The Unbearable Lightness of Brodie
By Matt Thurston on Aug 17, 2006
My mission to Taipei, Taiwan from 1989-1990 was filled with singular experiences; your mission to Timbuktu was doubtless no exception. But can you top this?
My companion and I were street-contacting in Nan Kang, a newly opened area and small suburb of Taipei, when we stumbled upon a small college. Perfect: College Students! College Students made the best “investigators” because they: 1.) were available at any hour of the day, and 2.) didn’t require the approval (tacit or otherwise) of parents or spouse before consenting to discussions or baptism.
We wandered around the small campus until we came to a building where a hundred or more students were milling about. Within minutes we struck up a conversation with 3-4 students. “What are you standing around here for?” we asked. We quickly learned that the building was an amphitheatre where plays, concerts, and speeches were performed. Today, the students were standing outside waiting for the start of that week’s campus “Foreign Film” screening, a requirement it seemed for some kind of Fine Arts class.
“What was the film?” we asked.
“The Unbearable Lightness of Being,” one of the students responded, and pointed to a poster on the door of the amphitheatre.
“Hmmm… Never heard of it,” I said.
I scanned the poster to discover it was based on a novel by Milan Kundera, directed by Philip Kaufman, and starred Daniel Day-Lewis, Juliette Binoche, and Lena Olin. “Looks interesting,” I thought, as I continued to study the poster.
Behind me, someone politely enquired: “Would you like to see it with us?”
At this point, I should interrupt this narrative to observe that I was the “Champion Rationalizer” of the Taiwan, Taipei Mission for two years running. I believe my impressive records still stand, sixteen years later. I could even rationalize a rationalization. To whit: “But my rationalizations are in the service of the Lord,” I was known to rationalize to my journal, my companions, and my Mission President. Today, my two mission “Champion Rationalizer” trophies stand proudly next to my four high school Scripture Chase Champion trophies on my parent’s mantelpiece.
“Sure,” I heartily accepted, muttering under my breath to my companion that it would be a great way to “build relationships of trust” with these students before introducing them to the gospel.
I ask you Sunstone Blog readers: Have you seen The Unbearable Lightness of Being? Today, the DVD box cover comes equipped with the following blurb from Roger Ebert: “The most erotic serious film since Last Tango in Paris.” Let me just observe that Roger’s comment is not a case of movie blurb hyperbole.
After exiting the amphitheatre, my companion and I determined via discreet, nervous eye contact that now was probably not the best time to say: “On that note, would you all be interested in a message about Jesus Christ?” Instead, we politely excused ourselves and slumped off in another direction.
Minutes later we entered the college’s library. “Elder, let’s wander the stacks for a few minutes…” I suggested, choosing not to finish the rest of my sentence out loud, “…and give our minds a few minutes to clear.”
I walked to the Card Catalogue section and looked up the word “Mormon”. I knew what I needed to clear my mind fog: a healthy dose of Mormonism. Minutes later I was seated on the floor next to a section featuring roughly a dozen books related to Mormonism, most of them in English.
I picked up a tome with the provocative title, No Man Knows My History, by Fawn Brodie. It appeared to be a book about Joseph Smith.
“Hmmm… Never heard of it,” I thought.
But a book about the second most important man who ever lived seemed, at that moment, to be just what the doctor ordered.
Within minutes, my head was spinning again, this time in a different direction. For the next hour or so I flipped through the book, reading parts of this section, then that. I’ll say this, my plan worked— my “Lightness of Being” mind fog had completely vanished!
Later that week, as I sat down to compose my weekly report to the Mission President, I briefly flirted with the idea of sharing my new-found, sure-fire method of ridding the mind of impure thoughts: “It works better than singing a hymn!” I mused. But I thought better of it and scribbled some platitudes about enduring to the end or counting my blessings.
Missions can be both and exciting and energizing, and tedious and tiresome. Whatever the case, exciting or tedious, mission experiences seem singular when compared to “regular life”. That is how I remember my mission: one singular event on top of another; I encountered new people, new places, day after day. As I recall, I didn’t have time to dwell on Being or Brodie; within days, the experience had faded to the back of my mind.
My mission ended and other endeavors soon filled the breach: school, career, marriage, more school, children… it was years before I returned, not necessarily to Fawn Brodie and No Man Knows My History, but to the idea that there was more to Joseph Smith than met the eye in Sunday School and Priesthood lessons, more certainly than what I taught others on my mission. Years later, I now actively engage those sometimes exciting, sometimes disturbing ideas I first stumbled upon while sitting on the floor in that small college library in Nan Kang, Taiwan… following the eye-popping screening of arguably the most erotic film since Last Tango in Paris, of course.
So here’s my question: What was your first encounter with the idea that Church History was something more than what you were taught in Sunday School and/or Priesthood/Relief Society? How old were you? What was the book, or Internet site, or conversation? What was the idea (i.e. Masonry, Joseph Smith’s wives, Peep Stones, etc.) that made your head spin?
Matt Thurston asked the following:
So here’s my question: What was your first encounter with the idea that Church History was something more than what you were taught in Sunday School and/or Priesthood/Relief Society?
Response: I’m not quite certain. I think that it may have been a book by an author, whose name I have conveniently forgotten, entitled “The 27th Wife”, or something like that. It was, iirc, about Brigham Young’s last wife, who apparently divorced him. I had never heard of *any* of his wives divorcing him, and was also unaware of the fact that he had so many of them. This was over 20 years ago.
How old were you?
I was well into my 40s. I can’t explain why, but the fact is that I never *really* looked at church history very carefully.
