Ross Douthat has a quick comment on a Noah Feldman piece on Mormonism. Feldman is really, really smart; but his argument is a bit more extended than it needs to be. This interest in the religion is basically sparked by the Romney candidacy. A few quick points:
First, the evangelical Protestant (and to a lesser extent other Christians) hostility toward Mormonism is I think pretty comprehensible and requires little analytic decomposition: they think Mormons are liars. Specifically, Mormon theology is so different from the range of ideas in circulation among "orthodox" Christians that most evangelicals would reject that Mormons are Christian, and Mormon assertion that they are just inflames them further. The details of historical plausibility aren't really that critical, they're icing on the cake.
Second, the strangeness of Mormon beliefs in relation to a comparison point of mainstream Christianity affects the reaction of those who reject mainstream Christian beliefs (and theism in general). An acquaintance of mine who is an atheist and a conservative could not help express contempt and disdain for Romney's religion above & beyond their typical reaction because the beliefs are so far outside the range of expectation within American culture. In other words, there are only a finite number of religious schemas which Americans, even non-religious ones, find acceptable. The antiquity fixation that some exhibit is simply the packaging; there is obviously a range of "acceptability" for secular, but not Sam Harris level hostile, intellectuals in regards to religion. Some "spirituality" is better than other "religions." An important side point I suspect is that Feldman is right to juxtapose Mormonism's "All American" exoteric presentation as opposed to its rather atypical esoteric beliefs. If Mitt Romney had brown skin and wore a turban he wouldn't even get to the point of running for president, but I also doubt that liberal intellectuals would be as comfortable mocking him.
Third, I have to make something explicit: though I find Mormonism less plausible in the secondary details in its scripture, I find the theology central to the religion more coherent than that of mainstream Christianity. I think it is pretty clear that the civilization described in the Book of Mormon was invented by Joseph Smith working off ideas and preconceptions in the Zeitgeist of early 19th century antiquarian America. In contrast, the Hebrew Bible, the Gospels, the Koran, etc., have a much higher proportion of historically plausible events and acts (the Hebrew Bible has historically confirmed events embedded within it, not simply plausible ones). That being said, I find the Mormon concept of God as a material being intelligible via common sense reflection much more coherent than the mainstream Christian positions expressed in the Athanasian Creed. I don't happen to believe the Mormon position in regards to God, but I actually understand what they're trying to say. Though I don't have the normal sociological prejudice against Mormons, I am thinking I might have to reconsider why I tend to accept the proposition that Mormonism is more ludicrous based on avowed beliefs.
- Log in to post comments
The passage of time has covered the facts surrounding the origination of Christianity with a dignified veil of uncertainty. Mormonism is so new that it still has that new-religion smell, and the manner of its manufacture is obvious to anyone willing to do even a little critical thinking.
There's also a matter of sincerity: I suspect many Christians neither know nor care about the details of the religion but profess it merely because everyone around them does. The few Mormons I've met personally seemed to genuinely believe, and to be better educated about their doctrines than most Christians are about their faith.
Although you gloss over it early in the post, I think that you answered your own question: We have a learned predisposition to accept religions that have at least the veneer of antiquity to them. For some reason, the passing of hundreds (or thousands) of years leads us easily to an old gem of a logical fallacy (even if it's intuitive rather than explicit) that the older an idea is, the more legitimate and "true" it must be.
Historically and sociologically, no religion is actually ancient (although it may be historically connected to an ancient belief system). All religions extant today are in effect and in content "modern" because they have necessarily changed over time. That Christianity (or Islam or Buddhism) has a historical provenance that extends into antiquity does not mean that it's content, form and practice today are the same as they were in the past. Contemporary conservative evangelicalism is at best only 30 years old in its current formation. Even Mormonism, barely 167 years old, is vastly different today than it was in 1835, when it was only 5 years old as a movement. The standard of antiquity or "tradition" is not adequate for evaluating a religious tradition, as none would stand up to the standard.
With mormonism, its roots are within historical memory and the documentary evidence is rich, so that unlike other religions whose aura of antiquity is so thick, it is much more evident that the religion was made by humans (in this case, a rather charismatic charlatan) in a particular time and place to answer particular, historically specific quesitons and problems. Mormonism tries to deal with this through its "restorationism". Whether we're talking about Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Jain, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soka Gakai, or Joseph Smith, or any other religion, they are always emerging out of their milieu and always using the sources available to them, always contemporary and always situated.
In short, religion is culture (albeit with that extra sense of transcendance layered on top for good measure).
Sociologically speaking (sorry, i'm a sociologist so I can't resist), mormonism funcitons like most any smaller, minority, "alternative" religion, with tight social boundaries and peculiar beliefs and practices. The prejudices that make it seem "weird" are the natural outgrowth of it being minority and different. But stepping back from it, it's just a religion; that is, just a culture.
