Natalie R. Collins reports that, at her daughter's junior high, the active Mormons play a game where they dress special on a given day. The result of the game is that is easy to vet out which kids are Mormon and which are not.
I lead in with this simply to note that, in Utah, things are different.
As my college professors would put it: the Mormons have hegemony in this state.
Traveling around the state, you will find an LDS Seminary adjacent to just about every public school. Utah law allows generous off campus privileges so that students can attend classes in the seminary. When I was in school, Utah graduation requirements were a bit easier than most states to free up time so the kids could go to seminary.
The Utah school paradox is that, although Utah has a strongly religious population, Utah also has the highest percentage of students that go to public schools.
The reason for this is obvious. In Utah, the public school system is essentially the Mormon parochial school system. Looking through the list of private schools, you just don't find a category of Mormon schools.
It is my observation that the LDS world view is very much driven by community. When you move into an area, you are expected to go to the ward for the area, and that your children will go to the public school in the area. I get the feeling that most Mormons really aren't keen on uppity people who go to private schools.
As the LDS have hegemony in the public schools, a sizeable portion of the private school population is non-Mormon families trying to get their children into a more secular environment.
At this point in time, the primary beneficiary of the voucher law will be non-Mormon kids from lower income levels who feel alienated being in a Mormon dominated public school, but can't afford a way out.
A few critics of the voucher proposal seem to be positioning the voucher issue as an effort of rightwing Mormons to pull their students from the public school system. I really don't see this. The Mormons I know are all very content with their kids going to the neighborhood church and the neighborhood public school. The seminary is positioned to counter any anti-Mormon bias of the secular school.
Here, I should note that I am a cynical b-tard who thinks the LDS Church writes all Utah legislation then sends it to the legislature for a rubber stamp. However, as the vouchers are not advantageous to LDS Church (they will still continue to use and dominate the public schools) I don't buy this argument.
I've toyed with the idea that the LDS Church wants to get into the private school business, and that the voucher issue is a way to get the Utah taxpayer's to fund the creation of a new Mormon owned school system. If this were the case, then I think we would be seeing Mormon schools popping up throughout the state. I don't see this happening.
In my lifetime, the LDS Church has divested itself of many of its businesses including its chain of department stores, its hospitals and some of its financial institutions.
The best I can come to a nefarious motivation on the voucher law is that the Utah Republican majority wants Utah to be a leader on national conservative issues. Passing the vouchers increases the states credentials as a center of conservative thought. The motivation is that the Mormons want to ease up on their local hegemony so that they can play a braoder role in the world of ideas. This motivation would make Dr. Evil yawn.
When I was in the U of U's education department, I was taught to see everything as great hegemonic battles. The idea is that, for society to progress, all socio-economic actions must be placed in the context of a class struggle. We can find such struggle in Mormon history. In early Mormon history, it appears the LDS Church was set on finding an area that they could dominate, politically, socially and culturally.
In the last half century, though, the LDS Church seems much more interested in its role as an international organization, and less on the desire to dominate the local scene.
If anything, I think the LDS Church wants to promote Utah as a meeting place of religions. This last half century has seen the construction of Mosques, Hindu Temples and Synagogues and that there is an authentic desire to have a diversity of schools and diversity of religious thought in the valley. Some of these efforts have received direct support from the LDS Church.
As for the motivation of the political leadership in the state, I think they are driven primarily by economic concerns. The fact that Utah has the highest percentage of its work force coming from the same cookie cutter public schools means that we lack the diversity of thought of other economic hubs. The lack of private schools makes it hard to attract businesses to the state.
Regardless, I can find no reason to characterize the voucher proposal as some sort of "Mormon-thing" as the LDS Church is not a primary benefactor of the proposal. Non-Mormons are more likely to use the vouchers than Mormons. The idea really seems to be propelled by the belief that diversity in schools will lead to better education for all.
Showing posts with label lds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lds. Show all posts
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Monday, August 06, 2007
Little Greenies
This is exciting news. Apparently Tom Green is up for release. Tom Green was convicted in 2002 for being an embarrassment for the LDS Church. Mr. Green had been in several documentaries promoting the LDS Polygamist lifestyle and was rapidly gaining international notoriety. The guy has some five wives and 30 odd kids. One of the wives was 13 when she stopped being a little girl and was turned into a Mormon baby production unit.
Since polygamy is officially illegal in Utah, the wives are officially single welfare-collecting moms, and not polygamist wives.
I understand that Mr. Green has learned his lesson and will avoid the limelight and any further embarrassment to the LDS Church. With a little luck, Green will simply take whatever hush money the state offers and will sink back into anonymity.
Mormons throughout the US will simultaneously undergo a denial that polygamy is an important part of the LDS Church, while filing Mr. Green's imprisonment in the collective fantasy that the Mormons are the most persecuted people of all times. Gentiles in Utah will point to the Green affair and mutter the lament "This is what you have to live with in Utah."
Since polygamy is officially illegal in Utah, the wives are officially single welfare-collecting moms, and not polygamist wives.
I understand that Mr. Green has learned his lesson and will avoid the limelight and any further embarrassment to the LDS Church. With a little luck, Green will simply take whatever hush money the state offers and will sink back into anonymity.
Mormons throughout the US will simultaneously undergo a denial that polygamy is an important part of the LDS Church, while filing Mr. Green's imprisonment in the collective fantasy that the Mormons are the most persecuted people of all times. Gentiles in Utah will point to the Green affair and mutter the lament "This is what you have to live with in Utah."
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Things Change
Reach Upwards has links to an interesting discussion titled "Mormonism and Democratic Politics: Are They Compatible?." The article centers on the strange transformation of the LDS Church from the "most radical" of all groups to the "most Republican" of all groups. The primary speaker at the event is a Richard Bushman who appears to hope that the LDS returns to its radical roots to become a force for "social progress."
There are many groups such as Mormons for Social Equality and Justice that wonder why the modern Mormon church abandonned its socialistic past for its Republican present, and hope to see the group flip flop back into the arms of radicalism.
The early LDS Church was utopian. They established communes. They denied property rights. The group even had a mini sexual revolution in the form of polygamy. Fundamental polygamist cults still cling to these progressive goals. The adherents in the cults have little or no property. Everything is owned by the group. In matters of health care, the members only receive the care the collective grants (this is the ideal of universal care). Even sex is harnessed for the advancement of the collective. Although the polygamists hold to myths of eternal families, in practice one finds that wives and children get re-assigned according to the vagueries of collective politics. Young girls get assigned to old men as a reward for group loyalty.
The only real difference between the various Mormon polygamist cults and modern progressivism is that the cults want to raise the religion to a state, while modern progressive want to raise the state to a religion.
Mormonism v. Classical Liberalism
Bushman tells us the story of how Smith gradually began embracing the classical liberalism of the Republican party. Basically, ss Smith's utopian ventures fell apart and his list of enemies grew, he routinely found protection in the rights granted by the Constitution.
For that matter, a central theme of the Mormon experience is that the Constitution of the United States has protected the right of individual Mormons to think and speak as they will, and it has protected the right of the group to exist.
Mormons today are both extremely patriotic and are among the staunchest supporters of "The Constitution."
Unfortunately, Joseph Smith added a nasty twist to the Mormon view of the Constitution. Smith took the stance that the Constitution was revealed by God. It was revealed by God specifically to protect God's prophet and the new church that would come into existence in the Latter Days.
This notion that the Constitution is a holy document revealed by God is completely at odds with the classical liberal tradition of the Republicans that the Consitution as part of a thought process.
This fundamental difference that cuts to the heart of the Rule of Law. In the classical liberal tradition, the Constitution is the product of a thought process. In order to interpret the Constitution, you need to replicate the thought process.
The view that the Constitution is a product of revelation means that the Constitution must be interpreted through revelation. The idea that Constitution must be seen through revelation leads to the situation where the seer, relevator and prophet can make the Constitution mean whatever he wants.
NOTE, the Mormon view of the Consititution is really not that different from the modern progressive view. The modern view is that the Constitution is a living document. The Constitution is just pile of words whose meanings ebb and flow with political tides. The modern progressive view that the Constitution is a living document leaves the interpretation of the document in the hands of the cultural elite who (linquists, etc.), who change the meanings of words.
The Mormon view that the Constitution is a product of revelation leads to some very strange things. For example, the last session of the Utah legislature saw a Mormon thinker arguing that the 14th Amendment was Unconstitutional. My guess is that he came about this bizarre conclusion because the Amendement was not part of the original revelation. The Classical Liberal tradition would hold that the thought process of the Amending process trumps that of the founders, and would hold that the 14th Amendment is Constitutional.
IMHO, the views that the Constitution is a product of revelation or that the Constitution is a leading document lead to the negative situation where the empowered elite redefine our rights to fit their designs.
In the case of Mormonism, it appears that Smith thought that the protections of the Constitution only applied to him. While Smith found shelter in the protection of speech, he burnt the presses of his exmormon critics.
Inclusiveness
I strayed from Bushman's article. Bushman concentrated more on the issue of inclusiveness. His theme, after all, is that Mormon thought is a better fit for the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. The ideal of inclusion is fundamental to Democratic thinking.
Bushman notes that the ideal of inclusiveness was built into the Navou Charter. He also notes that Mormonism has gradually become more inclusive with time. For example, we notice that the Mormon Church extended the priesthood to blacks barely a decade after the civil rights movement.
This question of inclusiveness is really central to modern progressive thought. Early utopians such as Sidney Rigdon thought that the social uptopia would come with people splitting off from the corrupt mainstream society, and forming communes. The people living in communes would achieve perfection. The rest would rot or be smited.
Unfortunately, the communes kept falling apart. The obvious reason wss that outside corruptions infiltrated the commune. For the communes to thrive, they had to be exclusive. Everyone in the commune must be part of the collective. The people of the collective should not associate with those outside the collective, lest association lead to corruption.
Bushman's presentation on Mormonism starts with Navou. To get the full picture, I think you need to start with the earlier communes.
IMHO, the Navou experiment is in stark contrast with the devastating failure of the Missouri venture.
It appears that, in the Missouri experiment, Mormons were actively trying to create an area that was exclusively Mormon. This led to a great deal of friction with others pursuing the American Dream of pioneering the frontier. The final collapse of the Missouri experiment came with Sidney Rigdon declaring an extermination war against exmormons and gentiles in the area. The Governor of Missouri responded to the Extermination War with the infamous Extermination Order.
