up was a family that was much closer to the kooky conservative end of the spectrum, except for my one grandfather who was an old school Democrat. I first heard some of the famous conspiracy theories about evil Democrats as a child. My parents talked down the Kennedys and Martin Luther King. Both of them really hate the Democrats, and I mean hate. No exaggeration. My other grandfather received John Birch newsletters.

Gosh.

But I don't think you are actually incorrect. It was the LDS Church's outside role in stopping ERA that created this diabolical marriage between the Religious Right and the LDS Church. I do think that Mormonism was sought out by people who had more conservative, and even crackpot conservative, social and political views. To this day I have relatives who believe all the ____ about Whitewater, Clinton murders, etc. I grew up with Rush Limbaugh playing in my kitchen every day. We're talking about gutter pseudo-conservatism here.

Diabolical indeed. I have no evidence, but it did occur to me that the sort of alienated inhabitant of middle America circa 1972 who worried about dope-smoking hippies might be rather impressed with the clean-shaven and besuited young men who turned up at his door. Such a person might be especially open to the promptings of the Spirit.

[_Kishkumen]

Diabolical indeed. I have no evidence, but it did occur to me that the sort of alienated inhabitant of middle America circa 1972 who worried about dope-smoking hippies might be rather impressed with the clean-shaven and besuited young men who turned up at his door. Such a person might be especially open to the promptings of the Spirit.

My intuition is that you are right. It may be, and I have far less knowledge of this than you may, that as mainline Protestant churches became more liberal, some of their parishioners fled to more conservative organizations like the LDS Church. These days I think the same people are choosing Orthodoxy over Mormonism. There are not so many of these folks, but I know there are enough that the Orthodox Church in America has taken notice and is welcoming such people with open arms. Meanwhile there are very few American converts to Mormonism.

[_Johannes]

My intuition is that you are right. It may be, and I have far less knowledge of this than you may, that as mainline Protestant churches became more liberal, some of their parishioners fled to more conservative organizations like the LDS Church. These days I think the same people are choosing Orthodoxy over Mormonism. There are not so many of these folks, but I know there are enough that the Orthodox Church in America has taken notice and is welcoming such people with open arms. Meanwhile there are very few American converts to Mormonism.

It's pretty widely acknowledged in Christian circles that the most conservative churches (and religious orders) with the most demanding codes of morality are growing the fastest. They're still pretty small in absolute terms (in my country - it's different, of course, in the US), but they can't be ignored. I have some anecdotes about this which I won't share right now. The obvious observation is that such people are becoming conservative Christians for the wrong reasons, but that's perhaps a bit too glibly dismissive.

As for the Orthodox, well.... For one thing, they are a source of converts from among Anglicans who don't like women clergy or gays, but who have cultural hang-ups about becoming Roman Catholics (the usual exit strategy for such people). But I am reliably informed that some members of the ethnic Orthodox communities are none too thrilled about the influx of conservative ethnic-English converts into their (often close-knit) parishes. Having said that, the most prominent Orthodox bishop in England is an ex-Anglican convert called Kallistos Ware, and he is a positively saintly man.

[_Kishkumen]

It's pretty widely acknowledged in Christian circles that the most conservative churches (and religious orders) with the most demanding codes of morality are growing the fastest. They're still pretty small in absolute terms (in my country - it's different, of course, in the US), but they can't be ignored. I have some anecdotes about this which I won't share right now. The obvious observation is that such people are becoming conservative Christians for the wrong reasons, but that's perhaps a bit too glibly dismissive.

As for the Orthodox, well.... For one thing, they are a source of converts from among Anglicans who don't like women clergy or gays, but who have cultural hang-ups about becoming Roman Catholics (the usual exit strategy for such people). But I am reliably informed that some members of the ethnic Orthodox communities are none too thrilled about the influx of conservative ethnic-English converts into their (often close-knit) parishes. Having said that, the most prominent Orthodox bishop in England is an ex-Anglican convert called Kallistos Ware, and he is a positively saintly man.

I am a big fan of Kallistos Ware. That said, I have still not read his translation of the Philokalia. I gave some thought to converting to Orthodoxy, but in the end I balked at having to portray myself as a regular old believer to the point of pushing through the unenthusiastic reception I would very likely get in the Greek community here in Florida. At the end of the day, it was a non-starter for me. That said, I have a great deal of respect for Orthodoxy and their way of doing things, although I am aware that it is far from ideal and a community with its own issues. I like its more mystical bent. Above all, that is what attracts me. It seems to me that mystical religion has the virtue of being a serious spiritual life without necessarily being committed to the tribal elements of a conservative community. That may not actually be true of Orthodoxy on the ground, but I think that, generally speaking, there is at least the possibility of that being the case somewhere.

Too often people lump together serious spirituality with "believes in stupid things that can't be true" and "demands tribal loyalty even in reprehensible things, perhaps even for reprehensible things." I would hope that this is not, after all, truly the case.

[_Johannes]

I'm impressed that you've even heard of Ware, whatever you have or haven't read of his stuff. He's an impressive figure.