What was the book, or Internet site, or conversation?
The Internet site that first got my attention was Eyring-L, which deals with topics of Mormonism and science. It was there that I first asked the question: Is there *any* archaeologicl evidence supporting the Book of Mormon? I soon found that there was none, and my journey out of Mormonism began in earnest. This would have been in the early 90s.
What was the idea (i.e. Masonry, Joseph Smith’s wives, Peep Stones, etc.) that made your head spin?
Well, actually nothing made my head “spin.” I come from a background of natural skepticism, although I have always tended more toward gullibility myself. But, over the years, I began to question more and more of the things I had originally been taught.
However, the Masonic origins of the temple ceremony and the use of the peep stone in the writing of the BoM were certainly new to me.
I’m not certain exactly which card removal resulted in the whole house tumbling down, but ultimately I disengaged, and subsequently disaffiliated altogether from Mormonism.
Comment # 1 by Preston Bissell | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply
Such a interesting question, one that I haven’t thought of in a long while. I think the only thing that really made my head spin, was a Gerald and Sandra Tanner book that had the temple ceremonies described in full detail. I read it when I was 16 or 17, a few months after my conversion experience to the LDS church, and it disturbed me so much that I actually went to the Bishop to talk about it.
Well, over time, and as I learned more, it became less disturbing, but I was always a little nervous about the temple, until I actually went.
Around the exact same time, I also found Dialogue at the library, and opened it up to an article about the translation of the Book of Mormon. It really opened my mind to many different ways of thinking and writing about LDS history and theology. It was that Dialogue in 1989 that really changed my church life. For the better!
Comment # 2 by Dallas Robbins | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply
Oh yeah, and even thought I haven’t seen the movie Unbearable Lightness, I would highly recomment the book - a amazing work on the nature of existence and the search for love.
Comment # 3 by Dallas Robbins | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply
***What was your first encounter with the idea that Church History was something more than what you were taught in Sunday School and/or Priesthood/Relief Society? How old were you? What was the book, or Internet site, or conversation? What was the idea (i.e. Masonry, Joseph Smith’s wives, Peep Stones, etc.) that made your head spin?***
I was 20 years old when I got my endowment, pre 1990/2005 changes. The temple ceremony didn’t sit well with me at all and I stewed over it for a few years, then I heard about a book called “Secret Ceremonies”, by Deborah Laake.
I didn’t feel I could talk to anyone about my distaste for the temple ceremonies, so finding that book, at that time, was a huge relief, despite feeling I was doing a bad thing for reading “anti-Mormon” literature. I thought Laake’s book was flawed, but it saved me emotionally in so many ways, just knowing I wasn’t the only one who had bad feelings regarding their temple experience.
Comment # 4 by Wendy | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply
What was your first encounter with the idea that Church History was something more than what you were taught in Sunday School and/or Priesthood/Relief Society?
I started at BYU in the fall of 1989. There was a Christian bookstore in town. Since I’d just started collecting different translations of the Bible, I stopped in one Friday afternoon to see if they had any translations that I didn’t already own. I noticed their large, prominent display of anti-Mormon books, specifically, books by the Tanners.
I’d hitherto read only anti-Mormon literature like the book The Godmakers or the kind of pamphlet that says, “The Book of Mormon says x, but the Bible says y…” Basically garbage that was easily enough answered.
I started paging through Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, and I ended up in the bookstore for about an hour. In addition to a couple of Bibles, I ended up buying Mormonism: Shadow or Reality plus every other book in stock by the Tanners (including the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, Changes to the Book of Mormon, Answering Dr. Clandestine [aka, Michael Quinn], the Temple Lot Case, a book by someone else with pages from the Journal of Discourses, and others; it was several bags worth of books). I stayed up the entire weekend, and I read the entire set.
How old were you?
20
What was the book, or Internet site, or conversation?
This was all pre-WWW. I still have boxes of anti-Mormon literature. Before the public explosion of the internet brought on by the WWW, collecting books about this kind of a topic was useful. Now everything in the books is available online.
What was the idea (i.e. Masonry, Joseph Smith’s wives, Peep Stones, etc.) that made your head spin?
Nothing made my head spin. I was struck with absolute fascination. It’s no secret that I’m quite argumentative, and I’d always thought that Mormonism was rather obviously true.
It occurred to me that day for the first time that it isn’t really obvious to dispassionate observers that Mormonism is true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Here it was, in exhaustive (and sometimes exhausting) detail, why people do not believe such things, and (whatever one makes of one’s own beliefs) a dispassionate observer has to concede that they make some decent points.
Just a word on Brodie’s brilliant biography: That week, I bought a copy of Donna Hill’s bio on Joseph Smith at Walt West’s book store. It was interesting and informative, but difficult at times and it failed to cogently convey a strong sense of who Joseph was. So immediately after finishing it, I bought, No Man Knows My History at the BYU Bookstore (in spite of its bad reputation–the book’s not the bookstore’s). I was never passionate about Joseph Smith before I read that book. In its pages, Joseph comes alive. He’s an adventurer. He’s daring. He’s a genius. He’s a lovable rogue. He’s devoted to his followers. He’s sometimes ruthless. He never fails to rise to a challenge and overcome adversity–except just once, on a sad day at a jail in Carthage. Reading her book made me understand why so many people loved Joseph, and also understand why a few people hated him. Bushman’s book is a must-read, and it shows how far “Mormon Studies” has come since Brodie invented the Joseph Smith biography. But Bushman never captures (the way that Brodie does) that fire within Joseph that made people of his day (and me, even now) really, really want to meet the guy.