Joseph Smith was not part of the Missouri debacle. I suspect that is was clear to the settlers of the day that the exclusiveness of the Missouri experiment led to the extermination politics that punctuated the failure of the venture.
I applaud the founders of Navou for adding inclusiveness to the Navou charter. Exclusiveness of earlier ventures led to mistrust and eventually to extermination politics.
The question in my mind, however, is if inclusiveness is a primary tenet of Mormonism, or if it is a side issue pushed upon Mormonism by realty.
Bushman suggests that inclusiveness is a fundamental tenet of Mormonism. The history of the LDS Church seems to indicate that it is not. While the Navou Charter made reference to inclusiveness, there seems to have been a great deal of friction between the Mormons, exmormons and gentiles in and near Navou. This friction led to Smith's assassination by an unknown assailant.
It seems to me that the venture in Deseret had the LDS Church waffling between exclusiveness and inclusiveness. The experiment of Deseret saw the slaughtering of a wagon train of gentiles. Brigham Youngs followers came close to an all out war with the US army when they entered the region.
Today, we see that Mormon fundamentalists are often quite exclusive. In some polygamist groups, you see a great deal of intermarriage as they try to keep it within the group.
For these reasons, I would disagree with Bushman's assessment that inclusiveness is a primary tenet of Mormonism. I think it is something that was forced upon Mormons.
Times they are a changin'
The Bushman presentation at the Pew Charitable Trust is interesting in that it shows how a group gradually evolved into its opposite. Early Mormonism was socialistic. The modern Mormon Church seems to have embraced much of the classical liberal viewpoint. It has embraced the free market, it defends the Constitution, etc.. Both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were progressive to their core. They would be horrified to find out that the progressive institution that they founded is considered as the most Conservative and the most Republican of outfits.
In this same period of time, we saw "liberal" transform referencing someone who supported small government to someone who supported big government.
Between the Republican Contract with America and the Bush administration, we saw the Republicans transform froma party favoring small government to favoring big government with a socially conservative fixation.
Bushman's article is a great read as it shows the way that things change. My comments are tangental to Bushman as I am less interested in the details of change, but in the process of change.
Should change take place through the process of reason, as is held by the classical liberal tradition that led to the creation of the Constitution? Should it take place through the redefinition of terms and material dialectics held by modern progressives, or should it be something more akin to the process of "revelation" as advocated by Joseph Smith?
We are in a day when people are extremely dissatisfied with the politics. IMHO, the question we are really facing isn't simply the details of change but the process of change.
IMHO, the process of revelation creates a world that thrashes from extremes as demonstrated by the Mormon Church becoming the opposite of its utopia foundings. The material dialectics held by Modern Progressives also has a history of thrashing between extremes. I believe that the process of reason that was developed in the Classical Liberal tradition of the Constitution is really the best path forward.
There are many groups such as Mormons for Social Equality and Justice that wonder why the modern Mormon church abandonned its socialistic past for its Republican present, and hope to see the group flip flop back into the arms of radicalism.
The early LDS Church was utopian. They established communes. They denied property rights. The group even had a mini sexual revolution in the form of polygamy. Fundamental polygamist cults still cling to these progressive goals. The adherents in the cults have little or no property. Everything is owned by the group. In matters of health care, the members only receive the care the collective grants (this is the ideal of universal care). Even sex is harnessed for the advancement of the collective. Although the polygamists hold to myths of eternal families, in practice one finds that wives and children get re-assigned according to the vagueries of collective politics. Young girls get assigned to old men as a reward for group loyalty.
The only real difference between the various Mormon polygamist cults and modern progressivism is that the cults want to raise the religion to a state, while modern progressive want to raise the state to a religion.
Mormonism v. Classical Liberalism
Bushman tells us the story of how Smith gradually began embracing the classical liberalism of the Republican party. Basically, ss Smith's utopian ventures fell apart and his list of enemies grew, he routinely found protection in the rights granted by the Constitution.
For that matter, a central theme of the Mormon experience is that the Constitution of the United States has protected the right of individual Mormons to think and speak as they will, and it has protected the right of the group to exist.
Mormons today are both extremely patriotic and are among the staunchest supporters of "The Constitution."
Unfortunately, Joseph Smith added a nasty twist to the Mormon view of the Constitution. Smith took the stance that the Constitution was revealed by God. It was revealed by God specifically to protect God's prophet and the new church that would come into existence in the Latter Days.
This notion that the Constitution is a holy document revealed by God is completely at odds with the classical liberal tradition of the Republicans that the Consitution as part of a thought process.
This fundamental difference that cuts to the heart of the Rule of Law. In the classical liberal tradition, the Constitution is the product of a thought process. In order to interpret the Constitution, you need to replicate the thought process.
The view that the Constitution is a product of revelation means that the Constitution must be interpreted through revelation. The idea that Constitution must be seen through revelation leads to the situation where the seer, relevator and prophet can make the Constitution mean whatever he wants.
NOTE, the Mormon view of the Consititution is really not that different from the modern progressive view. The modern view is that the Constitution is a living document. The Constitution is just pile of words whose meanings ebb and flow with political tides. The modern progressive view that the Constitution is a living document leaves the interpretation of the document in the hands of the cultural elite who (linquists, etc.), who change the meanings of words.
The Mormon view that the Constitution is a product of revelation leads to some very strange things. For example, the last session of the Utah legislature saw a Mormon thinker arguing that the 14th Amendment was Unconstitutional. My guess is that he came about this bizarre conclusion because the Amendement was not part of the original revelation. The Classical Liberal tradition would hold that the thought process of the Amending process trumps that of the founders, and would hold that the 14th Amendment is Constitutional.
IMHO, the views that the Constitution is a product of revelation or that the Constitution is a leading document lead to the negative situation where the empowered elite redefine our rights to fit their designs.
In the case of Mormonism, it appears that Smith thought that the protections of the Constitution only applied to him. While Smith found shelter in the protection of speech, he burnt the presses of his exmormon critics.
Inclusiveness
I strayed from Bushman's article. Bushman concentrated more on the issue of inclusiveness. His theme, after all, is that Mormon thought is a better fit for the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. The ideal of inclusion is fundamental to Democratic thinking.
Bushman notes that the ideal of inclusiveness was built into the Navou Charter. He also notes that Mormonism has gradually become more inclusive with time. For example, we notice that the Mormon Church extended the priesthood to blacks barely a decade after the civil rights movement.
This question of inclusiveness is really central to modern progressive thought. Early utopians such as Sidney Rigdon thought that the social uptopia would come with people splitting off from the corrupt mainstream society, and forming communes. The people living in communes would achieve perfection. The rest would rot or be smited.
Unfortunately, the communes kept falling apart. The obvious reason wss that outside corruptions infiltrated the commune. For the communes to thrive, they had to be exclusive. Everyone in the commune must be part of the collective. The people of the collective should not associate with those outside the collective, lest association lead to corruption.
Bushman's presentation on Mormonism starts with Navou. To get the full picture, I think you need to start with the earlier communes.
IMHO, the Navou experiment is in stark contrast with the devastating failure of the Missouri venture.
It appears that, in the Missouri experiment, Mormons were actively trying to create an area that was exclusively Mormon. This led to a great deal of friction with others pursuing the American Dream of pioneering the frontier. The final collapse of the Missouri experiment came with Sidney Rigdon declaring an extermination war against exmormons and gentiles in the area. The Governor of Missouri responded to the Extermination War with the infamous Extermination Order.
Joseph Smith was not part of the Missouri debacle. I suspect that is was clear to the settlers of the day that the exclusiveness of the Missouri experiment led to the extermination politics that punctuated the failure of the venture.
I applaud the founders of Navou for adding inclusiveness to the Navou charter. Exclusiveness of earlier ventures led to mistrust and eventually to extermination politics.
The question in my mind, however, is if inclusiveness is a primary tenet of Mormonism, or if it is a side issue pushed upon Mormonism by realty.
Bushman suggests that inclusiveness is a fundamental tenet of Mormonism. The history of the LDS Church seems to indicate that it is not. While the Navou Charter made reference to inclusiveness, there seems to have been a great deal of friction between the Mormons, exmormons and gentiles in and near Navou. This friction led to Smith's assassination by an unknown assailant.
It seems to me that the venture in Deseret had the LDS Church waffling between exclusiveness and inclusiveness. The experiment of Deseret saw the slaughtering of a wagon train of gentiles. Brigham Youngs followers came close to an all out war with the US army when they entered the region.
Today, we see that Mormon fundamentalists are often quite exclusive. In some polygamist groups, you see a great deal of intermarriage as they try to keep it within the group.
For these reasons, I would disagree with Bushman's assessment that inclusiveness is a primary tenet of Mormonism. I think it is something that was forced upon Mormons.
Times they are a changin'
The Bushman presentation at the Pew Charitable Trust is interesting in that it shows how a group gradually evolved into its opposite. Early Mormonism was socialistic. The modern Mormon Church seems to have embraced much of the classical liberal viewpoint. It has embraced the free market, it defends the Constitution, etc.. Both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were progressive to their core. They would be horrified to find out that the progressive institution that they founded is considered as the most Conservative and the most Republican of outfits.
In this same period of time, we saw "liberal" transform referencing someone who supported small government to someone who supported big government.
Between the Republican Contract with America and the Bush administration, we saw the Republicans transform froma party favoring small government to favoring big government with a socially conservative fixation.
Bushman's article is a great read as it shows the way that things change. My comments are tangental to Bushman as I am less interested in the details of change, but in the process of change.
Should change take place through the process of reason, as is held by the classical liberal tradition that led to the creation of the Constitution? Should it take place through the redefinition of terms and material dialectics held by modern progressives, or should it be something more akin to the process of "revelation" as advocated by Joseph Smith?
We are in a day when people are extremely dissatisfied with the politics. IMHO, the question we are really facing isn't simply the details of change but the process of change.
IMHO, the process of revelation creates a world that thrashes from extremes as demonstrated by the Mormon Church becoming the opposite of its utopia foundings. The material dialectics held by Modern Progressives also has a history of thrashing between extremes. I believe that the process of reason that was developed in the Classical Liberal tradition of the Constitution is really the best path forward.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Jordan River Temple
On the same day that I took the shots of the Intermountain Medical Center, I drove out to the Jordan River Temple hoping to get some good shots of the temple framed against the Wasatch. Unfortunately, I discovered that the layout of the grounds doesn't lend itself to evening photos. The best time to photograph this subject would be in the mornings. Since they light the temple, it would also be possible to get some good shots at dusk and dawn.I managed to get lost on my trip to South Jordan. That place used to be all farm lands. It will soon be larger than Salt Lake City proper.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Scary Things and Natalie
This is scary. Natalie R. Collins is being chased by a Missionary raping stalker. I guess some would say it serves her right saying the things she says.
