The Prophet’s New Clothes
I was quite stunned reading Hugo Olaiz’s commentary on the revised images of Joseph Smith portrayed collectively by the new film (”Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration”), the recent celebrations commemorating the Prophet’s birth, and the new web site JosephSmith.net. (Sunstone Issue 140) But neither the contents of the article nor Br. Olaiz’s analysis of the anachronisms and discrepancies are what surprised me. Rather I was stunned at my own reaction, or lack thereof, to these correlated changes.
As Olaiz writes:
Once a polygamist, Joseph Smith is now presented as a devoted monogamist, and his home life has become the object of idyllic celebration. Once the bellicose general of an army, he is now presented as a pacific city-builder. The man who denounced all creeds as abominations has become a national treasure - the “American Prophet.”
Ten years ago I would have been up in arms at a portrayal of Joseph Smith with such blatantly modern sensitivities as are described in this article. The student of history that resides somewhere inside of me will continue to cry out against these changes, but while that student was a dominant force in my personality a decade ago he has slowly been relegated to a lesser role, especially as I reflect on my faith and what this religion called Mormonism means to me.
It is difficult enough to find my place in the LDS Church of the 21st century; I cannot imagine the difficulties I would have if the culture and beliefs today reflected those of its 19th century origins. So while the student of history inside me is scandalized at the changes, the other aspects of my personality - the man of faith, the man of conscience, the husband, the father - all welcome such changes.
I certainly would not like to be relegated to a perpetual snapshot of my life 10 or 20 years ago (though, admittedly, I wouldn’t mind having that youthful body back). I have grown, I have matured, I have become a better man, and still I have much work to do. Shouldn’t my church be granted the same opportunities for growth and improvement? Would not this church be dead if it were required to strictly observe, without change, the beliefs and sensibilities of a particular moment in time?
Fortunately the institution is a living entity. As such it must grow, it must adapt, it must remain relevant.
This is not to say that history is malleable according to our whims or something to be discarded. There is a place for history - for accurate history - in our stories. It is vital that we know our origins and that we learn from our mistakes. But our history is only the foundation of our story, not our whole story. Our story is our history and it is our mythology, it is written and rewritten, it is made up day to day, it is the history that we create and the principles and teachings that we decide give us meaning, here and now.
So, is it okay that Joseph the Prophet has new clothes, and that those clothes do not represent an accurate historical portrayal but one with a more contemporary meaning? I’m surprised, but my answer is a qualified yes.
There is a subtle distinction here that was lost on me before. I’m not advocating a false history, but rather a reframing of our story to fit our times. We have been, thus far, an American Frontier church, our identity wrapped up in our origins. Perhaps it is time to move beyond that identity, to embrace the doctrines and the principles that make Mormonism powerful and relevant to us today.
Those of us in the church today would not recognize the church of the 19th century. Likewise, our children’s children in the coming century will not recognize our church of today. And, for me, that is okay. Indeed, it is encouraging.
March 27th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Rory,
Your comments reminded me of a Soviet propaganda film when I was in training to become a Russian interpreter for the US Army during the Cold War.
The last image in the film was that of a plump, smiling young Russian female tractor driver, with a benevolent sun streaming down on her radiant face as she rapturously exclaimed her joy at at exceeding her work quota. It was all possible she says “because Stalin is with us!”
This shocked me at the time as a young 19-year-old born-in-the-covanent Mormon boy, because I had just learned to sing an old Slovanic chant where the cantor sings a challenge to all heathen that the [Russian Orthodox] Church would triumph over all its foes because “God is with us!”
Stalin had initially trained in an Orthodox seminary for the priesthood before joining the Bolshevik revolution. He was well aware of the religious images that ran deep in the Russian soul that he needed to tap in order to evoke devotion and obedience to the new Soviet world view.
I see little difference in what the present corrolated Mormon Church is doing with the image of Joseph Smith and what the Soviets did with the image of Joseph Stalin (when he was alive). Both images are simply false.
March 27th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Here, here Eugene!
Rory, how you can accept such a distortion and simply see it as the embracing of modernity? I’m all for the LDS religion changing, but only in the way the Community of Christ did it - they realized there were problems, loads of problems, and rather than simply whitewash them and distort the truth they faced them. They didn’t recast their past, they recast themselves. They don’t hide what and who Joseph Smith was - warts and all. They simply decided to move past him and the blemishes he brought with him. That’s the honest way of dealing with Mormonism’s past. Whitewashing it is not.