Comment # 5 by DKL | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply
What was your first encounter with the idea that Church History was something more than what you were taught in Sunday School and/or Priesthood/Relief Society? How old were you? What was the book, or Internet site, or conversation? What was the idea (i.e. Masonry, Joseph Smith’s wives, Peep Stones, etc.) that made your head spin?
Honestly, I don’t ever remember NOT being skeptical of church history. I had several ancestors who left the church over the Mountain Meadow Massacre, and I remember hearing discussions of that as a young child. It was clear that something very wrong had been done, that subsequent reactions by church leaders compounded rather than mitigated the evil, and that most Mormons wished everyone would just pretend it never happened.
But my skepticism really became uncomfortable in high school. My freshman year we studied the The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price in seminary. Ever the dutiful student, I became scripture chase champion and read both the D&C and the POGP that year. I simply paid attention to the text and thought about what was really going on in passages like sec 132 or the book of Abraham, and that was enough to arouse the suspicion that one accepted the standard LDS interpretation of those texts only by working very, very hard at ignoring what was really going on. And as the church was extremely important to me, I set about working very, very hard at ignoring whatever needed to be ignored.
I was 13 years old at that point, and it took me another 13 to give up ignoring things. I was so intent on making myself into a believing Mormon that I even served a mission.
I read No Man Knows My History in grad school and couldn’t understand why people objected to it so; Brodie clearly admired JS a hell of a lot.
p.s. I’m not a Kundera fan–the guy obviously sees women as little more than orifices–but I’ll take Unbearable Lightness of Being over Last Tango in Paris any day. At least all the sex in ULOB is consensual–the anal rape scene (a.k.a. “the butter scene”) in LTIP was worse than the one in Deliverance, because it was so clear that Brando’s character’s (whatever his name was) whole intention was to hurt and humiliate his partner. But hey, that’s what passes for erotic!
Comment # 6 by Holly | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply
What was your first encounter with the idea that Church History was something more than what you were taught in Sunday School and/or Priesthood/Relief Society? How old were you? What was the book, or Internet site, or conversation? What was the idea (i.e. Masonry, Joseph Smith’s wives, Peep Stones, etc.) that made your head spin?
For me there were two significant events. While I never really internalized a deep orthodoxy, I was quite willing to play the part. In the mid-90’s I was quite active on the internet, in the early days of the chat rooms after the usenet seemed to be losing its monopoly.
I would go there to engage the detractors. It was one such long engagement with a particularly persistent antagonist that I finally shut him down. He cited some sources for his contentions, and I went to them - one in particular did not exist. I siezed upon it and, in a sense, won. However, even though I discredited his source, I knew that what he was saying was actually true. Truth didn’t matter. Winning the argument did. That’s an indictment on me.
After that, I walked away from actively engaging in a defense, and in some respects opened myself up to actually acknowledging the questions.
The more significant event came in the late 90’s, during a graduate level course on Biblical criticism. I found it easy and enlightening to interpret different Biblical passages from an orthodox, a liberal, and a secular humanist angle. I found myself squarely in the liberal belief camp.
But if I was willing to view the Bible through a liberal belief position - to be honest, I had to do so with our own canon as well. That started me on an active pursuit of my own position, and has led me to where I am today.
I’d write more, but I need to log in to my NetFlix account and add a couple of movies to my queue. Unbearable Lightness….
Comment # 7 by RorySwensen | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply
I did before I joined the church. I grew up in a part-member family, and us kids were raised Catholic. I was an altar boy, went to parochial school, etc. I started gaining an interest in the church around 12, started attending regularly with Mom. During high school, I even did home study seminary (something my dad to this day does not know). Reading the D&C that first time was a real challenge to my interest (though now I recognize it as a powerful and profound book of scripture). I attended a small liberal arts college with an episcopalian seminary (and no LDS students, though I still made the 40 minute-each direction trip to church on sundays). During this time, I took advantage of the seminary library to read all that I could about the church. Most of it was anti-, in one way or another–and it provided new challenges, from time to time. But it was certainly intersesting reading anti- literature from most of the decades the church has existed (I think some of the earliest I encountered was 1860’s-1870’s). Some of the best (at least that I encountered) was produced in the 1920’s and 1930’s, by some serious main-line scholars. I remember, in particular, having to think very hard about the pearl of great price and the plates in Ab from this experience.
Two and a half years into college, and certainly with my eyes wide open, after years of prayer and though and gradual testimony building, I was baptized. So, I knew church history beyond Sunday School long before I was even on the rolls of the church.
I will say this, too: having done this, having seriously considered challenge upon challenge, made my faith real and vibrant. I knew the weirdness of the church (particularly coming from a high-churched and highly intellectual background) as I gained my own testimony, and my gaining of a testimony was a slow process that included serious examination and re-examination, as well as a number of profound and sacred experiences.
Off topic comment 1: Incidentally, one of the few curricular things I read in this time that challenged my decision was the biography of Ignatius Loyola. If I hadn’t joined the church, I can seriously imagine having become a Jesuit!
Off-topic comment 2: I think an interesting topic for a church history study would be a study of anti- literature. There is a wide variety of types and themes in it, it would be interesting to see how it has developed over the centuries.
Comment # 8 by TMD | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply
decades would have been better than centuries…
Comment # 9 by TMD | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply
Very interesting comments so far…
Rory, definitely check out Unbearable Lightness, the film. I’ve seen it at least a half dozen times or more. Its deep themes of being/existence are what keep me returning to the film every few years or so. I mention above that we didn’t think it appropriate to bring up the Church following the movie. Ironically, there are several interesting ideas in the film that could have sequed nicely into a discussion of Joseph Smith and/or the meaning of life. Not that I would have done it any different.