Actually, I like Ms. Collins. I don't think she deserves bad things to happen to her. Natalie writes about the dark side of LDS Culture. My impression from both her blog and books is that she likes people who happen to be LDS. She just doesn't like some of the undercurrents of the culture which end up undermining people's good intents. She uses fiction to help distill idea. From my point of view, Natalie seems authentically interested in finding the best way to proceed in life. She just released a new work called Behind Closed Doors which combines the darker elements of Mormonism in a thriller murder mystery.
As for this post. I think Natalie's stalker incident helps illuminate the contrast between critical thinking and crazed hatred.
Modern education holds "critical thinking" as the highest ideal. Unfortunately, many people who follow this path of hyper-criticism seem drawn into worlds of paranoia and hatred. It seems to me that true "critical thinking" is going to find more than just the faults of a person or group. In the case of Mormonism, I see legions of wonderful people who are trying their very hardest be good human beings. Yet strange things happen at a subliminal level which seems to undermine the community at large.
The type of critical thinking that we need in this world is the type of critical thinking that finds the good and bad in things and lets us accentuate the good and root out the bad.
Most of the progressives I know are authentically good people. They did not just wake up one day saying: "I want to increase the amount of hatred in the world; so I will become a progressive." Most of them came about being progressive by actually wanting to solve the problems of the world. They would go to meetings be told the talking points of the day and come out convinced that the way you go about affecting change is to criticize the hated enemies of the progressives. Of course, this supposedly effective means of progressing society through hypercriticism ends up destroying the ability to engage in discourse, which ends up making things worse. (As you may have guessed, Progressives actually drive me battier than Mormons. Mormons have an excuse. Their bishop made them do it. Since progressives claim to be intellectuals; They should know better.)
Critical thinking that is driven by an authentic desire to make the world better. Otherwise it degenerates into an attack dog style hyper-criticism that leads nowhere.
Actually, I like Ms. Collins. I don't think she deserves bad things to happen to her. Natalie writes about the dark side of LDS Culture. My impression from both her blog and books is that she likes people who happen to be LDS. She just doesn't like some of the undercurrents of the culture which end up undermining people's good intents. She uses fiction to help distill idea. From my point of view, Natalie seems authentically interested in finding the best way to proceed in life. She just released a new work called Behind Closed Doors which combines the darker elements of Mormonism in a thriller murder mystery.
As for this post. I think Natalie's stalker incident helps illuminate the contrast between critical thinking and crazed hatred.
Modern education holds "critical thinking" as the highest ideal. Unfortunately, many people who follow this path of hyper-criticism seem drawn into worlds of paranoia and hatred. It seems to me that true "critical thinking" is going to find more than just the faults of a person or group. In the case of Mormonism, I see legions of wonderful people who are trying their very hardest be good human beings. Yet strange things happen at a subliminal level which seems to undermine the community at large.
The type of critical thinking that we need in this world is the type of critical thinking that finds the good and bad in things and lets us accentuate the good and root out the bad.
Most of the progressives I know are authentically good people. They did not just wake up one day saying: "I want to increase the amount of hatred in the world; so I will become a progressive." Most of them came about being progressive by actually wanting to solve the problems of the world. They would go to meetings be told the talking points of the day and come out convinced that the way you go about affecting change is to criticize the hated enemies of the progressives. Of course, this supposedly effective means of progressing society through hypercriticism ends up destroying the ability to engage in discourse, which ends up making things worse. (As you may have guessed, Progressives actually drive me battier than Mormons. Mormons have an excuse. Their bishop made them do it. Since progressives claim to be intellectuals; They should know better.)
Critical thinking that is driven by an authentic desire to make the world better. Otherwise it degenerates into an attack dog style hyper-criticism that leads nowhere.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Secular Temples
I realize that my last two posts make me sound like a mean, anti-religious bigot type person. While, in my mind at least, I am trying to make the subtle point that, to the extent that a temple is designed to dominate a community, it ends up creating conflict.
In the United States, there has been a concerted effort among religious communities to minimize the domination/submission games that can get started between churches.
Joseph Smith bucked this American ideal by trying to create a church set on politically dominating areas where it existed. Because he was bucking a deep authentic desire of many Americans, he stirred up authentic resistance.
For the most part, I think modern Mormons avoid the excesses of its past. Unfortunately, a little bit of the old thinking pops up again now and then. When it does, it creates divisiveness that the left and right can feed upon to tear our society apart.
It seems to me that people need to point out problems. I don’t know how to do it without feeding the divisions.
The same things I complain about this massive temple building effort undertaken by the LDS Church is true of the various secular temples that we end up building in our communities. When public work projects (like stadiums, dams and even libraries and schools) are designed to dominate a community, they end up creating controversies. Pushing any good idea to the excess ends up creating deep divisions in society and it creates a backlash.
Look at the way the big sports franchises stomp all over our sense of fair play in their efforts to spend tax dollars on massive coliseums! In some circles, anything done for the NBA or NFL team is a righteous cause, justifying the taking of shortcuts with other people’s properties.
In reading different web sites, I’ve found that Presidential Press Secretary Tony Snow has been taking a great deal of heat from the left for criticizing Kwanzaa. Mr. Snow sees this as a holiday that was designed to divide people along racial lines while promoting socialism. I believe that there is some truth to Mr. Snows. To the extent that Kwanzaa was designed to divide people along racial lines and to promote Socialism, it is a bad thing. However, to the extent that it gives an oppressed segment in our communities an outlet to celebrate their culture, it is a good thing. As for Mr. Snow’s article, I think that he a good job making a strong case against Kwanzaa (which is the way debate is supposed to work). Open discourse works by people stating their position clearly. Manipulative discourse takes place when you pull a trick like declaring an intentionally divisive holiday or building a garish temple designed to dominate a community, then label those who oppose you as racists or religious bigots.
The forces of evil in the world do their greatest damage when they mask themselves as the good. Actions that corrupt noble instincts really get my dander up. I am at a complete loss about how to address them.
In the United States, there has been a concerted effort among religious communities to minimize the domination/submission games that can get started between churches.
Joseph Smith bucked this American ideal by trying to create a church set on politically dominating areas where it existed. Because he was bucking a deep authentic desire of many Americans, he stirred up authentic resistance.
For the most part, I think modern Mormons avoid the excesses of its past. Unfortunately, a little bit of the old thinking pops up again now and then. When it does, it creates divisiveness that the left and right can feed upon to tear our society apart.
It seems to me that people need to point out problems. I don’t know how to do it without feeding the divisions.
The same things I complain about this massive temple building effort undertaken by the LDS Church is true of the various secular temples that we end up building in our communities. When public work projects (like stadiums, dams and even libraries and schools) are designed to dominate a community, they end up creating controversies. Pushing any good idea to the excess ends up creating deep divisions in society and it creates a backlash.
Look at the way the big sports franchises stomp all over our sense of fair play in their efforts to spend tax dollars on massive coliseums! In some circles, anything done for the NBA or NFL team is a righteous cause, justifying the taking of shortcuts with other people’s properties.
In reading different web sites, I’ve found that Presidential Press Secretary Tony Snow has been taking a great deal of heat from the left for criticizing Kwanzaa. Mr. Snow sees this as a holiday that was designed to divide people along racial lines while promoting socialism. I believe that there is some truth to Mr. Snows. To the extent that Kwanzaa was designed to divide people along racial lines and to promote Socialism, it is a bad thing. However, to the extent that it gives an oppressed segment in our communities an outlet to celebrate their culture, it is a good thing. As for Mr. Snow’s article, I think that he a good job making a strong case against Kwanzaa (which is the way debate is supposed to work). Open discourse works by people stating their position clearly. Manipulative discourse takes place when you pull a trick like declaring an intentionally divisive holiday or building a garish temple designed to dominate a community, then label those who oppose you as racists or religious bigots.
The forces of evil in the world do their greatest damage when they mask themselves as the good. Actions that corrupt noble instincts really get my dander up. I am at a complete loss about how to address them.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Garish Temples
To begin this post, I need to point out that I love big churches. I especially love those churches which are an authentic manifestation of the desires of the people who built them. The LDS Temples in Salt Lake City, Logan, Saint George and other pioneer communities fall into this category along with the great Cathedrals of Europe, the grand mosques of the Middle East, and the many pagodas and temples of the orient.Many of the grand churches stand number among the greatest architectural achievements in the history of mankind. Historically, church and religious temples push both architectural and design barriers. Let’s face it, I were a member of the idle rich, I would have several trips under my belt to see sites such as Brunelleschi’s Dome in Florence, the Vatican and other great churches.
To the extent that churches are an authentic manifestation of the desires of a people, I love ‘em. Unfortunately, there is another unseemly side to the history of Temples. Sadly, religious structures can be used as tools to dominate and control people. For example, in ancient Rome, you would find emperors placing icons of their images and their gods in temples of their conquered subjects to emphasize their dominion.
Anyway since my last post on the speech by Robert Millet, my mind has been stuck on garish temples. Millet’s speech had the following quote:
Brother Brigham is reported to have said that every time we announce the building of a temple, all the bells in Hell begin to ring, and, oh, how I love to hear those bells.
This statement has my mind reeling with Satan celebrating the construction of LDS Temples. Unfortunately, this idea of Satan celebrating means that this post will be mean spirited.
I think of Satan as that force that corrupts the good things in life and makes them divisive. Looking at LDS Temples, we see that aren’t simply a structure among other structures. Historically, LDS Temple design has been to create a structure that dominates everything around it. There is generally very strict zoning codes in the neighborhoods around temples, etc..
Your typical temple is a massive white building larger than the county courthouse, and most state Capitol buildings and generally positioned in ways to dominate the communities around the temples. As the temples cross the line from being an authentic manifestation of the aspirations of a whole community, and become a symbolic gesture of one segment of the community to dominate others, the temples become garish eye sores.
The garishness of temples is an issue in the United States where both the religious and political community were hoping to transcend the sadomasochistic games that European kings and Mideast Empires had played with temples in the past.
Modern construction and financing techniques have made it simple to pound out massive community dominating structures. Look how quickly Walmarts and mega malls appear in our cities!