March 27th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Eugene:
For the record, I may be plump, but I do not drive a tractor and I rarely exceed my quota.
Now that we have that straight, I do understand what you and Ryan are saying. Let me try to explain where I am coming from:
First, I think we might agree that it is acceptable for each generation within the church to recast or redefine what is meaningful to them. This is simply a requirement for the church to remain relevant in subsequent generations.
Second, we have seen the church recast itself in some very dramatic ways throughout its short history. For example, the generations-long emphasis on Joseph Smith and the first vision came to the fore in the early 20th century, following the changes in the practice of polygamy. We still have much of that today, but with the “loads of problems” it may be that this will not work for us now.
I may be completely off, but my hope is that the recent changes reflect less of a “whitewash” and more of an evolutionary shift in the emphasis of our story - away from our foundations, toward our defining doctrines.We simply cannot expect the institution to wholesale abandon the current story.
Ryan, you praise the Community of Christ for their moving “past” Joseph Smith, but I think you will be sorely disappointed if you expect our institution to do the same. Right or wrong, such a rapid shift between 1958 and the 1980’s caused dramatic schisms within the RLDS/Community of Christ (see Bill Russell’s studies). In the interest of self-preservation, I don’t think you will see the SLC Branch do this - at least not in the same fashion and definitely not on the same time scale.
So where does that leave us? Clearly Joseph Smith is being recast, so we are at a crossroads.
In one direction we have Eugene’s reference to the “Stalin” model, an empty whitewash of our past and an attempt to cling to a crumbling facade. It may work in the short term, but it is not sustainable.
In the other direction we have an evolutionary shift to a focus on our recast story and doctrinal emphasis. Such a slow shift likely means that those of us living through it will not see significant change. But, I think in some ways we can certainly exert an influence on it.
For the sake of future generations, I hope what we are seeing is the latter.
March 27th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Good, provocative post.
Rory, I’m with you in feeling quite comfortable with an evolving Mormonism, one that shifts emphases according to what better serves relevance and faith. Perhaps where you and Eugene and Ryan are missing each other’s drift is in your seeming acceptance of it when it’s being done without comment, without any kind of explicit acknowledment of what they are doing. I know it’s not the church’s practice to announce when they are making a course correction and deliberately reshaping a tale to match a new emphasis, but wouldn’t it be nice? Without something like that, I sympathize with Eugene and Ryan (and your younger, more easily scandalized self) and the sense that something funny’s going on (though I think you’re right in calling Eugene on the problems with his Stalin example and Ryan for his seemingly uncritical embrace of the Community of Christ model). Until the church appoints someone to translate for us what they’re up to, I’m really glad for reflections like Olaiz’s that try to interpret the tea leaves a bit.
March 28th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Dan, Rory and Ryan:
It seems to me that Ken Wilber’s integral approach [see his _A Brief History of Everything_ or his _Integral Operating System_ or his Integral Institute web site] offers a more honest approach to the dilemma of spiritual evolution of the Mormon Church. That is: “include and transcend”, rather than “whitewash and regress”, which is what correlaltion, FARMS and FAIRLDS seem to be doing.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Good responses, all. Thanks for the exchange.
If I can briefly respond to Rory’s response to my comment… I’m not really opposed to seeing the LDS religion experience more substantial schisms than it has in its past. Sure, embracing the Community of Christ model would mean huge upheavels, but having already left, I don’t see that as a problem - at the very least it will be a turn towards honesty, which I value a great deal.
Also, I hate to consider myself intolerant, but in a certain sense I am - I have a real hard time interacting with Mormons who either won’t look at their past or simply deny it. On the bright side, I’m perfectly happy working with Mormons - like you, Rory, and Dan - who see the problems but find other aspects of the religion to be more important (specifically the non-falsifiable, spirituality aspects). What it boils down to me for me, and this is the heart of this issue, is that there are some things that are fundamentally true and falsifiable, like Joseph Smith’s involvement with polygamy, his money-digging, his use of peepstones, etc. Other aspects of religion are not subject to falsifiability (communing with a higher power; sensing the presence of supernatural beings, etc.). Where I become intolerant is when the “facts” are dismissed - and that is exactly what the LDS religion is doing. Sure, recasting the importance of the religion’s past is fine - as most liberal, open-minded Mormons already do. But burying the facts is another issue. In short, I don’t think I’d have a problem with Mormonism doing what the Community of Christ did - even if it was over a very long time scale - but I do have a problem with the religion covering up its history. As Dan notes, they’re doing it and not telling anyone. That’s not honest. Call me crazy, but I think something’s wrong with a religion when its honesty is questioned by an apostate turned atheist!