Dallas, Kundera’s novel has been on my short list for years. I hope to get around to it soon. Maybe you should pick it for your book club and do a Podcast about it.
Preston, I have The 27th wife, though I’ve never read it and don’t recall how it even got in my possession. Is it worth reading?
DKL, was your book buying binge before or after your abbreviated mission? I’ve read bits and pieces of your story around the Internet. Have you ever posted the whole thing in one place? Incidentally, I’ve heard Bushman proclaim his admiration for Brodie’s biography on a couple of occaisions, especially its lively prose and the vivid portrait it paints. BTW, there was an interesting Sunstone session last week on Brodie that is worth downloading.
Holly, I finally saw LTIP for the first time a couple of years ago, partially because Pauline Kael considered it a masterpiece and I wanted to see why she — arguably America’s greatest movie critic — liked it so much. Blah. Self-indulgent in the extreme; florid, inane speeches by unlikable people; and the criminal abuse of an all-purpose kitchen condiment.
TMD and Wendy, thanks for sharing your interesting stories. Personal journeys of faith are as intriguing to me as church history.
Comment # 10 by Matt Thurston | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply
Matt, it was before my abortive attempt to go on a mission–by just over 2 years.
Comment # 11 by DKL | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply
Matt, what a great post. I am now lashing myself with even greater vigor than I was in commenting on your “Welcome” post, at failing to invite you first to join me in blogging… Perhaps I can soothe myself with the good movie recommendation. (Your three prime pastimes are mine as well.)
As for what first made my head spin etc., it was Masonry, an off-again, on-again mistress, as I discuss here.
Comment # 12 by Christian Y. Cardall | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply
Preston, I have The 27th wife, though I’ve never read it and don’t recall how it even got in my possession. Is it worth reading?
I honestly can’t remember. IIRC, the author was fairly well-known, and it didn’t take me long to read the entire book.
Another book that I read during my Mormon days was Deborah Laake’s “Secret Ceremonies.” It said a whole lot more about Deborah Laake (who struck me as a rather unstable person) than it did Mormonism. But, I had to laugh at some of her insights into Utah Mormon culture. (Having grown up in that culture, I was aware of many of its quirks.)
I didn’t read Brodie’s book until I was already disengaged. I was surprised to find that it was much more objective about JS than I had been led to believe during my early years.
The two books which I have read since disaffiliating that I found most important were Palmer’s “Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”, and Southerton’s “Losing a Lost Tribe.” Both simply confirmed what I already had come to believe.
However, the two books which probably were THE most important ones I’ve read concerning religious views have nothing to say about Mormonism at all; Sagan’s “Demon-Haunted World”, and Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel.”
Comment # 13 by Preston Bissell | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply
I’ll answer a slightly different question, Matt. When was the first time my perceptions of the boundary between the Church and the rest of the world were blown apart?
It started on a dark bus at the tail end of a high school trip.
Oooh, a romantic story!
Well, actually, there was a girl barfing in the bus.
She was the only Catholic in our group, though very integrated with all the Mormons. But she was feeling awful, and it was like two hours before we were going to be home. So our teacher (gasp) asked her if she wanted a blessing. To which she replied (double gasp) yes.
So my teacher gathered up all the boys he could find. He got together quite a group: the Peter Priesthood, the Casanova, the grunge boy, the emaciated cowboy, the cave-dwelling tech guys, and yes, the Robert Smith t-shirt-wearing me.
I admit, I was a little uncomfortable at first. Doing something like this in a such a public place (even though most of the people on the bus were Mormon) and on an unbeliever, well… And all of us were in the throes of teenage angst (sometimes I wonder if I ever emerged) and trying to form separate identities, which frequently manifested itself in various forms of rebellion. Few of us were ever at pains to prove our orthodoxy to one another. Some of us even listened to Dr. Demento or the heavy metal show on Sunday nights.
We all kind of crowded around this girl trying to get a hand on her head. It was definitely overkill. But all of a sudden, it was the cool thing to be there. It was amazing what happened, this motley crew coming together under such a strange umbrella. But for the moment our teacher was giving the blessing, we were unified.
Afterward, we all went back to our own thing. You couldn’t say it brought a busload of acne prone teens to Jesus. But it was powerful.
And the girl started feeling much better.
Years later …
I hear that my teacher - the one who brought us together in that circle - is serving time for a crime that could get a person lynched in small towns. I have no idea what to think. It’s possible that he had committed that crime before the night of that bus trip. It throws everything that happened and everything I felt into an entirely different light.
But that light is somehow revelatory. As if, instead of unmasking a criminal in a state of hypocrisy, it unveils a paradox that simultaneously destroys and creates.
Comment # 14 by Stephen Carter | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply
I don’t remember the specific book or the date that first introduced me to scholarly history, but it must have been in the early ’80s, just after my mission, because I do remember books like “Mormon Enigma” and “Magic World View” being eye openers — not because they changed the way I thought about the church, but because until reading them I didn’t realize the “church history” could be told in any way other than I’d heard in Sunday School or BYU classes. I loved history, but Mormon history seemed to be a fixed set of facts that you read and learned, not like American history where there was always something new and fascinating popping up. Reading those books made me realize that Mormon history was more than the dates of Moroni’s appearances or the names of the Eight Witnesses in alphabetical order.