Much as I love big churches, I greatly appreciate the fact that the American religious communities have restrained themselves from using improved construction technology to undertake church wars. Instead, mainstream religions have chosen to concentrate on the more meaningful questions of what takes place within each church.
The Site LDSChurchTemple.com has a page on the chronology of Temple construction. This table shows that the LDS Church has pounded out about 100 of these community dominating temples in the last decade. I can see Satan celebrating with glee as his most faithful servants in the LDS Church pervert the authentic desires to build and worship in grand churches into a hate filled competition of on upmanship.
Brigham Young and Robert Millet are both right. Satan dances at the corruption of good. This aggressive temple construction schedule transforms the good and wholesome desire to whorship the Lord into a horrid, wicked game of political domination and submission.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Oppositional Logic Ruling Utah Communities
The reason for yesterday's post was that I had decided to explore some of the local podcasts. While chasing down locally produced videos, I stumbled onto a rather scary lecture from a Robert Millet to the Missionary Prep Club. Apparently this is a standard speech given to Mormon missionaries. (video).
I admit, I have been worried in recent years about the nonsensical issues that seem to be tearing our society apart. IMHO, this particular video highlights some of the issues that tear at the roots of Utah's culture.
I believe strongly in reading and supporting local literature and film. Since I live in Utah, that means reading about LDS history from multiple perspectives. Contrary to what my posts sound like, I do not hate Mormons. I believe that members of the LDS Church are people who authentically want to be good people. They joined the LDS Church because they were hoping that the LDS Church would provide a framework that allows them to be good people.
The thing that drives me batty in this state is that the foundational systems created by Smith and Young use awful, base, negative techniques which end up undermining both the LDS society and the other people who have the misfortune of living in LDS dominated areas.
Smith and Young were typical 19th century rogues with dreams of becoming kings and emperors—like Napoleon. In their little grub for power, they replicated a formula that has been around since antiquity. They divided their followers from the mainstream culture by promising worldly riches and sex in the present life, and the outlandish claim that their followers would become Gods—just like Jesus and the Heavenly Father—in the afterlife.
Smith cemented his power base by creating a division between his follower, who he calls the righteous, and the gentile. The righteous are saints on earth and will be Gods in heaven. The gentiles will be smited by a mean, terrible, evil, hate filled God.
With this in mind we enter Robert Millet's speech to the missionaries:
Millet starts by telling a group of 18 year-old boys that being part of the LDS church makes them superior to all others. This is a total ego feed to a demographic group with minds already filled with teenage know-it-all fantasies.
He then presents the oppositional logic at the roots of Mormonism by projecting that oppositional logic onto his enemies. Essentially repeating Joseph Smith's mantra that the gentiles are conspiring against the righteous!
The real gem is the quote from the Quorum of Apostles (yes, Joseph Smith bought the loyalty of a group of people by naming them Apostles).
This quote from 1845 shows precisely the way that this oppositional logic works. If a power monger can successfully create a division between their followers and the world at large, that division might resonate throughout the culture at large.
The way you gain absolute power is by dividing your little group off from the community. You project your motives onto your opposition. If you are lucky, the division you created will provide opportunities to grab power and wealth.
Notice how many times in the lecture Millet reinforces his efforts to project oppositional logic onto his opponents. The important part of the training is that when you finally do get someone to respond to the bait and oppose the Mormon plan, you pounce. See how evil and effective this methodology is. You quietly sneak the oppositional logic into the debate. When your opponent calls you out, you can effectively project to the world the illusion that they are the source of the opposition.
Millet also introduces another really nasty trick above. Truth is something that is whispered by a spirit only to Mormons. Truth is relative to the LDS hierarchy and gentiles cannot know the truth, as they are not in the hierarchy. Truth comes in quiet, all but imperceptible whispers. Both Millet and Joseph Smith reject the western tradition that finds observation and logic a pretty good path to truth.
The lecture jumps into a short interlude where he tries to claim that the LDS Church is singled out for persecution by citing cities that were opposed to building grand LDS Temples. If you know anything about modern city planning, every single proposal to build something in modern US cities gets inundated with opposition. This is especially true with a structure like an LDS Temple which is designed to dominate the land around the temple. If a Muslim group were to build a grand mosque in downtown Salt Lake (with people singing from the minaret, etc.) You can bet the plan would be nixed.
In an underhanded trick, Millet ignores the fact the fact that the opposition to temples is that they are constructed to dominate the land and the people around the temple. The typical temple is a big white shape tower. Towns in Utah generally have strict zoning codes which prevent land owners near the temple from building things that obstruct the view of the temple. I like the phraseology that Brigham Young uses to describe his efforts to create opposition by dotting towns with massive white eye soars:
The next part of Millet's claims the Book of Mormon is singled out for persecution. He first claims that all it is just a book.
After the claim that the BoM is just a book, he reverses himself and says that it is not just a book, it is a new testament from Jesus Christ.
Now, I really know of no opposition to the BoM as a book. It is the claim that the BoM is a testimony of Jesus Christ, and that the BoM imbues one group with special rights and privileges over all other people that gets people rankled. Millet obviously knows that because he says that. It is sickening.
The claim that Joseph Smith was to establish a Kingdom of God in the United States in the fledgling American Democracy is the type of thing that should rightly rankle American patriots who fought to establish a democracy.
Anyway, the data stream from BYU broke after the following quote, which I think is a fitting end to this post:
The escalation of conflict with oppositional logic is a primary theme of Millet's speech and of the Book of Mormon. This makes me so terribly sad. Is the primary plan of Jesus Christ to create hatred and opposition so that we hate and kill each other?
I really don't think so.
For that matter, I think very few members of the LDS Church really understand the full implications of the mean, nasty, manipulative side of their Church. It seems to me that Mormons are trying their hardest to be good people, but they keep finding their efforts undermined by the quiet whisperings that undermine both their efforts and the community around them by creating a climate of opposition and conflict.
I admit, I have been worried in recent years about the nonsensical issues that seem to be tearing our society apart. IMHO, this particular video highlights some of the issues that tear at the roots of Utah's culture.
I believe strongly in reading and supporting local literature and film. Since I live in Utah, that means reading about LDS history from multiple perspectives. Contrary to what my posts sound like, I do not hate Mormons. I believe that members of the LDS Church are people who authentically want to be good people. They joined the LDS Church because they were hoping that the LDS Church would provide a framework that allows them to be good people.
The thing that drives me batty in this state is that the foundational systems created by Smith and Young use awful, base, negative techniques which end up undermining both the LDS society and the other people who have the misfortune of living in LDS dominated areas.
Smith and Young were typical 19th century rogues with dreams of becoming kings and emperors—like Napoleon. In their little grub for power, they replicated a formula that has been around since antiquity. They divided their followers from the mainstream culture by promising worldly riches and sex in the present life, and the outlandish claim that their followers would become Gods—just like Jesus and the Heavenly Father—in the afterlife.
Smith cemented his power base by creating a division between his follower, who he calls the righteous, and the gentile. The righteous are saints on earth and will be Gods in heaven. The gentiles will be smited by a mean, terrible, evil, hate filled God.
With this in mind we enter Robert Millet's speech to the missionaries:
As Latter Day Saints you already know more about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than anyone who will attack you [...] you already know more than your attackers will ever know.
Millet starts by telling a group of 18 year-old boys that being part of the LDS church makes them superior to all others. This is a total ego feed to a demographic group with minds already filled with teenage know-it-all fantasies.
He then presents the oppositional logic at the roots of Mormonism by projecting that oppositional logic onto his enemies. Essentially repeating Joseph Smith's mantra that the gentiles are conspiring against the righteous!
It shouldn't be a shock to us that people oppose us [...]
In 1945 the Quorum of 12 Apostles issued a proclamation to all the world. [...] "As this work progresses in its onward course and becomes more and more an object of political and religious interests and excitement, no king, ruler, or subject, no community or individual will stand neutral. All will at length will be influenced by one spirit or another and will take sides either for or against the Kingdom of God."
The real gem is the quote from the Quorum of Apostles (yes, Joseph Smith bought the loyalty of a group of people by naming them Apostles).
This quote from 1845 shows precisely the way that this oppositional logic works. If a power monger can successfully create a division between their followers and the world at large, that division might resonate throughout the culture at large.
The way you gain absolute power is by dividing your little group off from the community. You project your motives onto your opposition. If you are lucky, the division you created will provide opportunities to grab power and wealth.
Notice how many times in the lecture Millet reinforces his efforts to project oppositional logic onto his opponents. The important part of the training is that when you finally do get someone to respond to the bait and oppose the Mormon plan, you pounce. See how evil and effective this methodology is. You quietly sneak the oppositional logic into the debate. When your opponent calls you out, you can effectively project to the world the illusion that they are the source of the opposition.
We need to be surprised if we are opposed in this work.
Another Introductory Thought: The things of God can only be known in a real way by the power of the spirit of God. [..] The truthfulness of a matter is really only to be known by the quiet whisperings of the Holy Spirit, but how significant that thing is may often be known by the loud opposition that comes in response to it.
Millet also introduces another really nasty trick above. Truth is something that is whispered by a spirit only to Mormons. Truth is relative to the LDS hierarchy and gentiles cannot know the truth, as they are not in the hierarchy. Truth comes in quiet, all but imperceptible whispers. Both Millet and Joseph Smith reject the western tradition that finds observation and logic a pretty good path to truth.
The lecture jumps into a short interlude where he tries to claim that the LDS Church is singled out for persecution by citing cities that were opposed to building grand LDS Temples. If you know anything about modern city planning, every single proposal to build something in modern US cities gets inundated with opposition. This is especially true with a structure like an LDS Temple which is designed to dominate the land around the temple. If a Muslim group were to build a grand mosque in downtown Salt Lake (with people singing from the minaret, etc.) You can bet the plan would be nixed.
In an underhanded trick, Millet ignores the fact the fact that the opposition to temples is that they are constructed to dominate the land and the people around the temple. The typical temple is a big white shape tower. Towns in Utah generally have strict zoning codes which prevent land owners near the temple from building things that obstruct the view of the temple. I like the phraseology that Brigham Young uses to describe his efforts to create opposition by dotting towns with massive white eye soars:
Brother Brigham is reported to have said that every time we announce the building of a temple, all the bells in Hell begin to ring, and, oh, how I love to hear those bells.
The next part of Millet's claims the Book of Mormon is singled out for persecution. He first claims that all it is just a book.