That said, all religions can and should be evaluated. I would propose that the religions are best evaluated by the consequences or effects of their beliefs and practices, rather than the contents of those beliefs and practices. As you point out, Christians don't like mormons (that is, they evaluate mormonism) based on its difference from their beliefs. For us secularists and/or social scientists (i.e., me), given that all religions are irrational beliefs (I mean that in as value-neutral a way as possible) and cultural conventions made by human beings, a religion's difference from an accepted religious norm is a less-than-useful place to evaluate.
Razib: "If Mitt Romney had brown skin and wore a turban he wouldn't even get to the point of running for president, but I also down that liberal intellectuals would as comfortable mocking him."
Yup. From the liberal perspective, Mormons are the ideally mockable religious/cultural group. "Other" yet not subaltern, in anthro-speak. Unquestionable whiteness and nominally Christian - both majority oppressor identifications - yet exotically weird in theology, ritual, and attire ("funny underwear - tee hee"!). A group with growing power in business and politics, and you can hint about Mormon conspiracies with being antisemitic.
Mormonism has no history of social gospel or liberation theology variants that might encourage liberals to cut the faith some slack. People have told me that Mormonism is racist. How soon people forget the recent de jure and de facto racism of so many other faiths. Those who would never confuse the Sufism of Bauhaus' Peter Murphy with bin Laden's militant Salafism sloppily identify mainstream LDS with polygamist cults.
Recall how Orthodox Slavs were convenient bad guys for Hollywood movies for years - as white Christians a socially and psychologically acceptable foreign hate figure for liberals, unlike Arab Muslims.
On socially acceptable Mormon-bashing: I'm not talking about the South Park episode, which was funny and ultimately had a pro-Mormon or at least pro-tolerance message. I mean uninhibited bile like Lawrence O'Donnell's outburst. And somehow, many tend to selectively pass over the fact that Harry Reid is Mormon.
Mormonism is so new that it still has that new-religion smell, and the manner of its manufacture is obvious to anyone willing to do even a little critical thinking.
religious distance matters. my conservative protestant friends were quite religiously skeptical about the claims of hinduism, for example. age might matter, but really i think the perception of character-by-character difference is a bigger affect (in this case, mormon 'characters' are theology and esoteric practice within the temples).
Whether we're talking about Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Jain, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soka Gakai, or Joseph Smith, or any other religion, they are always emerging out of their milieu and always using the sources available to them, always contemporary and always situated.
yes, but perceptions as to whether a religious tradition is evolutionary or revolutionary matters. there were plenty of restorationists in 19th century america, but you don't here about the disciples of christ as a cult. that's because they accept mainstream protestant theology. other new groups such as seventh day adventists and the neo-arian jehovah's witnesses push the envelope further. finally, i think christian science is close to mormonism in terms of the negative feeling toward it from mainstream evangelicals, but their numbers are so small that they aren't a major concern.
In short, religion is culture (albeit with that extra sense of transcendance layered on top for good measure).
i think religion is culture overlain on top of sociology. for some people it is also transcendence (mysticism) and for others it is philosophy (theology, metaphysics, etc.).
Sociologically speaking (sorry, i'm a sociologist so I can't resist), mormonism funcitons like most any smaller, minority, "alternative" religion, with tight social boundaries and peculiar beliefs and practices. The prejudices that make it seem "weird" are the natural outgrowth of it being minority and different. But stepping back from it, it's just a religion; that is, just a culture.
right. mormonism is a 'sect.' that being said, it is jumped the chasm so that it is perceived as a heresy or rival religion, not just as a schismatic group. the difference might be quantitative, but mormonism subsumes sectarian elements in its relation to christianity along with aspects of being an alternative religious tradition.
Unquestionable whiteness and nominally Christian - both majority oppressor identifications - yet exotically weird in theology, ritual, and attire ("funny underwear - tee hee"!).
though do note that in a few years a sizable majority of mormons will likely be non-white. there's some ambiguity here because mormon statistics can be a bit fishy, and many overseas baptisms don't 'stick.' even in the USA mormonism is a high turnover religion (lots of conversion and defection, see barry kosmin's work at CUNY).
Mormonism has no history of social gospel or liberation theology variants that might encourage liberals to cut the faith some slack.
i think this is disputable. the early mormons came out of the northeastern radical religious milieu which was mixed in with social libertarionist sentiments. and many of the early american converts were economically marginal. in any case, the trend over the past century has been a strong shift away from radicalism so that this past is forgotten, but both mormons and non-mormons.
I would never vote a Mormon candidate for high office, not because of anything to do with their religious beliefs per se, or even religion per se -- but because I fear they would make it a national policy to station hall monitors in front of all bathrooms, in order to check your hall pass whenever you had to go to the bathroom (even in your own house). And that would only be for starters.