Since then, I’ve gone on to make a career of Mormon history. A day just isn’t a good one unless I’ve read (and hopefully transcribed) some new (to me) primary document, and added to or revised some paper I’m writing.
But I seem to have had a different experience than others who have commented. Rather than being pulled (or blasted away) from the gospel and the institutional church, every discovery binds me closer. Our history is better, richer, more complex than what we ever present in the Ensign or over the pulpit. The truth is better than any half-truth or sugar-coated distortion. There are ugly incidents and ugly people to be sure, but that doesn’t blind me to the good — glory overwhelms the occasional mud.
I had a disastrous mission. Its one valuable outcome is that I was forced to distinguish between the church/gospel/priesthood/principles and some individuals who administer it. (Mission presidents MAY be called of God, and often or usually are, but my experience insists that they are not always so called.) That innoculated me to the occasional negatives of church history.
I can now see the weaknesses of the titles that introduced me to scholarly Mormon history, but even though I’ve outgrown them I will always be grateful to them for opening up my life this way.
Comment # 15 by Ardis | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply
My eye-opening experience happened when I was in high school: I was really looking forward to the year of “Church History” in Seminary - and VERY disappointed when, instead of church history, we got the same old lessons, but this time with little proof-text vignettes from the D&C instead of (like the year before) from the Book of Mormon. So I started a little research on my own, aided and abetted by an open-minded high counselor in our stake.
Over the years, I’ve come to believe that too many good things have happened because of my activity in the Church to leave it - but I’ve noticed that as I’ve gotten older, I believe more and more in less and less. The core of what’s left is the Savior. The history of the Church shows clearly that the early Saints were seldom saints, but I’m willing to forgive them their faults in return for the good things I’ve gotten from the Savior.
Comment # 16 by Alan | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply
Not being raised LDS, my very first exposure to Joseph Smith WAS “No Man Knows My History.”
Though Brodie was an atheist (she made no attempt to hide that) and rejected the “LDS Sunday School version” of Joseph Smith’s life, when I read her book I did not see it as being “Anti-Mormon” in the least. Coming from mainstream Protestantism, I had read books that explored the lives of Jesus, Paul, Biblical characters and Christian theologians/leaders from a completely naturalistic (atheistic) point of view. I never considered these books to be Anti-Christian just because the authors did approach their subjects from a faith-based world view.
Though Brodie was convinced that Jospeh fabricated the story of the Gold Plates and, much later in his life, the now familiar First Vision story, I got the impression that she , overall, had a positive view of the man. Yes, she saw him as being very conflicted (I, too, think that historial facts and Joseph’s very own writings attest to this), but she obviously considered him a very important person in American–and religous–history. She certainly praises his vigorous approach to life, and his genius for “religious making imagination.” (That is Harold Bloom’s phrase, not Brodie’s.)
Once I joined the LDS Church my problem was with ITS very narrow and(to be honest) silly reinvention of the real Joseph Smith.
The real Joseph was someone I would listen to and follow. The “Sunday School Joseph Smith” is laughable; a dull, overly-pious fellow who I wouldn’t look at twice. The real Joseph used to make fun of those whom he called “soft-faced hypocrites.” That is exactly the type of person that the LDS Church has transformed Joseph into.
I find particularly amusing the Church’s attempt since the 1980’s to make THEIR “Sunday School Joseph” into a more “Christ-like figure.” There is that silly painting (in Temple Square I believe) of Jospeh Smith that is a blatant “rip off” of the classic “Jesus blessing the children” image: With pioneers and a Mississippi riverboat in the background, a VERY blonde beautific Joseph with flawlessly pale skin sits on a tree stump while sweet-faced pioneer children gathered around him, looking up at him worshipfully and reverently. Meanwhile Joseph’s pale face looks up and out, as if he is caught up in a heavenly vision at that moment. One arm is held up, the hand and fingers softly flexed–a pose in which Jesus is often painted.
Now the real Joseph DID love children–and he loved wrestling in the streets of Nauvoo and “pulling sticks” (a common show of strength in rural America.)
Whenever I see the above “Sunday School Joseph” painting, I recall an actual event: a couple converted to Mormonism and migrated to Nauvoo. Eager to meet the prophet, they hurried to find him when they arrived. They did find him….engaged in a wrestling match, covered with mud and dirt and unshavened. So offened were their pious notions over what is proper conduct for a prophet, that they promptly turned around, leaving Joseph, Nauvoo and Mormonism itself. I think many (most?) modern LDS Mormons would run shrieking in horror from the real Joseph Smith.
The LDS leadership and most LDS apologists certainly do…for the real Joseph is easily available to one and all in the primary documents from his life time. As Brodie herself pointed out, Joseph dared to found a new religion in the age of the printing press.
As a Reform Mormon I embrace the historical Joseph–vices and virtues. With Jan Shipps, I view Mormonism as a completely new religious tradition. With Harold Bloom, I go even further, seeing Mormonism as a post-Christian religion. I am not a Christian; I am a Mormon. I feel no need to deny or rewrite history in order to make Joseph more like Jesus Christ in attitude or tone. (I refer here to the traditional Christain image of Jesus–not the actual historical figure.)
As a Reform Mormon, I am a disciple of Joseph Smith– not Christ (though I accept and believe in many of the principles taught by Christ.) Being a disciple of Joseph Smith does not mean that I believe him infalliable in his teachings or even admirable in every aspect of his life and character.
But I do accept as the foundation of my religious convictions, the radical new theological paradigm he was contsructing with his reformation of Mormonism during the last few years of his life. This Mormon Paradigm focuses on the nature of existence, man and God; it embraces reason and nature over “superstition” (Joseph’s own word) and the supernatural.