Why would it be that the Book of Mormon receives such opposition from people? [...] Well, If I didn't already know by the quiet whisperings of the Holy Spirit to my soul that the BoM is another testament of Christ ... The same is true with the concept of "only true church". [...] If I did not already know by the whisperings of the Spirit to my soul that the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is in fact the kingdom of god on earth, that we hold the fullness of the gospel, that we hold the priesthood of almighty God. If I did not already know that in a quiet way, I might suspect that is the case by the kind of loud opposition that that very concept elicits from people.
After the claim that the BoM is just a book, he reverses himself and says that it is not just a book, it is a new testament from Jesus Christ.
Now, I really know of no opposition to the BoM as a book. It is the claim that the BoM is a testimony of Jesus Christ, and that the BoM imbues one group with special rights and privileges over all other people that gets people rankled. Millet obviously knows that because he says that. It is sickening.
The claim that Joseph Smith was to establish a Kingdom of God in the United States in the fledgling American Democracy is the type of thing that should rightly rankle American patriots who fought to establish a democracy.
Anyway, the data stream from BYU broke after the following quote, which I think is a fitting end to this post:
Then the prophet Joseph uttered this great principle : "The nearer a man approaches the Lord, the greater the power of the adversary will be manifest to thwart the accomplishment of God's purposes. So opposition will come with the turf."
The escalation of conflict with oppositional logic is a primary theme of Millet's speech and of the Book of Mormon. This makes me so terribly sad. Is the primary plan of Jesus Christ to create hatred and opposition so that we hate and kill each other?
I really don't think so.
For that matter, I think very few members of the LDS Church really understand the full implications of the mean, nasty, manipulative side of their Church. It seems to me that Mormons are trying their hardest to be good people, but they keep finding their efforts undermined by the quiet whisperings that undermine both their efforts and the community around them by creating a climate of opposition and conflict.
Friday, December 29, 2006
All About Mormonism
While looking through a directory about Provo, Utah, I stumbled onto a site called AllAboutMormons.com. Since I make directories for towns in the Mountain West, I decided to look and see if the site was a fit from the Provo, Utah dot US. I could not find a contact page, and the Domain Registry information indicates that the site is from Washington. Since the site did not have contact or registration information supporting the claim that it is from Provo, I decided against listing the site in the directory.
This decision was troublesome because the site made the accusation that Mormon sites get the shaft from folks like me (I am not LDS). On the Anti-Mormons page, the site put forward the complaint that anti-Mormon web sites rarely have a link LDS.org pasted prominently on the masthead of the site. The complaint is that a web site is not objective unless it cites the LDS church as the primary authority on Mormonism, as if there really are any organizations that hold objective views of themselves.
On the issue of linking, the LDS Church sued anti-mormon sites for deep linking (Note despite having been sued, the Utah Lighthouse Ministry seems to have a link to LDS.org).
Quite frankly, very few people link to sites with opposing views. For that matter, it is rare for people to link to sites that try to present multiple sides of any issue. People want to link to resources that confirm their world view. Sadly, people often want to misrepresent the views of their enemies.
A second accusation from AllAboutMormonism.com is that non-Mormon sites rarely objective and fail to report the whole story. Interestingly, the Anti-Mormon quotes page takes many quotes out of context to try in an attempt to make it appear as if Mormonism is the subject of unjust persecution. Predictably, the list leads off with the "extermination order" issued by Missouri Governor Boggs. When you look at the history of the LDS in Missouri, you find a very complex situation: Gov. Boggs wanted Missouri to be a slave state and was worried that groups sympathetic to abolition would settle in the state and disrupt the plan. Meanwhile, Joseph Smith wanted the Mormons to settle in lands that were being claimed by other people. In this climate of sharp divide over slavery and of massive land grabbing, things got tense.
In this tense climate, Sidney Rigdon, the leader of the Missouri colony, called the Mormons to enter into a War of Extermination against others with claims on the area Joseph Smith claimed was Eden. Boggs' "Extermination Order" came in response to the call for an "Extermination War".
I do not like the slave owning bastard named Lucien Boggs. However, I think the massive effort thrown into reporting the "extermination order" came after calls for an "extermination war", provides an incomplete, subjective view of the times.
Pro-LDS sites love to point out that 60 Mormons were killed as the result of this exchange of an Extermination War and Order. There were also gentiles killed in the war. No-one gives a crap about them. On May 6, 1842, Governor Boggs was shot by an unknown assailant. It is romored that the assailant was Porter Rockwell under order from Joseph Smith. Of course this is just a rumor. A bit like the rumor that OJ killed Nicole.
The harsh divisional rhetoric employed by both the Mormons and the slave owners of Missouri during the pioneer land grab of the 1830s led to horrible incidences of people killing each other. Really bad stuff. It seems to me that an "objective" look at the extermination war / extermination order and assassination attempt would find the situation complex. The fact that the one-sided view pops up left and right tells me something is not quite right.
That something that is not quite right leads into the second reason for today's post. It seems to me that Mormonism is one of the most intense religions of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Letters From A Broad makes an insightful comment. She states:
This quote creates a itch that needs scratching. I keep coming across exmos with stories of bad things happening to them while in the LDS Church. When reality shatters their belief that LDS church is absolutely right, they then jump to the other extreme in believing that it and all religions are absolutely wrong.
It seems to me that exmormons have a tendency to jump from the extreme of absolute certainty in their beliefs to atheism.
This is interesting in contrast to an observation made by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark's work on the growth of Mormonism indicates that Mormon Missionaries have their greatest success in converting people who grew up in a non-religious environment.
What seems to happen is that people who are in an extremely intense religion jump to atheism when they start questioning the actions of their church. People from non-religious backgrounds jump to the most intense religion they can find when they decide that their non-religious life was unfulfilling.
Anyway, reading the site aLetterFromABroad and AllAboutMormons has me thinking of the forces that tear societies apart. First is seems that when you have groups promoting extreme belief systems, you create a society where people start toggling between the extremes. In such environments, rhetoric and intentional misquoting of one's opponents often leads to escalation of the extremes. The challenge for a civil society is in finding ways to temper the extremes.
This decision was troublesome because the site made the accusation that Mormon sites get the shaft from folks like me (I am not LDS). On the Anti-Mormons page, the site put forward the complaint that anti-Mormon web sites rarely have a link LDS.org pasted prominently on the masthead of the site. The complaint is that a web site is not objective unless it cites the LDS church as the primary authority on Mormonism, as if there really are any organizations that hold objective views of themselves.
On the issue of linking, the LDS Church sued anti-mormon sites for deep linking (Note despite having been sued, the Utah Lighthouse Ministry seems to have a link to LDS.org).
Quite frankly, very few people link to sites with opposing views. For that matter, it is rare for people to link to sites that try to present multiple sides of any issue. People want to link to resources that confirm their world view. Sadly, people often want to misrepresent the views of their enemies.
A second accusation from AllAboutMormonism.com is that non-Mormon sites rarely objective and fail to report the whole story. Interestingly, the Anti-Mormon quotes page takes many quotes out of context to try in an attempt to make it appear as if Mormonism is the subject of unjust persecution. Predictably, the list leads off with the "extermination order" issued by Missouri Governor Boggs. When you look at the history of the LDS in Missouri, you find a very complex situation: Gov. Boggs wanted Missouri to be a slave state and was worried that groups sympathetic to abolition would settle in the state and disrupt the plan. Meanwhile, Joseph Smith wanted the Mormons to settle in lands that were being claimed by other people. In this climate of sharp divide over slavery and of massive land grabbing, things got tense.
In this tense climate, Sidney Rigdon, the leader of the Missouri colony, called the Mormons to enter into a War of Extermination against others with claims on the area Joseph Smith claimed was Eden. Boggs' "Extermination Order" came in response to the call for an "Extermination War".
I do not like the slave owning bastard named Lucien Boggs. However, I think the massive effort thrown into reporting the "extermination order" came after calls for an "extermination war", provides an incomplete, subjective view of the times.
Pro-LDS sites love to point out that 60 Mormons were killed as the result of this exchange of an Extermination War and Order. There were also gentiles killed in the war. No-one gives a crap about them. On May 6, 1842, Governor Boggs was shot by an unknown assailant. It is romored that the assailant was Porter Rockwell under order from Joseph Smith. Of course this is just a rumor. A bit like the rumor that OJ killed Nicole.
The harsh divisional rhetoric employed by both the Mormons and the slave owners of Missouri during the pioneer land grab of the 1830s led to horrible incidences of people killing each other. Really bad stuff. It seems to me that an "objective" look at the extermination war / extermination order and assassination attempt would find the situation complex. The fact that the one-sided view pops up left and right tells me something is not quite right.
That something that is not quite right leads into the second reason for today's post. It seems to me that Mormonism is one of the most intense religions of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Letters From A Broad makes an insightful comment. She states:
My LDS friend and I talked about what we had heard, and we agreed without hesitation that if the church were not true, the most logical alternative would be atheism.
This quote creates a itch that needs scratching. I keep coming across exmos with stories of bad things happening to them while in the LDS Church. When reality shatters their belief that LDS church is absolutely right, they then jump to the other extreme in believing that it and all religions are absolutely wrong.
It seems to me that exmormons have a tendency to jump from the extreme of absolute certainty in their beliefs to atheism.
This is interesting in contrast to an observation made by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark's work on the growth of Mormonism indicates that Mormon Missionaries have their greatest success in converting people who grew up in a non-religious environment.
What seems to happen is that people who are in an extremely intense religion jump to atheism when they start questioning the actions of their church. People from non-religious backgrounds jump to the most intense religion they can find when they decide that their non-religious life was unfulfilling.
Anyway, reading the site aLetterFromABroad and AllAboutMormons has me thinking of the forces that tear societies apart. First is seems that when you have groups promoting extreme belief systems, you create a society where people start toggling between the extremes. In such environments, rhetoric and intentional misquoting of one's opponents often leads to escalation of the extremes. The challenge for a civil society is in finding ways to temper the extremes.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Lobbying Incendiary Comments
Natalie Collins, an ex-Mormon, just posted an interesting piece on why she writes about the culture in which she lives. She does this despite the fact her writings earn ugly labels and attacks from the LDS faitful.
Not surprisingly the primary reason that Natalie writes about the culture where she lives is because that is what good writers are supposed to do. A good writer will write about the world they know opposed to one they don't. We increase our knowledge by people telling us their stories. We don't increase knowledge when people blabber about what they don't know. For example, the idle chatter over the false JonBenet Ramsey confession did nothing to advance our society.
