Why Is Mormonism So Troubling?
Rebecca is having the same problem that many, many people have with the fact of Mormonism: I'm struggling with Mormonism. every time I think I have my finger on what bothers me about it (patriarchy, racism, secrets in vaults, egomaniacal leaders, fundamentalist sects, mystical laying-on of hands) I come up with an example from another religion that I'm more familiar with that also exhibits these traits and I wonder why Mormonism strikes me as different from these other religions. it's still stewing. In other words, any one of Mormonism's troubling features exists in abundance in other faiths, but there's still something special about Mormonism that gives one pause.
Here's my take: Mormonism is a young religion, and thus it's exceedingly difficult to understand how so many people are able to believe that Joseph Smith (born in Vermont in 1805) was a genuine prophet, that The Book of Mormon is based on revelations about the ancient Israelites building a Christian society in the New World, and so on. Sure, people are able to believe all sorts of things, but there's usually a couple of centuries, at least, of tradition to back those things up.
Add to that newness the more immediate aspects of Mormonism (the patriarchy, corruption, etc.), and the reflection on human nature is rather startling. Many, many people would seem to be fools easily taken in by charlatans, especially when the charlatan in question can tap into the less appealing desires of those people. But to make things even worse, things like Mormonism also appeal to the better angels of human nature, so to speak. To me, the bittersweet moment in Mormonism is thinking about how the Mormons succeeded in building a society in Utah, one based on beliefs that are simply unbelievable.
posted by Number Three @ 7:21 AM
3 Comments:
Surely Emery is correct that Mormonism is disturbing because it's so recent that we are given the rare opportunity of being close enough in time to witness a religion inventing and prorogating its iconography and mythos. This is a disturbing process to watch, for it causes people, even those of other faiths, to ask, "How can people be such fools as to be taken in by such charlatans?" But beyond that, I think it stirs up a deeper and more troubling thought in any person with a modicum of reflection, which is "Did all religions begin in this way?" Or, "Did my own religion begin like that and I have too been taken in?" To my mind, the answer to those last two questions is self evident; and for anyone to answer them in any other way than the affirmative is to believe in a fantasy world shrouded by the mists of time wherein once upon a time there really was a golden race of men. As for the oft-made argument that atheism or "secularism" are of the same cloth as religious faith, there is a huge qualitative difference in believing in a natural explanation for events that you did not see as opposed to a supernatural.
Yes--I agree with the problem of the recent-ness of Mormonism being key to my discomfort with it, and the discomfort of many when faced with examining these recent faiths. Baha'i also has a similar aura around it, of being new. Part of the problem with newness for religions is that they haven't had a chance to develop internal counter-discourses. Fundamentalist off-shoots, perhaps, but not a strong, internal critical dialogue. Those kinds of things develop over centuries, and sometimes cause major new religions to split off from the old. (the virgin mary debate, the representation of god debate, the trinity debate, the 'I need to divorce my wife already' debate...)
And it's only with distance, time, and normalization that one can be alright with eating the actual body and blood of the patriarch, right? As my Catholic high-school friend detailed in a report on transsubstantiation to our religion class, it's one of the few truly cannibalistic religions left.
In post above, textus receptus = propagate, not prorogate.
Post a Comment
<< Home