Against this paradigm, no prophet need be perfect. Since the paradigm demands that each of us “learn to Gods” ourselves, “the same as all Gods before you,” (again, Joseph’s own words), unquestioned faith in and obedience to ANY individual or institution is not a requirment for Eternal Progression.
Thus I am quite happy with the man Joseph Smith–as he really was. _
Comment # 17 by Rob | Aug 19, 2006 | Reply
Rob says:
As a Reform Mormon I embrace the historical Joseph–vices and virtues. With Jan Shipps, I view Mormonism as a completely new religious tradition. With Harold Bloom, I go even further, seeing Mormonism as a post-Christian religion. I am not a Christian; I am a Mormon. I feel no need to deny or rewrite history in order to make Joseph more like Jesus Christ in attitude or tone. (I refer here to the traditional Christain image of Jesus–not the actual historical figure.)
I ask: What is a “Reform Mormon”? Could you elucidate further? I’ve heard of “New Order Mormons”, “Ex-Mormons”, and “True Believing Mormons”, bu the term “Reform Mormon” is new to me.
Comment # 18 by Preston Bissell | Aug 19, 2006 | Reply
Preston: The term is somewhat new to me too. If you click on Rob’s name, it will take you to http://www.reformmormonism.org/
Rob, do you know how many Reform Mormon adherents there are?
Very interesting to see the divergent paths everyone has taken after encountering the non-santized version of church history… the responses so far have run the gamut from those who have left the Church, to those whose faith in the LDS gospel was strengthened, and several points in-between.
Comment # 19 by Matt Thurston | Aug 19, 2006 | Reply
Reform Mormonism is a new denomination within Mormonism.
It is called “Reform” NOT because it is trying to reform the LDS Church, the FLDS or the RLDS (Coc) denominations.
Rather, it is like Reform Judaism. If the LDS traditions were compared to Orthodox Judaism, Reform Mormonism would be comparable to Reform Judaism.
It is a religion…not an organization. It is home-based in practice; not based in a chapel or meeeting house. The family/household–not the Ward or Stake–is the central social organization.
Sacrament is celebrated at the family dining table on the Sabbath. Parents bless and name their children in the company of family and friends in their homes (much like a Jewish circumcision ceremony) using a Reform Mormon ordinaces. (These ordinances can be found at http://www.reformmormomism.org.)
Conversion to Reform Mormonism consist of covenanting with God to emulate Him by committing one’s self to a path of Eternal Progression. This convenant is totally personal between the individual and God. Making this covenant with God IS the act of coverting to Reform Mormonism. There is no baptism or joining a church involved in the process. In this way, Reform Mormon conversion is like coversion to Christianity. (As opposed to joining a Christian church or congregation.)
Reform Mormonism is a very new movement, started in 2002. It is registered in the State of Washington as an official denomination. It has few adherents, but has grown rather quickly over the past year. There is a Yahoo Reform Mormon Discussion Group of about 115 members. There is also a Reform Mormon Gospel Doctrine Class blog that has a readersship of several hundred people…many of them with no past ties to the LDS Church and more than a few living in Europe, Israel and South America. (A German fellow with no LDS involvement joined the Yahoo Group an hour ago.)
There is a Reform Mormon Endowment ceremony which will be administered for the first time in early 2007.
The Reform Mormon website has links to these other Reform Mormon sites.
Comment # 20 by rob | Aug 21, 2006 | Reply
My first encounter with the “real” Church history came while I was a political science undergraduate at BYU in the mid 60s; not quite as traumatic as reading Fawn Brodie or the Tanners, however. A new publication, “Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought” had just hit the streets (and the BYU Bookstore), and I became a charter subscriber. The third issue (Autumn 1966), had a special section on “Reappraisals of Mormon History.” I particularly remember two articles in that series which seemed to go hand-in-hand: “The Metamorphosis of the Kingdom of God: Toward a Reinterpretation of Mormon History” by Klaus J. Hansen, and “Anti-Intellectualism in Mormon History” by Davis Bitton. Both articles discussed the evolution of the Church in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century on the heels of such actions as the Woodruff manifesto. The Hansen article discussed in particular the role of the political Kingdom of God, including the Council of Fifty, in early Church history, and the “transformation of the idea of the Kingdom of God from a political to a purely ecclesiastical concept.” The Bitton article discussed, among other things, how Mormonism moved into the mainstream of American society in the early twentieth century “in anxious pursuit of respectability,” including such things as adoption by the Church of the new Boy Scout program. In this accommodation, “conservative political and economic views became dominant.” My favorite line from that article: “The Mormons were becoming middle class with a vengeance.”
In many ways, the Church I belong to today is not the Church of my forbearers. Church history is a messy affair, and not the seamless morality play portrayed in Sunday School lessons. And the Church is not “the same yesterday, today and forever,” preachments at General Conference notwithstanding. However, as a pragmatist by nature, and a believer in “continuing revelation” and the need for the Church to adapt, I am not terribly shaken by any of the above (although do I wish our collective politics could be more balanced). What I do have a problem with is the sugar-coating and the dulling and dumbing-down of Church history in correlated lesson manuals and film productions.
Comment # 21 by LeeBeardall | Aug 21, 2006 | Reply
I grew up in a household that had Dialogue and Sunstone so although we are “pioneer-stock”, I was raised knowing that everything in LDS history is not peaches and cream. That said, things like blacks in the priesthood, polygamy and seerstones were not talked about. Why? Probably because my parents had talked themselves out while they were in college. Maybe they just didn’t think about it.