It appears that Natalie's view is that most Mormons very good people, but she sees problems with polygamy and sexism which undermines the good efforts of these good people.
As a gentile (non-Mormon) living in Utah, I find myself asking the same questions. I wonder why I keep lobbing incendiary comments into this blog and other places about the dominant religion in Utah.
The reason that I have a blog is because blogging is supposed to be the great cultural fad of the interet; so, as a dedicated internet afficiando, I blog. Starting a blog has everything to do with the internet, it was not driven by a desire to promote or attack any particular cause.
Again, I find it best to write about the things around me.
I am in an LDS dominated section of the world. Like Natalie, I see the Mormon culture as people who are trying their hardest to be good people. Most Mormon converts were attracted to the religion by the emphasis on family and strict moral code. I think this part of the religion is great. This is people exercising an authentic desire to be good moral people. I know people who have used their faith to become the good honeset person that they want to be.
Like Natalie, I see something underlying the authentic desires of the people who join the church which is terribly, terribly wrong. The problems are most pronounced in the Polygamist cults. However, the same problems exist in the heirarchy of the main LDS Church.
What seems to have happened is that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young worked tirelessly to create a political structure to focus and and accumulate power into the central hierachy.
They did this primarily by imposing an "us-v-them" philosophy on their adherents. The group used various tricks to undermined the ability of their followers to engage in civil discourse outside their religion. They are taught to value revelation over reason. When it comes down to a crunch, LDS followers will discard evidence that does not strengthen their power base. For example adherents are taught to ignore DNA evidence that Native Americans are not a lost tribe of Israel. The DNA does not make the Mormon church stronger, therefore it must be shunned.
I've been in several businesses that failed because LDS workers suddenly stopped looking at the financial, engineering or marketing data showing that the company was on a wrong path. Rather than making corrections to keep a company afloat, the LDS bishops in a company would suddendly start irrationally supporting the failing path.
This is a bizarre place. I've seen the wall fall off a house because the LDS contractor thought three nails and the holy spirit was enough to keep it attached to the building. Spirit nails are not an adequate replacement for galvanized steel in material constructions.
I've seen too many cases where LDS decision makers simply would not listen to a gentile trying to explain why a business project would or would not work. The combination of the us-v-them mentality and preference for revelation over reason might make the hierarchy of the LDS church powerful; however this denial of reason undermines the ability to communicate and it causes the failure of the efforts of the adherents.
Of course, the LDS Church isn't the only group that uses "The Big Lie" as the path to power. If you follow the progressive movement, you will see the progressive movement works by randomly tossing out barbs against their hated enemy ... the open society. The vast majority of the barbs simply languish. For example, in the 70s several progressives tossed out the barb that civilization would be destroyed by global cooling. Global cooling failed to hook, evidence seemed to indicate that the earth was warming. A big lie has to contain some truth.
The cause of global cooling failed. Back to the drawing board and radical environmentalists were back with global warming.
For a good lie to work, there must be an element of truth. Look at the geological history of this blue sphere. Geology happens. The actions of man clearly has an affect on climate. The big lie is not that climate changes. The big lie is that the radical left is in tune with the cosmic oneness and can stop climate change.
Since big lies generally contain some truth, there is always a problem of separating truth from the lie. There is global climate change. Actions of mankind do accelerate this process.
The big lie is not that climate change happens. The big lie is that giving the progressives the power they lust after will stop climate change.
In Iraq, I concur with the assessment that, in 2003, George Bush's justification for invading Iraq was weak. He manipulated both the people and Congress. I hated the fact that this happened. The president used his authority and political power to get us into a war that we simply have to win. The big lie of the progressives is that since the justification for the invasion was grey, that we should withdraw our troops and hand Iraq to Iran. The truth is that Bush committed this nation to a path and that we must continue this process of gradually turning security over to Iraqis as the troops end their training.
Bin Ladin, that wank in Iran, Hezbollah and others have been pulling their own big lies. The lie is that their jihad will lead to world Islamic domination.
As you see, the problem is that large sections of the world are under the spell of various lies.
In Salt Lake we have a large LDS community and a loud "progressive" community. Both are pushing a philosophy of big lies. What happens from time to time is the leftists of the state occasionally lob an incidiary attack at the Mormons and it bursts into flames in the community at large. A good example here is the protests to Michael Moore's visit to UVSC.
There has been several books and DVDs made on this subject. The books are resonating in the progressive communities throughout the US because the protest against Michael Moore feeds their big lie that the Republican are opposed to freedom of expression.
The far left uses things like the UVSC/Micheal Moore protest to bulster there big lie that the right is a greater danger to the open society than the left. The truth is that the both groups are a danger. Fools like me drawn into the same fray end up helping those who seek to divide and conquer.
Quite frankly, the supposed division between Mormons and progressive is really quite amusing. Mormonism was born from the same desires as modern progressives. I suspect both Smith and Young considered themselves 19th century progressives. Early Mormon polygamy was a mini sexual revolution. Rich powerful men wanted to sleep with young women. Young women were willing to share rich powerful men. Early Mormons lived in collectives. The leaders taught the faithful to scorn private property, while the centers grew exceedingly rich. The Mormons even disliked the United States so much that they left the United States to establish a populist tolalitarian regime similar in structure to the totalitarian regimes progressives admire.
Fortunately, the United States invaded the Empire of Deseret. The United States and moderate members of the LDS Church have helped temper the progressive excesses of the LDS Church.
The claim of many LDS members is that they have rid themselves of the excesses of their past. This is a claim that may be true and should not be dismissed. The wholesale disdain for those continuing to practice "the principle" is supposed to be signs of a tempered religion. I worry about that the underlying philosophy might continue to undermine the society.
Anyway, back to the subject of this long rant. Why did I make the stupid decision to engage in the same game? The first reason is that I decided to join the blog fad, but had nothing to say. The second is that I had received a "progressive" education that taught me the same thing they taught Utah's famous radical cheerleaders. The way you communicate is by lobbing incendiary remarks.
I know this method of communication fails. I want the katusha-rocket-style comments that I lob into the land of Zion to awaken people to the divisiveness of LDS philosophy. Of course, the style of discourse is itself an act of divisivness.
The better approach is to promote rational authentic discourse. Unfortunately, my education didn't include information on how to engage in such rational discourse.
Anyway, I have followed the Utah blogosphere for the last several years. It appears to me that, at this point, internet communications are driving us further apart. While radical cheerleaders revel in the hatred that their sloganeering spawns, the dreams for a better society that drove them into the radical cheerleading position in the first place dims.
Sadly, I fear that, for our society to regain our ability to engage in quality discourse, we have to learn that the methods of discourse that we are taught in our progressive education system fail.
We need to able to recognized big lies when big lies are told. However, lobbing incidiary comments back at the liars doesn't do anything but add to division that liars intended to create.
I don't know the answers to the troubling questions of the universe. I see our country on a spiral of hatred fed by the division of left and right. I see that the problem is not the result of one side being good and the other evil, but a result of fiendish methods that undermine discourse. The left is pulling out every punch and jab, while the right entrenches.
I know in my heart that the only through the troubled times is open communications. We have try communicate even though it seems like our efforts fail. The incendiary comment style that I have been trained to use, does not work. Calmly pointing out big lies doesn't work. I believe that the open society that the Founders of the US advocated could work, and that we need to continue trying to communicate. I still have faith that blogging, forums and web sites can be a force for good.
Not surprisingly the primary reason that Natalie writes about the culture where she lives is because that is what good writers are supposed to do. A good writer will write about the world they know opposed to one they don't. We increase our knowledge by people telling us their stories. We don't increase knowledge when people blabber about what they don't know. For example, the idle chatter over the false JonBenet Ramsey confession did nothing to advance our society.
It appears that Natalie's view is that most Mormons very good people, but she sees problems with polygamy and sexism which undermines the good efforts of these good people.
As a gentile (non-Mormon) living in Utah, I find myself asking the same questions. I wonder why I keep lobbing incendiary comments into this blog and other places about the dominant religion in Utah.
The reason that I have a blog is because blogging is supposed to be the great cultural fad of the interet; so, as a dedicated internet afficiando, I blog. Starting a blog has everything to do with the internet, it was not driven by a desire to promote or attack any particular cause.
Again, I find it best to write about the things around me.
I am in an LDS dominated section of the world. Like Natalie, I see the Mormon culture as people who are trying their hardest to be good people. Most Mormon converts were attracted to the religion by the emphasis on family and strict moral code. I think this part of the religion is great. This is people exercising an authentic desire to be good moral people. I know people who have used their faith to become the good honeset person that they want to be.
Like Natalie, I see something underlying the authentic desires of the people who join the church which is terribly, terribly wrong. The problems are most pronounced in the Polygamist cults. However, the same problems exist in the heirarchy of the main LDS Church.
What seems to have happened is that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young worked tirelessly to create a political structure to focus and and accumulate power into the central hierachy.
They did this primarily by imposing an "us-v-them" philosophy on their adherents. The group used various tricks to undermined the ability of their followers to engage in civil discourse outside their religion. They are taught to value revelation over reason. When it comes down to a crunch, LDS followers will discard evidence that does not strengthen their power base. For example adherents are taught to ignore DNA evidence that Native Americans are not a lost tribe of Israel. The DNA does not make the Mormon church stronger, therefore it must be shunned.
I've been in several businesses that failed because LDS workers suddenly stopped looking at the financial, engineering or marketing data showing that the company was on a wrong path. Rather than making corrections to keep a company afloat, the LDS bishops in a company would suddendly start irrationally supporting the failing path.
This is a bizarre place. I've seen the wall fall off a house because the LDS contractor thought three nails and the holy spirit was enough to keep it attached to the building. Spirit nails are not an adequate replacement for galvanized steel in material constructions.
I've seen too many cases where LDS decision makers simply would not listen to a gentile trying to explain why a business project would or would not work. The combination of the us-v-them mentality and preference for revelation over reason might make the hierarchy of the LDS church powerful; however this denial of reason undermines the ability to communicate and it causes the failure of the efforts of the adherents.
Of course, the LDS Church isn't the only group that uses "The Big Lie" as the path to power. If you follow the progressive movement, you will see the progressive movement works by randomly tossing out barbs against their hated enemy ... the open society. The vast majority of the barbs simply languish. For example, in the 70s several progressives tossed out the barb that civilization would be destroyed by global cooling. Global cooling failed to hook, evidence seemed to indicate that the earth was warming. A big lie has to contain some truth.
