10 January 2008¶ More Mormons in the News

Thanks to Justine, I found this piece in last Sunday’s NYTimes Magazine. Here’s a key quote from the intro: “ If anything, the systematic overrepresentation of Mormons among top businesspeople and lawyers affords LDS affiliation a certain cachet — rather like being Jewish, but taller.”

That said, Feldman pulls a few sneaky tricks. He states, “over the course of the last century Mormon teaching has moved away from many of Smith’s more radical ideas, which are often not accepted by contemporary LDS members” without providing any examples of what those radical ideas might be. I’m curious: what did Joseph Smith teach that I don’t believe, or that the Church no longer teaches? In the case of polygamy, we claim more recent revelation that explains the will of God for our time. But Feldman seems to imply that the Church (or the members of the Church) have casually ignored the more “radical” parts of the gospel. I’m at a loss to figure out what he’s talking about, so I can only presume that his “contemporary LDS members” who “often” don’t believe refers to a small, non-mainstream group.

Then there’s the link to kabbalistic mysticism. I’m no opposed to anyone pointing out similarities between Mormonism and, well, anyone, but only where the similarities actually exist. Feldman imagines some, and then casually winks at a place where the links might be. For example, he mentions that both Mormonism and kabbalistic mysticism are based on discovered manuscripts. That is an accurate similarity. But he concludes the paragraph with this nugget:

For example, the most important work of the kabbalah, the Zohar, presents itself as a lost manuscript written by the 2nd-century mystic Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, though scholars maintain that it was composed in the 13th century by the man who “discovered” it.

If Feldman thinks that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, he should say so. As it is written here, however, he is only casting the negative light without acknowledging them. It’s sneaky and underhanded.

A few places leave you scratching your head. Take this one: “Smith was nevertheless gunned down by a kind of quasi-organized lynch mob after having been arrested and jailed in nearby Carthage.” What’s with the hedge? Why is it only “kind of” a lynch mob? What is “quasi” about it? By casting doubt over the mob, he strengthens their position. By stating that Joseph Smith was arrested without explaining the situation, he demeans the victim.

Again: Feldman describes polygamy in Utah as a “lapse in secrecy” and describes — in very condensed terms — the legal battles the Church tried to protect their rights. After mentioning the Manifesto that banned the practice, Feldman concludes, “like Jewish rituals under the Spanish Inquisition, plural marriage continued, secretly in Utah and also among refugees (like several of Mitt Romney’s ancestors), who fled to Mexico or other places the law could not reach.” Fleeing to Mexico isn’t just a place where “law cannot reach.” It’s leaving the oppression of one country for one that doesn’t oppress. It might sound familiar because that’s what brought the pilgrims to Massachusetts in the seventeenth century. It’s a central part of our national heritage. That Mormons had to leave the United States to get the same privileges that the country was founded upon isn’t the fault of the Mormons.

Lest Feldman forget, when the Mormons left for Utah, they were leaving the country. The Salt Lake valley was part of Mexico when the Mormon settlement arrived in 1847. It was brought into the United States after the Mexican-American war. Those who left to Mexico so that they could freely practice their religion was an extension of the first migration to Utah. But Feldman doesn’t dwell on that. No, instead he is demonstrating that Mormon “secrecy” is the problem. Right: secrecy.

Wait: secrecy and lies. That’s what the Church uses. Apparently, it’s almost doctrine: “As one apostle (there are 12 who guide the church) later put it in a speech recounted by the historian Kathleen Flake, ‘I am not dishonest and not a liar . . . [but] we have always been taught that when the brethren were in a tight place that it would not be amiss to lie to help them out.’” I don’t have Flake’s book and I’ve never seen this quote before. All references online seem to be from Feldman’s article. I’m not saying he’s making it up, but I can’t really judge it based on this quote. His use of the present tense “there are 12 who guide the church” implies that one of the living apostles said this. But I somehow doubt it. And where was this “speech” delivered? Finally, if he’s one of the apostles, to whom is he referring when he mentions “the brethren” who might somehow be “in a tight spot”?