I have learned more about these subjects through the Mormon Stories podcasts. Has it bothered me? Not a bit. Mostly I think some of it is weird, some of it was wrong, althought it doesn’t make me want to run screaming and I am still thinking about what to think about othe subjects. I do know that Joseph Smith was no saint. God worked with who he had to and Joseph Smith was the right person and the right time, that doesn’t mean he was the most perfect person character-wise. Did he make personal mistakes? Sure, God didn’t take away his free agency. That doesn’t mean we have to reject the Mormon religion because of it. But I’m getting off topic here.
In answer, the site was Mormon Stories podcast, I am presently 29 years old, some of the topics that have really raised my eyebrows are Joseph Smith’s polyandry, some of the reasons behind denying blacks the pristhood, seerstones, and Heavenly Mother (that came from a Sunstone symposia talk).
Comment # 22 by Denae | Aug 21, 2006 | Reply
I am surprised that anyone here really believed the glossy version of church history. Or I guess I should explain that I learned that it was much more nuanced as I grew older and realized that so much re-told history is given the same treatment. In primary I got one thing (simple, for my understanding). In seminary I got a little bit more (again, according to what I could handle). On my mission, at BYU, and now at grad school I am getting a much better view. I am not bothered that my view now is different from my view then. I bet after I continue to study and learn that I will have a different and better view a few years from now.
I guess I am surprised that so many people treat the realization that there is more to church history than presented at church like a bornagain recounting the exact moment she found Jesus and was saved.
Does it really bother anyone that the church doesn’t give the full view? There are so many (likely the majority) that need the simplistic, generalized, (Arnold Friberg) version of church history if they are ever going to accept the gospel. We aren’t a church of intellectuals (or Sunstone would replace the Ensign). Sorry if that sounds Machiavellian. If a knowing person gave the full version of the church to me the moment I was capable of abstract thought I might have ignored it completely.
Comment # 23 by anonymous for now | Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
anonymous for now (#23): It’s great that you’ve been able to absorb each new version of Church History with nary a shock to your world view. It appears that as you mature, each new wrinkle deepens or adds color to an unchanging and rock solid premise.
I think many people, myself included, feel like the real story greatly changes, if not destroys, our previously held premise. As such, many of us scramble around to repair our previously held premise, or build a new one. Regardless of the new premise — the Church is still true, or the Church is not True, or somewhere in-between — I think you are right, it does feel like a “born again” experience. The posts here bear that out, and I’ve heard the sentiment expressed so many times around the Internet that I believe it to be fairly common.
(James Fowler’s Stages of Faith leads me to believe that such a “shock” it is common for most people, regardless of their faith tradition, though I’d argue that the “shock” is greater for those belonging to more Fundamental traditions like Mormonism.)
I’m not arguing for the “full version” to be taught from the moment of “abstract thought”… the “line upon line” principle applies to all knowledge. But like mathematics, I believe each new grade level should build upon the premise and principles of the previous level. For some people, when the full story is finally learned after 15 years of “Math”, its like learning that 2 + 2 really doesn’t equal 4. As such, they’d argue that the beginner courses should be changed to be more in line with the graduate level stuff.
Comment # 24 by Matt Thurston | Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
What was your first encounter with the idea that Church History was something more than what you were taught in Sunday School and/or Priesthood/Relief Society?
How old were you? I think I was 22 or 23
What was the book, or Internet site, or conversation?
The Brigham Young manual we were studying in Relief Society.
What was the idea (i.e. Masonry, Joseph Smith’s wives, Peep Stones, etc.) that made your head spin? \
As I was reading the heading to the chapter about the “New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage” I realized that nowhere in the manual was plural marriage mentioned and I thought that was kind of funny seeing as that is kind of what ole Brigham is known for in the world. Around the same time I was called to be a ward missionary and the pressure to bring our non-member friends was pretty heavy. While going over some of the materials we were given it occurred to me that people join the church without knowing anything about polygamy and certain other unsavory ideas…and the journey began.
Comment # 25 by Bett | Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
I am surprised that anyone here really believed the glossy version of church history.
Well, looking back at it, so am I. But as a 26 year-old convert, I bought the story hook, line and sinker. Pretty stupid, I guess.
Comment # 26 by Ann | Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
I actually just wrote a post a little while ago about my first experiences with the not so glossy version of church history. Enjoy
Comment # 27 by Jared E. | Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
It seems to me that those who end up being the most troubled when they discover the facts of Mormon history (as opposed to the glossy Sunday School version) are those who–for some reason or another–believe/feel that they are incapable of “saving themselves”….that is, those who feel they are incapable of working out their own salvation. Perhaps they were attracted to the LD Church because they believed/felt that they needed a community or an institution to guide them both spiritually and in the formation of values and ethics.
The LDS Church’s claims to Priesthood authority (which means that the individual is lost unless he/she submits to the authority of Church leaders) I think attracts people who are lonely or insecure in their own abilities to determine for their values for themselves.
On the other hand, there seem to be a surprising number of people who learn about Joseph Smith and 19th century Mormon concepts and see in these a theology that supports the values of individualism, personal Free Agency and accountability and Progression. Once in the Church, these seem to be the folks who struggle the most. They have seen in Mormonism something that is the total opposite of what others see.
It seems to me that this has been the tension within Mormonism from its beginnings…and that this tension became even greater following Joseph’s murder. On the one hand there are the radically liberating aspect of Joseph’s Nauvoo era theology. On the other, there are the theological claims concerning proper Priesthood authority, ordinances and obedience to “the Brethren”–all of which were stressed to save the LDS organization.