The cause of global cooling failed. Back to the drawing board and radical environmentalists were back with global warming.
For a good lie to work, there must be an element of truth. Look at the geological history of this blue sphere. Geology happens. The actions of man clearly has an affect on climate. The big lie is not that climate changes. The big lie is that the radical left is in tune with the cosmic oneness and can stop climate change.
Since big lies generally contain some truth, there is always a problem of separating truth from the lie. There is global climate change. Actions of mankind do accelerate this process.
The big lie is not that climate change happens. The big lie is that giving the progressives the power they lust after will stop climate change.
In Iraq, I concur with the assessment that, in 2003, George Bush's justification for invading Iraq was weak. He manipulated both the people and Congress. I hated the fact that this happened. The president used his authority and political power to get us into a war that we simply have to win. The big lie of the progressives is that since the justification for the invasion was grey, that we should withdraw our troops and hand Iraq to Iran. The truth is that Bush committed this nation to a path and that we must continue this process of gradually turning security over to Iraqis as the troops end their training.
Bin Ladin, that wank in Iran, Hezbollah and others have been pulling their own big lies. The lie is that their jihad will lead to world Islamic domination.
As you see, the problem is that large sections of the world are under the spell of various lies.
In Salt Lake we have a large LDS community and a loud "progressive" community. Both are pushing a philosophy of big lies. What happens from time to time is the leftists of the state occasionally lob an incidiary attack at the Mormons and it bursts into flames in the community at large. A good example here is the protests to Michael Moore's visit to UVSC.
There has been several books and DVDs made on this subject. The books are resonating in the progressive communities throughout the US because the protest against Michael Moore feeds their big lie that the Republican are opposed to freedom of expression.
The far left uses things like the UVSC/Micheal Moore protest to bulster there big lie that the right is a greater danger to the open society than the left. The truth is that the both groups are a danger. Fools like me drawn into the same fray end up helping those who seek to divide and conquer.
Quite frankly, the supposed division between Mormons and progressive is really quite amusing. Mormonism was born from the same desires as modern progressives. I suspect both Smith and Young considered themselves 19th century progressives. Early Mormon polygamy was a mini sexual revolution. Rich powerful men wanted to sleep with young women. Young women were willing to share rich powerful men. Early Mormons lived in collectives. The leaders taught the faithful to scorn private property, while the centers grew exceedingly rich. The Mormons even disliked the United States so much that they left the United States to establish a populist tolalitarian regime similar in structure to the totalitarian regimes progressives admire.
Fortunately, the United States invaded the Empire of Deseret. The United States and moderate members of the LDS Church have helped temper the progressive excesses of the LDS Church.
The claim of many LDS members is that they have rid themselves of the excesses of their past. This is a claim that may be true and should not be dismissed. The wholesale disdain for those continuing to practice "the principle" is supposed to be signs of a tempered religion. I worry about that the underlying philosophy might continue to undermine the society.
Anyway, back to the subject of this long rant. Why did I make the stupid decision to engage in the same game? The first reason is that I decided to join the blog fad, but had nothing to say. The second is that I had received a "progressive" education that taught me the same thing they taught Utah's famous radical cheerleaders. The way you communicate is by lobbing incendiary remarks.
I know this method of communication fails. I want the katusha-rocket-style comments that I lob into the land of Zion to awaken people to the divisiveness of LDS philosophy. Of course, the style of discourse is itself an act of divisivness.
The better approach is to promote rational authentic discourse. Unfortunately, my education didn't include information on how to engage in such rational discourse.
Anyway, I have followed the Utah blogosphere for the last several years. It appears to me that, at this point, internet communications are driving us further apart. While radical cheerleaders revel in the hatred that their sloganeering spawns, the dreams for a better society that drove them into the radical cheerleading position in the first place dims.
Sadly, I fear that, for our society to regain our ability to engage in quality discourse, we have to learn that the methods of discourse that we are taught in our progressive education system fail.
We need to able to recognized big lies when big lies are told. However, lobbing incidiary comments back at the liars doesn't do anything but add to division that liars intended to create.
I don't know the answers to the troubling questions of the universe. I see our country on a spiral of hatred fed by the division of left and right. I see that the problem is not the result of one side being good and the other evil, but a result of fiendish methods that undermine discourse. The left is pulling out every punch and jab, while the right entrenches.
I know in my heart that the only through the troubled times is open communications. We have try communicate even though it seems like our efforts fail. The incendiary comment style that I have been trained to use, does not work. Calmly pointing out big lies doesn't work. I believe that the open society that the Founders of the US advocated could work, and that we need to continue trying to communicate. I still have faith that blogging, forums and web sites can be a force for good.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Are FLDS LDS?
This comment was posted on one of my rants about the arrest of Warren Jeffs:
This above statement is similar to the think the Babtist claim about the LDS. The Baptists say the LDS broke away from Christianity and that members of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" really aren't Christian. The LDS, of course, counter that they are the most Christian of all people because Christ speaks through the writing of Joseph Smith.
As for the FLDS, the "F" stands for "Fundalmental." Yes, there was a schism. In the schism the fundamentalists were the ones who continue to practice the religion as it was taught by the religion founders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The FLDS are the ideological heirs of Smith and Young and there is a apparently a great deal of interplay betweeen the LDS and FLDS with people suddenly adopting the FLDS stance when they get a chance at a second wife.
I don't like the FLDS. I can understand why the LDS don't want to be associated with the fundamental version of their religion. At the FLDS rally the other week, the children of the FLDS talked about all of the prejudice, ridicule and abuse they take from the LDS. I dislike these fundamentalist kooks, but, you know, the way a religion treats its fundamentalists is somewhat telling about the nature of the group. At this point in history, the fundamentalists are an obstacle for the power that the LDS heirarchy, so, the LDS treat people who've dedicated their entire existence to holding to the ideology of their religion as pariahs.
Personally, I think there are legitimate questions about whether or not a group can rise about its fundamentals. Fundamentals, after all, are the foundations. In the case of an orgnanization that claims that its fundamentals came inscribed on golden tablets directly from God, denying the fundamentals becomes even harder.
Of course, I also know people who've become LDS because they felt the system was pliable enough for people to rise about the foundations of their faith. I know many LDS who point with pride to the poor way that they treat their fundamentalists to show that they are a faith that can bend and flow with political change.
I am one of those who think it really is not that easy to over come the roots of one's belief systems. Just distancing oneself from the embarrassing aspects of a belief systems simply sets people up to falling back into the same traps.
"I just wanted to point out to anyone who may read this blog. Mormons are not FLDS. FLDS are not Mormons. Its like saying the pope is protestant. They are a break off group."
This above statement is similar to the think the Babtist claim about the LDS. The Baptists say the LDS broke away from Christianity and that members of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" really aren't Christian. The LDS, of course, counter that they are the most Christian of all people because Christ speaks through the writing of Joseph Smith.
As for the FLDS, the "F" stands for "Fundalmental." Yes, there was a schism. In the schism the fundamentalists were the ones who continue to practice the religion as it was taught by the religion founders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The FLDS are the ideological heirs of Smith and Young and there is a apparently a great deal of interplay betweeen the LDS and FLDS with people suddenly adopting the FLDS stance when they get a chance at a second wife.
I don't like the FLDS. I can understand why the LDS don't want to be associated with the fundamental version of their religion. At the FLDS rally the other week, the children of the FLDS talked about all of the prejudice, ridicule and abuse they take from the LDS. I dislike these fundamentalist kooks, but, you know, the way a religion treats its fundamentalists is somewhat telling about the nature of the group. At this point in history, the fundamentalists are an obstacle for the power that the LDS heirarchy, so, the LDS treat people who've dedicated their entire existence to holding to the ideology of their religion as pariahs.
Personally, I think there are legitimate questions about whether or not a group can rise about its fundamentals. Fundamentals, after all, are the foundations. In the case of an orgnanization that claims that its fundamentals came inscribed on golden tablets directly from God, denying the fundamentals becomes even harder.
Of course, I also know people who've become LDS because they felt the system was pliable enough for people to rise about the foundations of their faith. I know many LDS who point with pride to the poor way that they treat their fundamentalists to show that they are a faith that can bend and flow with political change.
I am one of those who think it really is not that easy to over come the roots of one's belief systems. Just distancing oneself from the embarrassing aspects of a belief systems simply sets people up to falling back into the same traps.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Religious Persecution
Looks like Weenie Rat Face (aka Warren Jeffs) was captured in Vegas.
I wonder how long it will take for LDS opinion to switch from considering Mr. Jeffs as an embarassment (they want swept under the rug) to the point where he is a martyr and victim of gentile religious persecution. Ms. Collins notes that the Deseret News skipped the standard disclaimer that Jeffs is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
My guess is that the folks in the tower of power will try to keep themselves distanced from Jeffs during any trial (as the gentiles rid the LDS of a big embarassment) and that they will turn on the Vegas police and start pointing to the arrest of Jeffs as a sign of anti-Mormonism in about two years.
I wonder how long it will take for LDS opinion to switch from considering Mr. Jeffs as an embarassment (they want swept under the rug) to the point where he is a martyr and victim of gentile religious persecution. Ms. Collins notes that the Deseret News skipped the standard disclaimer that Jeffs is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
My guess is that the folks in the tower of power will try to keep themselves distanced from Jeffs during any trial (as the gentiles rid the LDS of a big embarassment) and that they will turn on the Vegas police and start pointing to the arrest of Jeffs as a sign of anti-Mormonism in about two years.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Freedom to Coerce
I realized I didn't have a picture of the Salt Lake's Farmer's Market nor did I have pictures of the Saltair Concert Hall. News reports said there would be pro-FLDS rally at the City County building. So I decided to throw that in the day's tour as well.I was pleased with the crowd at the Farmer's Market. For that matter, the crowd near the fresh produce was so thick, I wasn't able to get any really good shots. I couldn't see the crowd for the people. I have the exact same problem when I visit forests.
I also really enjoyed the trip out to the Saltair. Sadly the day was hazy and I did not get great shots of the lake.
The FLDS rally was interesting as well. This meeting actually got national press, but almost no local attendance. The GLBT community hate polygamists because they are not PC. The Mormons hate them because they are an embarrassment. Libertarian groups aren't that enamored with the polygamists for reasons that I will get to later.
The main theme of this rally was that the children in Utah's polygamous families are subject to a great deal of ridicule and prejudice. Apparently, this group of polygamists does a good job educating girls and claims that the girls are free to decide who they marry. Several of the young women said that they were going to college.