If the context for that quote was, say, Neil Maxwell, then it’s a downright condemning statement. It’s scary bad. If, on the other hand, it is referring to protecting the saints from polygamy-hunters in the nineteenth century, then I’m perfectly on board. In an era when U.S. Marshalls roamed brazenly all over the territory (before Utah was a state) to try to arrest LDS leaders for practicing their religion, a little “I’m sorry, officer, I haven’t seen him in weeks” is justifiable. Is that the case with this quote? I don’t know, and have no means currently to find out. I’m likely being overly generous with my attribution. If so, I suspect my generosity is an appropriate balance to Feldman’s implication.

Oh my, it appears that I’m getting long-winded. Alas. If Feldman would stop writing such negative ambiguities and unsupported misinformation, I’d stop pointing them out.

Like this one: “Now that plural marriage was out of the picture, the less said the better about the particular teachings of the church, including such practices as the baptism of the dead.” To what is he referring, exactly? He’s already mentioned that the most public face of Mormonism is the missionaries, and, speaking personally, when I served my mission in the early 1990s, I spoke directly on both topics. Baptism for the dead was a central point, even a bragging point, in the missionary discussions of the period. Sure, if you don’t understand the (very basic) doctrine, it might allow you to conjure up spooky images (perhaps due to too many B-movies with ‘of the dead’ in their titles), but the practice itself is anything but spooky. It’s more merciful than anything in mainstream Protestantism. My experience has been that, once explained, most people will resonate with — even immediately agree with — the doctrine of baptizing for the dead. Why would the Church ever shy away from talking about it? Oh, that’s right: they don’t.

“If 19th-century Mormon secrecy was a matter of survival, 20th-century Mormon reticence was a form of soft secrecy, designed to avoid soft bigotry.” Indeed, Mr. Feldman. Because the alternative — to embrace and facilitate bigotry — is so much better. And, apparently, this “soft secrecy” is the only means for Mormons to succeed. When Ezra Taft Benson was appointed to Eisenhower’s cabinet, or when George Romney was chairman of American Motor Company and later elected governor of Michigan, it wasn’t because they were qualified, intelligent, hard-working, or politically savvy. No, it was the result of “soft secrecy.” I’ve got to get me some of that.

I won’t even comment on the third-to-last paragraph. It’s hypothesizing in the worst way: it’s negative imagination casting the worst light, and then sneaking in an unsubstantiated reference to history. It’s irresponsible.

Where Feldman really shows his colors — or, rather, reveals his audience — is when he starts to contrast Mormon with evangelical protestants. When he says that evangelicals have “concerns about what they consider Mormonism’s nontrinitarian theology” suddenly I’m aware that, to Feldman, all of Christianity is — using terms of literary criticism — other. It’s not that Feldman (who I presume is Jewish, though that isn’t really important) doesn’t associate himself with protestantism, but that he sees the plight of Mitt in re evangelical protestants as something like infighting among two foreign, crazy groups. His analogies to Shiites and kabbalistic mysticism are appropriate for him because they’re all nuts to him. It is important that they’re not simply alternatives in a suitably pluralistic society: they’re all slightly dangerous, suspect, and mentally questionable.

And then there’s this doozy: “Even if the charge against Romney were that he failed because he was a dissimulating phony, that would hardly be an improvement for the church, given the similarity of that charge with the historical bias against Mormon secrecy.” So if Mittens doesn’t win the Republican nomination — for any reason whatsoever — it’s a slap against Mormonism? I find that shocking and sad. I mean, if Huckabee wins it, well, yeah: it’s a slap against Mormons. But if McCain takes the nod? How could the success of a man with vast experience, who trumps virtually everyone in the polls (in terms of personal qualifications) be a slap against another candidate’s faith? Is it impossible — even for Feldman, who claims to lament this apparent test of religion that Romney is suffering — to separate the man from the church? Apparently, at least for Feldman, it is.

Comment

  1. I see you’ve been hard at work at the library to day.

    — kate · Jan 10, 01:10 PM · #

  2. too many thoughts. not all congruent with yours, but interesting to see your assessment. Too bad I have no tenacity to sit down and type it all down. You’ll just have to get your wife (and you too, of course) out here so we can have dinner and discuss.

    — Justine · Jan 18, 02:59 PM · #

Textile Help

|