For me the question comes down to this: Is one looking for a religion or a church? The two are completely different things. Christianity is a religion. Methodism, Anglicanism, etc. are churches.
Like the Roman Catholic Church, the LDS Church tries to be both….which leads to the ridiculous notion (ridiculous to me, and also I think, to most rational people) that God operates solely through one earthly institution. When the insitution fails in some way, involves itself in a cover-up or some sort of unethical behavior in order to protect itself, religion–and to a degree, God–are called into quesiton.
Of course, the question that comes to my mind is this: If the Church really is “the only true Church”–authorized, guided and ultimately controlled by God Himself–why would it have to resort to historical cover-ups, whitewashing and deceptions of any type?
If one answers that “the prophets are only human” one answers truthfully, but this very truthful answer completely undermines the doctrine that one must “obey,” “follow” or “submit to the Priesthood authority” of the Brethren.
My religion is Mormonism: my relationship with Deity is based firmly on the Mormon Paradigm of Eternal Progression. But I am not LDS. I reject totally the LDS Church’s claims to exclusive Priesthood authority and to being “the one True Church” because Mormon history itself offers to proof or evidence that these claims are true.
When the LDS Church’s claims are put aside, Joseph Smith himself becomes much easier to understand, and those aspects of Mormon history that tend to trouble LDS Mormons, are not troubly in the least. That’s because the actions of others, do not change my own relationship with my Heavenly Parents….not do they reflect on the quality of that relationship, on my own ethics and valuues, or on my own Eternal Progression.
QUESTION: I was curious as to what those here think of Dan Vogel’s book JOSEPH SMITH: THE MAKING OF A PROPHET? In my opinion it is THE best biography of Joseph Smith written so far.
Comment # 28 by rob | Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
rob (#28): I think you pretty much nailed it.
I’ve read parts of Vogel’s book, and I’m familiar with the broad outline. I like what I’ve read. Some people seem to get hung up on whether Vogel proves this point or that. (As if the Church is able to prove their version of the same points.) To me that is missing the point. The strength of Vogel’s book is the overall portrait that it paints: Joseph is place squarely in reality as I know it, he’s not the Saint the Church makes him out to be, nor the Devil the anti’s make him out to be.
What do you like about the book?
Comment # 29 by Matt Thurston | Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
Matt, I think that Vogel’s biography is outstanding. His chronology of the translation of the Book of Mormon, along with his correlation of it to corresponding events in Joseph’s life is among the most ambitious tasks attempted by anyone writing LDS history–and it succeeds big-time. I think that the weakness of his biography lies in the fact that, in spite of all the original detail and information Vogel provides, he never really paints a cogent portrait of what Joseph was like or who he was. But, in fairness to Vogel, I think that this is the most difficult task that a biographer faces. As I pointed out in my previous comment, Brodie is the only one I think who accomplishes this effectively. Donna Hill certainly doesn’t manage it, and to the extant that Bushman paints such a portrait, it’s a bit too milquetoast–ironically, Bushman’s Joseph seems more driven by events than the driver of history that Brodie envisions.
Matt, in answer to your earlier question, there’s no one place where I outline my background in detail. This post at LDS Liberation Front is the closest thing.
Comment # 30 by DKL | Aug 25, 2006 | Reply
Matt, I also love the book because Vogel places Joseph squarely in reality, rejecting the supernatural altogether as well as the subjective sophistry employed by so many LDS historians.
I also love the fact that Joseph and the members of his immediate family come across as real human beings. Joseph comes across as brilliant but confused teen and young adult who, in his attempts to deal with his dysfunctional family and save his parents’ marriage, ended up creating a new religion. To my mind, this is endlessly fascinating–and to be honest, much more inspirational that the Sunday School version of Joseph’s life.
If Joseph was merely a mouthpiece for the Divine, then he is of no interest to me whatsoever. Passivity, even before God, is not an act of virtue. But in Vogel’s biography, Joseph is drive; he is actually working to accomplish somthing. Most importantly as far as religion is concerned, while he obviously believed in God, he never exhibited the least bit of FEAR towards God. As for the devil, I don’t think that Joseph ever believed in Satan’s exitence at all…other than as a literary or symbolic figure for the more unsavory and unethical manifestations of human nature. While I think that Joseph often felt guilt with regard to many aspects of his life and character, I don’t think that he ever, for even a moment, believed that he was in danger of damnation.
Joseph fearlesness toward Diety, and his obvious confidence in his own ability to comprehend truth and error, right and wrong, is refreshing–and with repect to religious history in general, it sets him apart from other religious reformers whose careers usually stemmed from their own insecurity before God.
Comment # 31 by Rob | Aug 25, 2006 | Reply
Hope this won’t be considered a threadjack, but I’m wondering if you guys who have liked Vogel’s attempt to link the Book of Mormon to Joseph’s autobiography and his starting a new religion partially out of an attempt to negotiate family dynamics ever read the Jess Groesbeck piece in the March 2004 magazine. I thought it was a fascinating approach to Smith and Book of Mormon origins that I’d hoped would draw far more interest and comments than it has. And it has an interesting way of straddling the natural/supernatural borderland, heading to Jung and the collective unconscious and archetypes rather than straight supernatural stuff. If anyone has the time or inclination, I’d love to see some discussion of it. Here’s the link: http://www.sunstoneonline.com/Download/bom/131_Groesbeck_Shaman.pdf
Cheers,
Dan
Comment # 32 by Dan | Aug 25, 2006 | Reply