March 29th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Eugene – I do understand what you are saying and sympathize with much of it. Unfortunately we are not in a position to see where those leading the institution mean to take us. The foggy view that we have will always appear incomplete and uncertain, my main point in this post is that change is a natural and inevitable occurrence and I am content to have hope that the changes we are seeing will be, in the long term, beneficial to a more authentic spirituality with focus on meaningful and motivating doctrines.
Do I trust implicitly the direction the institution is taking? Certainly not. It’s a dynamic organization and it experiences the pull and influence of differing (and sometimes opposing) forces. But whether we are “including and transcending” or “whitewashing and regressing” is a judgment best reserved for future generations.
This doesn’t mean I smile under a benevolent sun and go blithely along my way - it means that I think we are responsible to actively and purposefully define ourselves and our spirituality, whether that be within the framework of the larger institution or not.
Ryan – I also understand and sympathize with what you are saying. The institution is making subtle (and not-so-subtle) changes, and nobody is standing up at the pulpit to talk about it. I’m not sure we can reasonably expect different, thus the independent forums, publications, and the analysis and commentary such as found in Olaiz’s article become vitally important.
I experienced a turning point in my frustrations when I suddenly realized (horror of horrors!) the specifics and disclosure that I place a high value on simply are of little concern to the majority of those around me. For many of those in the pews on Sunday this religion works for them, plain and simple. Their lives are consumed with work, family, community, callings, and an addiction to Desperate Housewives (or is that last one just me?).
Every organism – be it from the smallest microbe to the largest and most complex institution – is interested primarily in self-preservation. Based on that, any change – any effective change – will be gradual and aimed at preserving the institution intact. For you an honest approach may be that the church adopt the Community of Christ model. Even if we were to stipulate that such a model is best or most honest or (insert your value term here), it won’t work for the vast majority of people whose lives will be turned on end by such an upheaval, and thus it won’t work for the institution. Seems rather cold and calculated, but I think it is the reality we live with.
Given this, I think we are left to work these things out for ourselves, influence where we can, and then see where this goes. To the extent that articles like Olaiz’s help us gain some perspective or “read the tea leaves”, they take on more value than simple commentary. Forums such as symposiums and, perhaps, this blog are also valuable resources. As such I look forward to the valued feedback and continued discussion on this and other topics.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Good reply, Rory. Sorry to be so harsh on you with your first post here. Glad to have you posting.
March 29th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
It seems to me that one of the functions of religion is to make the gods and prophets in our own image. They do this to maintain social order and promote the current conception of righteousness. Religion puts out “prescriptive” stories. Stories that tell us how we should behave because such was the way a particular luminary behaved.
The “new” Joseph Smith described by Oliaz is a pretty nice description of what the upstanding citizen is like these days - the upstanding citizen the Church would like to replicate in order to enhance its own programs and to stablize society in general. Heaven knows we need a bit of stablization.
However -
I sometimes participate on a board populated by thoughtful people who have left the Church, and at least 70 percent of them say they left the Church because they couldn’t reconcile the potrait of Joseph Smith as presented to them officially, and the portrait presented by reputable research. Mormons are so stuck on “the truth” that if they find rational “truth” outside the Church, their brains go haywire. They feel compelled to accept one or the other. And the Church doesn’t make that decision very easy: go with reason and research, or apologetics. It puts the recently history-initiated Mormon into quite a quandry.
March 30th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
I would like to share some thoughts that go along with several of the different perspectives addressed so far. I will begin by describing a documentary film I saw recently that really set my mind a racin’. The name of the film is “Baraka.” It portrays the religious practices of several groups of indigenous people from Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, and Australia. There is no commentary describing exactly what these people are doing. We just watch as they go about there very elaborate dances, ceremonies, and rituals. I can only imagine what these rituals might mean. Perhaps they are trying to appease or supplicate some deity, or perhaps they are reenacting some events they believe occurred during the history of their tribe. At the risk of sounding disrespectful, I must confess that I don’t believe the deities being supplicated actually exist. Likewise, the historical events being depicted probably did not occur the way these people are imagining them. Yet the rituals themselves were mesmerizing to watch. The thought occurred to me that the importance of these rituals had nothing to do with whether the religious ideas being expressed were scientifically sound or historically accurate. I believe the people involved in these rituals felt deeply connected to each other and their past. Knowing that they were doing the same things their ancestors had done as far back as anyone could remember was probably an amazing source of satisfaction for these people.
