My friend and fellow SHAFTer Jack was recently interviewed for the “I am an ex-Mormon” video series. In his interview, he discusses his experiences as a bisexual woman in the LDS Church and his life now as a transgender individual.
Jack, you’re an incredibly courageous person. Thanks for sharing your inspiring story! I regret not having gotten to know you better while at USU.
I have generally celebrated the success of “The Book of Mormon” musical. I enjoy irreverent satire, and the musical’s creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker have finely calibrated their satiric sights for over a decade with “South Park.”
That said, the musical did get several things wrong about Mormonism, especially where its history and theology are concerned. The musical was guilty of the fashionable claim that Joseph Smith never let anyone see or handle the gold plates, instead (quickly and conveniently) returning them to the angel Moroni. The implication, of course, is that Joseph Smith never had the gold plates; a point Stone and Parker also belabored in the South Park episode “All About Mormons.”
The story of Mormonism’s origins and the gold plates is vastly more nuanced, however. In this post, I’ll argue that Joseph Smith actually had gold plates (or a passable substitute). Contrary to popular belief outside of Mormonism, Smith did reveal the gold plates to a number people—namely the 11 witnesses, but a few others as well.
Few things serve as a starker reminder of Mormonism’s near omnipresence in Utah than the 14 temples that dot our state’s landscape. The Salt Lake temple, as the church’s flagship temple, casts the longest shadow. And because a lot of ex-Mormons and non-Mormons here don’t like living in that shadow, the Salt Lake temple for them almost takes on a menacing visage (the fact that it resembles a fortress doesn’t help).
But I have a confession to make: For the most part, I actually like the temples. Admittedly, I sometimes get the creeps from the Salt Lake temple. Perhaps it’s just too synonymous with the LDS Church’s inordinate influence in Utah. Otherwise, I’m able to divorce the temples from Mormonism and appreciate them as architectural works and landmarks.
This morning I ran across a column from the Trib called “Life in Mormon ads not consistent with reality.” The comments on the piece seem to split between agreeing with the writer and saying that she clearly has not gotten out of Utah or gotten to know her fellow church members very well.
The thing, I think, is that both camps are right. Not only are church members typically a little more diverse outside of the Book of Mormon belt, but I personally know a hugely varied range of people who are LDS church members. Not only do they have many different takes on their own religion, but their hobbies, careers, looks, race and everything else run the gamut.
BUT.
I also think the sort of people I attract as friends are semi-atypical of Mormons. While the people within the church may have individual lives, the capital-C Church has worked very hard for the last 40 years to create uniformity. The Mormons may have started out as a rag-tag bunch of trailblazers, but the implementation of correlation created personal conformity in addition to doctrinal conformity. From the top down a very conservative personal dress and lifestyle is encouraged. Many members feel pressure from leaders and doctrine to look and act a certain way, and (particularly in my area) any deviation from that is met with judgment from friends, neighbors and fellow congregants. Watch an R-rated movie? Expect a few whispers. Grow a beard? Better hope you don’t get called into the bishopric. Feel like you, as a woman, should work outside the home? God give you strength to deal with people telling you how you are hurting your family.* So members stay in line to stay in good standing with the church and because it is culturally reinforced.
I think this video kind of says it all. The church is trying to attract ever more diverse populations with a uniform, conservative message. But most church members I know deviate from that norm, at least somewhat. (Hell, my best friend is planning on getting dreads this summer!) So where is the truth on this issue? Does the new ad campaign reflect the reality of LDS membership, even if it doesn’t reflect the reality of correlation? Do I just know unusual Mormons? Or is the whole issue just shades of gray? Thoughts?
*Many of these are becoming more accepted and recent talks from church leadership have softened pronouncements on such issues as birth control, working moms and other divisive issues, but there are still a lot of traditional expectations for members.
This post was written by my friend and recent USU alumnus Di. It was originally published at her blog and is shared here with her permission.
At the risk of coming across as a raving anti-Mormon to people who don’t know me well, I offer the following story to those dealing with non and former Mormons.
Matt and I had a couple of people who I assume were from Relief Society (Mormon women’s organization) drop by the other day to welcome us to the neighborhood. It was very nice of them to introduce themselves and ask about us. But as soon as those brief niceties were over, they then asked if we were members and we said no. Which was followed by asking if we had been baptized, to which we said yes. They proceeded to tell us where the church was and what time services are. Then they pointed out all our member neighbors, while seemingly not knowing or not caring about any of the non churchgoing neighbors.
I get that there is a lot of emphasis put on missionary work and fellowshipping (being friendly to with a missionary slant) non and inactive members. But this whole visit was really frustrating to me, because I felt like it went from a really nice “welcome to the area” visit to a “missionary/we don’t care about you if you don’t come to church” visit in 30 seconds.
The following is a paper I wrote for a class in 2008. It was among my first forays into Mormon studies, and my understanding of Mormonism has evolved slightly since then. Still, I hope the paper yields a few insights—at least enough to excuse its length!
Mormonism is a religion colored by complexities and contradictions. The prolific Mormon essayist Eugene England called the Mormon experience “essentially, as well as existentially, paradoxical.” LDS author Terryl Givens, more recently, posits a similar thesis in his book People of Paradox.
“By proving contraries, truth is made manifest,” said Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the LDS Church. Informed by Smith’s statement, I will discuss Mormonism’s contraries in the hope of explaining the religion. My method in this paper will follow the seven Cs of religious studies: creed, code, cultus, community, culture, confines, and consciousness. In each of these seven characteristics exist tensions that help define Mormonism.
One of the most important aspects of a religion is its creed—its set of core beliefs. The Mormon “creed,” as it were, can be found in the Articles of Faith. Joseph Smith penned a letter to the inquiring John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat, articulating 13 fundamental doctrines of Mormonism. The letter was later canonized as the Articles of Faith.
The primary articles affirm the church’s belief in: God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost; free moral agency and accountability for one’s actions; the salvation of man through the Atonement and “by obedience to the laws and ordinances [faith, repentance, baptism by immersion, and the laying on of hands] of the Gospel”; the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly” and the Book of Mormon as scripture; continuing revelation; and the Restoration of the Primitive Church.
A book all about the female gender written by…15 old white guys?
In the spirit of Black History Month, I want to give a quick biographical sketch of Jane Manning James, an early black convert to Mormonism. Jane joined the LDS Church in 1843 at the age of 21. That year, she and eight other black Mormons walked 800 miles to Nauvoo, where the bulk of the church was then located.
For their time, early Mormons were actually quite progressive on the matter of race. Joseph Smith, for example, ordained several black males to the priesthood (the black priesthood ban wasn’t fully articulated or enforced until Brigham Young became president). Many early Saints also had abolitionist sympathies, and the fear that Mormons wanted to free slaves is partly why the church was driven out of Missouri. And when Smith ran for president of the United States in 1844, he campaigned on a platform of abolition. Appreciating this context, it’s not hard to see how these black members might have felt welcome among the Saints.
When Jane arrived in Nauvoo, she was directed to Joseph Smith’s Mansion House. There, they were shown extraordinary hospitality, and Jane even lived with Smith for some time. Shortly before Joseph Smith was murdered in 1844, Emma Smith extended an invitation to Jane to be sealed to the Smith family as an adopted daughter. Flattered, but unsure what exactly the offer meant, she declined—a decision that would prove to be a life-long regret. More about that soon.