I think you probably made the right decision in not taking the path of Orthodoxy. It makes me sad when people talk about the eastern churches as a source of mysticism (in the best sense of the word), as if the western tradition was all either Aristotelian scholastics or Bible-thumping literalism. There is a great deal of mystical content in western Christianity. Even something as prosaic as attending Anglican evensong is a mystical experience in its own way, and people don't realise that it's available on tap.

[_Kishkumen]

It makes me sad when people talk about the eastern churches as a source of mysticism (in the best sense of the word), as if the western tradition was all either Aristotelian scholastics or Bible-thumping literalism. There is a great deal of mystical content in western Christianity. Even something as prosaic as attending Anglican evensong is a mystical experience in its own way, and people don't realise that it's available on tap.

I get what you are saying, and I am aware of the Cloud of Unknowing, etc., but the mysticism does not really come through in the churches. I get that this is not entirely fair, but I do think there is a difference.

[_Johannes]

I get what you are saying, and I am aware of the Cloud of Unknowing, etc., but the mysticism does not really come through in the churches. I get that this is not entirely fair, but I do think there is a difference.

Are you talking about liturgical worship? If so, I think it depends where you look. Liturgy these days does tend to be textual, didactic and frankly boring - the average mainstream Christian Sunday morning service, Protestant or RC, is not that dissimilar from an LDS sacrament meeting - but not always, and you don't have to go to the Orthodox to get the mystical stuff. We're getting badly off topic here, but you can PM me if you're interested in recommendations for the apophatic style of worship.

[_Maksutov]

It's really just a broad point that Smith's time and culture didn't commit him to a literalistic interpretation of scripture. He consciously chose to go down that path, with overt themes of anti-rationalism and anti-Unitarianism. This is what I've learned from reading about his life. He was a participant in early American debates on the nature of scripture, not a redneck among a society of rednecks who didn't know any better (I appreciate this is undoubtedly an oversimplification of your views).

Fair enough. I just feel that the Book of Mormon is our single best witness to what Joseph Smith's take on the Bible was at the time. My impression based on his portrayal of the Bible therein is that it is one book that contained the pure gospel but was compromised by the interference of wicked men. At no point does he address the internal complexity of the book in the sense you were talking about.

What he does seem to be saying is that other people can come forward with their own books, and that those books, if they are not corrupted, will bring a testimony that will compensate for the corrupted nature of the Bible. They add another witness and one that is potentially superior because it has not been modified. Joseph looked at those words in italics in his Bible, and he saw the fiddling of priests. When he "translated" the Bible, it was these parts he was most eager to tweak.

I think all of that speaks volumes about his understanding of the Bible and his view of how scripture might be legitimately created. None of this includes, to my understanding, sees the internal complexity of the Bible in a positive light. It seems instead to be about regretting this complexity and assuming it is a bad thing. The Book of Mormon is better in the eyes of Smith because it contains the pure ancient gospel, without that fiddling, and without the "reaching beyond the mark" of the Jews, so to speak.

That utterly sinks a personal theory that I'd been developing that the growth of the Mormon Church from the 60s-80s was a function of the Nixonian "silent majority" asserting itself in American society. If Mormonism was still keeping itself from the mainstream as late as the 1970s, it presumably wouldn't have had much appeal for that conservative demographic.

Mormons have for a long time added generous numbers to the ranks of fringe conservatism, paleo conservatism, tax protesting, the John Birch Society, et al. I would say that my experience growing up was a family that was much closer to the kooky conservative end of the spectrum, except for my one grandfather who was an old school Democrat. I first heard some of the famous conspiracy theories about evil Democrats as a child. My parents talked down the Kennedys and Martin Luther King. Both of them really hate the Democrats, and I mean hate. No exaggeration. My other grandfather received John Birch newsletters.

One of my branch presidents held John Birch Society meetings in his house for a brief time. He kicked them out when they refused to admit that Joseph Smith was the greatest American who ever lived.

Imagine that. A man who was, in point of fact, treasonously organizing a shadow theocratic world government, albeit in embryo, and this branch president--not knowing those facts of course--was pissed off when John Birchers would not call Smith history's greatest American.

I can't fathom those depths of bizarre.

But he is far from alone.

But I don't think you are actually incorrect. It was the LDS Church's outside role in stopping ERA that created this diabolical marriage between the Religious Right and the LDS Church. I do think that Mormonism was sought out by people who had more conservative, and even crackpot conservative, social and political views. To this day I have relatives who believe all the ____ about Whitewater, Clinton murders, etc. I grew up with Rush Limbaugh playing in my kitchen every day. We're talking about gutter pseudo-conservatism here.

Fascinating, Reverend. One of my favorite uncles was a frequent reader of The Spotlight and was always singing the praises of the Spokane/Couer d'Alene area. After he died I was browsing around and decided to check out the groups and sources he was quoting. His favorite publication The Spotlight was produced by neoNazi Willis Carto and the community in the NW my uncle spoke of so highly was the compound of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, run by Richard Butler, whose "church" was decorated with Nazi emblems and taught Christian Identity racialism. My family is unwilling or unable to look at those connections and try to understand them. Just like another part of my LDS family is unwilling to look at their participation in polygamy in Mexico long after the Manifesto.