I don’t think we are very different from those indigenous tribal groups. We need to feel connected to each other and our past, and we need rituals to help us with that. I would like to suggest that those are the main purposes of religion. A successful religion is one that accomplishes those things, irrespective of whether the doctrines being taught are scientifically sound, or whether the history being portrayed is accurate.
Mormonism is a successful religion because people who embrace Mormonism feel an enormous connection to each other and their past. The stories we tell about the First Vision, the Nephites and Lamanites, and the Pioneers are the rituals that provide that connection. They are like the dances and songs of the Native Americans and the Australian Aborigines. Their importance lies in their ability to connect people, not in their historical or scientific accuracy. I think the church leaders know they have something that works, and they don’t want to mess with that. That’s why they do whatever they can to protect those stories. From a purely pragmatic perspective, what the church leaders are doing makes perfect sense.
But here’s the kicker. We are in a unique position compared to the indigenous tribes portrayed in the film. We have the ability to investigate our rituals using the scientific method to see how they compare to historical and scientific facts. What we generally find is that the comparison is not very good. The same can be said of all religious doctrines and practices. Religions do not seem to have the ability to uncover reliable information about science or history. Does that mean we should abandon religion if the doctrines and history don’t measure up to our scientific findings? Some people obviously think so. I sometimes think so too. But I still find myself needing those human connections that are unique to religion. Where would I find those things if I abandoned my religion?
Here is what I see as the crux of the dilemma. I can see that the connections I am seeking are available within Mormonism. Mormonism has songs and stories and rituals that work just as effectively as the ones practiced by the Masai people of Kenya and other tribal groups. But as soon as one begins viewing those things purely as rituals that help draw people together, rather than as accurate depictions of real events, the spell they cast is broken. One becomes an outside observer looking in, appreciating the spectacle for what it is, wanting to take part, but no longer able to partake of it fully. As much as I might like to join in with the dances of the Masai, I think I would just feel like an intruder. More and more, I feel the same way when I attend my local ward meetings. The connections I am seeking are just beyond my grasp.
I do not have a brilliant idea for resolving this dilemma. However, I do know something that will NOT work. Turning the Mormon religion into a historical or scientific society where people go to learn about the latest research findings will not work. That would ruin the spell for everyone, and Mormonism would cease to exist. That would be a tragic loss.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:07 am
AVO Wrote:
But as soon as one begins viewing those things purely as rituals that help draw people together, rather than as accurate depictions of real events, the spell they cast is broken. One becomes an outside observer looking in, appreciating the spectacle for what it is, wanting to take part, but no longer able to partake of it fully. As much as I might like to join in with the dances of the Masai, I think I would just feel like an intruder. More and more, I feel the same way when I attend my local ward meetings. The connections I am seeking are just beyond my grasp
Steve Writes:
You took the words right outta my mouth, P.J.
This is my basic problem right now. And its why, as we were discussing on the States of Mess thread, Scott Peck’s book _The Different Drum_ appealed to me so much. In it, he describes community not as a group with similar beliefs to unite it, but as a group where the members put aside their individual egos and goals in order to really hear each other, and communicate with each other as people, rather than as roles.
I have a friend who has a theory that most relationships between people in the Church are actually triangulated relationships. In other words, people don’t have relationships with each other, rather, they both have a relationship with the Church, and it’s through that contact point that they have a relationship. So if the Church is removed, so is the relationship.
I have come across very few truly communal (non triangulated) relationships. But I have come to understand that it is the truly communal relationship that I yearn for most. And I don’t get that at all in Church. I think it’s mainly because of what I was saying before. You must fit a particular mold in order to be in “full fellowship.” The kind of community I’m looking for is where people are willing to walk the difficult road of actually relating with another person.
A very difficult feat. But worth it.
April 2nd, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Man alive is this debate something. Sometimes I think people do have a little too much paralysis of analysis. I like Rory’s comments and agree with them for the most part. I also like many of the other comments as well.