NOTE, I personally have met women raised by polygamists who've had essentially no education and were basically non-functional outside their clan.
Several young women talked about their various aspirations and the challenges of the prejudices they face. I feel for these young women and wish them happy lives.
The rally also let some of the young males speak. The young males are scary. Joseph Smith promised his adherents that they would become Gods if they followed him blindly. Sadly, there is a large number of Mormon males who still believe it. Being Gods on earth, as Gods they transcend the laws of the land.
The young males tried to give rousing speeches based on libertarian rhetoric. One of the young polygamist male blabbered about how, as a God on earth, he did not have to ask the mortals on the plant to take multiple wives. As a God on earth, he is here to take what is his right.
Libertarianism really isn't about a "right to take" things. The philosphy is a little more subtle than that.
The Mormon polygamist culture has this social political model with a few extraordinarily powerful men at the center who coerce the people around them. The small number of powerful people love to spout libertarian sounding rhetoric as they demand the freedom to coerce and manipulate the people under their thumbs.
The Libertarian model does not recognize a "freedom to coerce." The "freedom to coerce" is just one of the many manifestations of the reflexive paradox. The reflexive paradox exists in most complex logical models.
The Libertarian model has each individual's freedom stopping where others freedom begin. The Libertarian model invariably clashes with the political models established by Joseph Smith. The Seer Revelator and Prophet was seeking to dominate his adherents and to use the political force of his adherents to dominate the society around him.
Plural marriage is somewhat a problem for the Libertarian minded. These women should be able to chose what they want. The children should not be subject to the ridicule they face in life. The problem comes with the clans with clan leaders suppressing the freedom of the people unfortunate enough to be born in the polygamist clan.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Send the FLDS to Boston
I was reading all of the nasty hate filled blog posts being written by progressives in response to the Marriage Protection Amendment. The Marriage Protection Amendment is being portrayed as a hate filled piece of legislation. This legislation is on the table because Activist judges in Massachusetts are skirting have decided to skirt the democratic process by drafting social legislation from the court bench.
Since we apparently are now living in a world where the democratic process is completely ignored by Activist Judges and we are reduced to a state of action/reaction, I was thinking that right should start playing by the same rules as the left. Rather than wasting energy trying to develop a framework where people can discuss the meaning of marriage (which is what the proposed Amendment was aiming to do), the right needs to manufacture events that cause action and reaction.
Here is my plan: The State of Utah should use its $70 million surplus to buy up some land in Massachusetts suitable for an enclave. We should then eminent domain Hildale, Utah. IMHO, Social engineering is sufficient justification for eminent domain. We could then put all of the FLDS on a bus and ship them to their happy new enclave in the the Bay State. I am sure that Mitt Romney would love the company. Most important, the establishment of a large polygamous enclave in Massachusetts would answer the one question that has been puzzling me: Does the Activist Court decision on Same Sex Marriage automatically extend to polygamy and all other living arrangements that people can dream up?
The best part of my plan is that we could then use Hildale as a state park. It looks like a really cool place with big cliffs and canyons to explore. Right now, when you stop in the area to take pictures, scary local people chase you away.
Since we apparently are now living in a world where the democratic process is completely ignored by Activist Judges and we are reduced to a state of action/reaction, I was thinking that right should start playing by the same rules as the left. Rather than wasting energy trying to develop a framework where people can discuss the meaning of marriage (which is what the proposed Amendment was aiming to do), the right needs to manufacture events that cause action and reaction.
Here is my plan: The State of Utah should use its $70 million surplus to buy up some land in Massachusetts suitable for an enclave. We should then eminent domain Hildale, Utah. IMHO, Social engineering is sufficient justification for eminent domain. We could then put all of the FLDS on a bus and ship them to their happy new enclave in the the Bay State. I am sure that Mitt Romney would love the company. Most important, the establishment of a large polygamous enclave in Massachusetts would answer the one question that has been puzzling me: Does the Activist Court decision on Same Sex Marriage automatically extend to polygamy and all other living arrangements that people can dream up?
The best part of my plan is that we could then use Hildale as a state park. It looks like a really cool place with big cliffs and canyons to explore. Right now, when you stop in the area to take pictures, scary local people chase you away.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
The Persecution of Warren
I've been watching news reports on the manhunt for FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs. Jeffs currently holds the top position on the FBI's Most Wanted. It seems strange that Jeffs would make the top of the FBI most wanted. Jeffs crimes are relatively minor. All he has done is pimp a few teenage girls, commit some fraud here and there, and he's engaged in one or two statutory rapes.
It looks like Jeffs' list of crimes is shorter than the first LDS prophet Joseph Smith.
The persecution of both Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith are similar. Basically, people who escaped from the cult got gentiles riled up. (gentiles means everyone who is not Mormon). The gentiles then end up doing the dirty work of chasing down the cult leader. Smith was shot by someone in a crowd. I suspect that the assassin was an exmormon or a victim of one of Joseph Smith's many frauds.
We really are seeing a repeat of Joseph Smith's martyrdom. Since the persecution of Smith is central to local (Utah) myths. I can't help but wonder if the manhunt for Jeffs will end up in state lore as an unjust persecution of Mormons.
The other interesting thing about this case is the twin towns of Colorado City and Hilldale Utah. In both cases it is clear that the cult leader is intentionally isolating the followers so that the cult leader can have greater influence on the followers.
Which brings me back to the second part of Utah lore. The LDS Church invests millions each year in a massiv PR campaign that talks about how Mormons fled the US (Illinois in particular) to Utah. This always puzzles me because Illinois is one of the most tolerant areas in the world.
The FLDS clan is just about the size of the Mormon group that migrated. I can't help but wonder if perhaps the great emigration from Illinois was more of an effort to isolate adherents than it was an act of fleeing religious persecution.
Personally, I think Jeffs should be hunted down for his sexual crimes. The fact that a pimp claims to be a prophet throws the whole affair into the irrational world of myths. Jeffs will probably not be elevated into a myth because the primary LDS church is better at creating and controlling myths than the FLDS. However, Jeffs actual life is more in keeping with the precedents of Brigham Young and Joseph. Who knows how the myths will turn.
It looks like Jeffs' list of crimes is shorter than the first LDS prophet Joseph Smith.
The persecution of both Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith are similar. Basically, people who escaped from the cult got gentiles riled up. (gentiles means everyone who is not Mormon). The gentiles then end up doing the dirty work of chasing down the cult leader. Smith was shot by someone in a crowd. I suspect that the assassin was an exmormon or a victim of one of Joseph Smith's many frauds.
We really are seeing a repeat of Joseph Smith's martyrdom. Since the persecution of Smith is central to local (Utah) myths. I can't help but wonder if the manhunt for Jeffs will end up in state lore as an unjust persecution of Mormons.
The other interesting thing about this case is the twin towns of Colorado City and Hilldale Utah. In both cases it is clear that the cult leader is intentionally isolating the followers so that the cult leader can have greater influence on the followers.
Which brings me back to the second part of Utah lore. The LDS Church invests millions each year in a massiv PR campaign that talks about how Mormons fled the US (Illinois in particular) to Utah. This always puzzles me because Illinois is one of the most tolerant areas in the world.
The FLDS clan is just about the size of the Mormon group that migrated. I can't help but wonder if perhaps the great emigration from Illinois was more of an effort to isolate adherents than it was an act of fleeing religious persecution.
Personally, I think Jeffs should be hunted down for his sexual crimes. The fact that a pimp claims to be a prophet throws the whole affair into the irrational world of myths. Jeffs will probably not be elevated into a myth because the primary LDS church is better at creating and controlling myths than the FLDS. However, Jeffs actual life is more in keeping with the precedents of Brigham Young and Joseph. Who knows how the myths will turn.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Mormonism and Evolution
Yesterday, I settled down at the bookstore and read a little tome called Mormonism and Evolution. This book contains the authoritative statements of LDS leaders on evolution. The last several chapters in the book give the common sense view that students should study evolution because this study is extremely valuable in understanding biology, geology, medicine, etc.. This rational face is what most Mormons show when talking to gentiles like me.The first section of the book was extremely interesting. The early Mormon conflict with evolution was quite unique. Apparently, Mormonism promises that its adherents will become Gods (like the Heavenly Father) in the here after. This promise of Godhood is premised on an argument that Adam was a God just like the Heavenly Father. (Brigham Young apparently even toyed with the idea that Adam was God, and that Eve was one of God's many wives.)
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do." (Brigham Young's 1852 sermon).
In this metaphysics, the Godhood that Joseph Smith promises his adherents is a direct result of humans descending from an Adam-God. Achealogy, genetics and other science that put humans in the primate family is a direct challenge to the genealogy that makes Mormons direct descendants of God. DNA results that refute the claim of the American Indians puts the Mormon theology of man descending from God in further conflict with science and evolution.
Now, I really don't think that this fantasy is the driving force behind most Mormon's faith. My guess is that most Mormons are attracted to the social structure.
I can see why, if someone held that they were a descendant of God and will become a multiwived-Heavenly-Father themselves, that evolution would be troublesome. The theory of evolution and genetics breaks the genealogy that serves as the foundation for such a belief.
The genetic code, the fossil record, our physiology and outward appearance puts us firmly in the primate family. Evolution does not really explain why humans reason and browse the internet while other creatures on this earth do not.
It was not until reading Mormonism and Evolution that I actually caught on to this unique under current of the Utah debate on evolution. I have to admit here, Evolution directly counters the speculation that the Heavenly Father (aka, Adam, aka The Archangel Micheal) came to earth with one of his wives Eve to spawn a separate species of whitesome and delightsome Godlets.
For that matter, I think the main current impulse for the Utah action is the simple human tendency for people to inject their philosophies into science (especially the science of evolution). Great example of people injecting philosophical nonsense into science are "modern" theories like Nazism. The National Socialists were pushing a view that an Aryan super race had evolved and that, to achieve its full glory, this highly evolved super race had to wipe out substandard races like Blacks and Jews. I've read a few things under the guise of Evolutionary Psychology that appeared to me to be little more than a new manifestation of the Material Dialectic.
Anyway, apparently Mormons are currently in a dialog on how they should deal with wild speculations made by their founders.
The actual study of geology, archaeology, genetics is so much more interesting than the weird things that philosophical or theological thinkers have tried to inject into the debate. I really hope that LDS students really aren't being confronted with the decision of choosing between good science and a fantasy that they are in fact Gods in training.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)