I think part of the equation is quite simple, ok, there are several steps involved, but basically,
1. Mormons = weird because of the polygamy thing (strange sexual practices) +
2. Mormons = scary because of the mormon missionary thing (they might try to convert you) +
3. Mormons = scary + weird because they are trying to make friends and find common ground with their natural enemies, the evangelical christians (we hate the gay, abortion rights, women belong pregnant at home, we hate teh sex even more than you do) I see it as some sort of cosmic justice for not reading Freud; they don't understand the hatred that arises from small differences.
This way Mormons get blowback from both sides; the evangelicals don't like them because of 1 and 2 (they might convert some of the flock plus sex = bac) and the non-evangelicals don't like them because of 3) -- the very bad rep said evangelicals have by behaving very very badly over the last umpteen years.
Ah well.
bac = bad; though bac sounds interesting.
djinn, right, you highlight that the anti-mormon sentiment is a product of a sequence of joint necessary conditions. e.g., if mormons weren't one of the largest denominations in america and converting evangelicals at a decent rate there wouldn't be as much of an outcry (that being said, evangelicals also convert mormons at a fair clip from what i've seen).
I think alot of the creepiness value of Mormonism and Scientology comes from the fact that they are the only modern mystery cults. A Mystery cult is essentially a religion that believes that the truths of the universe must be revealed over the course of many levels of initiation (Some would say brainwashing). Just as entry level Scientologists don't know a thing about Xenu your average Mormon knows nothing about the current forms of polygamy in the church or the belief in "Spiritual Polygamy".
I think alot of the creepiness value of Mormonism and Scientology comes from the fact that they are the only modern mystery cults. A Mystery cult is essentially a religion that believes that the truths of the universe must be revealed over the course of many levels of initiation (Some would say brainwashing).
hm. first, i don't know if mormonism is really that mysterious. they're evasive about their doctrines, but it isn't like they aren't known, if you ask them directly they'll admit to the 'weirder' stuff. they just don't usually want to start talking about it in a public forum where people who are biased against them are going to use their beliefs to ridicule them. second, there other religions out there that qualify as mystery cults according to your definition. the druze for example, and to some extent the alawites as well. though you are probably right that scientology is the most prominent case in the united states. but with scientology the hostility against them is partly due to the fact that the 'church' is an aggressive corporate entity (in the broad sense) that sues and coerces people into silence, and has been accused of 'cultish' behavior (e.g., blackmailing members about their sex lives).
btw, there are a fair number of middle eastern 'mystery cults,' in part because of the intolerance of islam in that region to new religions.
The Romney candidacy: let's apply it personally, "How do your religious beliefs or lack thereof affect your ability to do your job?"
A less-than-useful place to evaluate from?
Ah let me see, this all sounds familiar...
there's a book that documents what happened to some believers when their religious beliefs were expressed in the wrong political climate by a religious minority ...
um, I think it starts off with a baby born in a manger....?
If Mitt Romney had brown skin and wore a turban . . .
. . . he'd be Baha'i.
There is a subset of atheists/agnostics who have an almost unhealthy obsession with/hatred of Scientology that includes the idea that it's not a 'real' religion (a charge many Christians level at Mormonism). I am completely baffled by the idea that one group of fairy tales is considered more or less legitimate than another.
Sure Mormons have some weird and distasteful ideas and history. All religions do. It's sort of built in to the nature of them.
Razib,
Could you be more specific about what aspect of Mormon theology you find more coherent than mainstream Christianity?
I'm a non-believer (agnostic on my good days) so I'm not looking for a theology fight, I'm just curious what you meant. I find Mormonism fascinating. It's like getting to watch an early stage religion develop and adapt.
On how religions are treated differently ... I think that's normal in any society. Certain magical ideas are part of the mainstream and others aren't.
Over Christmas I listened to the women of my family discuss my sister-in-law's visit to a "soul reader". These women were a mix of Catholic, Lutheran, and Southern Baptist. All were raised in mainstream churches, mostly in middle and lower-middle class white families. Yet there they were calmly discussing ideas like reincarnation (the soul reader had said my sis-in-law had an "old soul" with only a few more lives left).
This also might be a gender difference. I know many more women than men that believe a lot of wacky supernatural things. But I've mainly known men to be ultra-doctrinaire theologically. I view that as just the adult male religious version of the 10 year old boy who knows everything about dinosaurs.
Could you be more specific about what aspect of Mormon theology you find more coherent than mainstream Christianity?
the trinity is incomprehensible. the greek terminology, essences, substances, are total historical anachronisms. in contrast, the mormon god is almost childishly comprehensible, he's a material being who resides in this universe with superior powers. he can't defy logic. also, jesus and the holy ghost are distinct entities, there's no trinity.
This also might be a gender difference. I know many more women than men that believe a lot of wacky supernatural things. But I've mainly known men to be ultra-doctrinaire theologically. I view that as just the adult male religious version of the 10 year old boy who knows everything about dinosaurs.
theology is for religion nerds. as it is, these are dominant within the clerical caste, and so of course our superficial perception of religion is dominated by their sensibilities.