I find it interesting how many people cry “whitewash” with a movie that was created for both non-Mormon investigators and to strengthen the testimonies of current LDS members. It is a very simple story. I have studied the life of Joseph Smith for over 25 years (warts and all) and I find this film delightful and moving at times. It mentions various positive experiences from Joseph’s life all in an effort to help people see what it is about this man that was so attractive, memorable and what it was about him that caused tens of thousands of people (most of them from protestant backgrounds) to leave their homes, their families and join with this new religious movement. Sometimes people need to see Joseph with new eyes and with a less cynical viewpoint.
The film “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration” was not made for students of advanced LDS history. It was not made for the Mormon History Association. It has its purpose and yes it has selectively taken various chapters (the positive ones) from Joseph’s life and woven them into a beautiful story of faith and love.
Almost everyone of the various experiences in the film are stories from Joseph’s life that I had read about back in the 1970’s and 1980’s. I did not see anything really new at all in this film except the emphasis that was placed on these various stories. Joseph Smith, Junior remains a mystery to this very day and the religion he founded still has a sense of mystery about it as well inspite of the various debates that rage during Sunstone Symposiums, etc. That’s another aspect of Joseph and the Church he founded that makes Mormonism that much more interesting. This new religious tradition is not a simplistic little country Church and Joseph was no simple little country pastor.
I like the film but I will say that I actually like the Joseph Smith from The Work and the Glory: American Zion much better because at least this film shows Joseph’s temper (a side you never see in Church films) and that is the first time I have ever seen that part of his personality displayed in a motion picture.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:07 am
These are some very thoughtful and interesting replies. AVO’s description of the film “Baraka” and the power of ritual and shared belief is fascinating, and it communicates some ideas I hoped to convey in my original post much better than I was able to. Thank you for taking the time to share it.
I absolutely relate to the quandary that Stephen and AVO describe, a feeling of being an outside observer, one for which the “spell” has been broken. But here’s the rub: Observing in a detached manner may break the spell, but it does not stop one from seeing and recognizing the real power that is contained in the shared stories, rituals, and beliefs.
Maybe this power is what Stephen is looking for in the communal relationship. Maybe it is the liminal state we are occasionally blessed to experience, those small tastes of experience that tell us there is something more than the concrete and rational. I don’t know. But I do know that I value the culture and heritage that I have been given as a Mormon, and I would like to learn if it is possible to re-enter the flow and experience the mystical again.
April 4th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Great discussion. Rory, I’m not sure how wowie-zowie the “mystical” experiences you once had were and are now wondering about ever finding again, but to me, re-experiencing a deepened love for those within my ward and wider LDS associations despite my heavily de-mythologized Mormonism feels increasingly mystical to me. If we give into THAT mystery–and the truth that friendship is far deeper than agreeement or disagreement–my guess is we’ll feel more “in the flow” of a lot of great things.
April 4th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Dan,
I think you nailed it! The increasing experience of love and affection we feel for each other in our radical community, from whatever inner or mystical events that anchor us to our Mormon tradition is the bottom line.
I’ll always remember the late Henry Eyring, Dean of the U of U Graduate School and world class chemist, who said: “In this church [read: community or tradition] you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true.”
So, even though we don’t have to believe stuff that doesn’t ring true in our souls, we surely can honor the beauty and goodness that we see in and share with each other. What’s better than that? To me it’s at a level light years beyond totalitarian or authoritarian directed instituttions of any kind.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:22 am
I’m late to this party - forgive me - as I just discovered the blog here - but I can’t resist adding a thought to the pot - as a convert who came to the table of this faith as a young adult (age 19) and who has stayed in spite of or perhaps because of discovering the very humanity of Joseph Smith (who was not perfect no matter what many have come to believe or need to believe to remain members).
I have seen a number of converts and have come to the conclusion that for many - the strongest attraction to become LDS is that very triangulated relationship that Steve writes of as being less than desirable. The Church provides one with a family/friend/support group that one often lacks in society and home life today - and thus provides people with the means and motivation to create relationships (triangulated though they may be) where none were present before. For many these triangulated relationships created through the Church is their most important reason if not their only reason for joining.
When I look at many religions today - it seems to me that the ones I see growing in numbers of members are the ones who encourage relationships - even if they are triangulated with the religion of choice being at the apex of that triangle as opposed to religions that do not emphasize such relationships. I agree - the ideal is for communal relationships - but realistically speaking - I believe that Church/religion triangulated relationships are one heck of a lot better than the absolute aloneness that is the alternative for so many people!