Barbara O'Brien's Blog: Rethinking Religion

Review: The Mormon Delusion, Volume 4

Religion had a wild ride in 19th century America. Transcendentalism was born about 1830 and grew into a major cultural movement that still influences us today. The antebellum period saw prominent Christian denominations split apart over slavery. After the Civil War Americans became fascinated with spiritism and trying to contact the dead through seances. Transcendentalism plus spiritism plus Orientalism gave rise to Theosophy. Idealistic Christians formed the Social Gospel movement. Premillennialist eschatology grew in popularity and by the end of the century had been folded into a new movement, Fundamentalism, which would have a huge impact on the 20th century.

Within this dynamic crucible of religious development, Mormonism was born. Founded by Joseph Smith in the 1820s, at first Smith and his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seemed like many other "restorationist" Christian groups that had sprung up in the 18th and early 19th centuries. But Smith and his teachings grew increasingly distant from Christian orthodoxy. After Smith's death at the hands of a mob in 1844, most of the LDS faithful were led West by Brigham Young to begin building their church into the controversial international organization it is today.

I think it's useful to look at Mormonism's beginnings in 19th century America, because much of it still echoes with 19th century American religious culture. In particular the combination of exotic esotericism combined with literalist scripture interpretation makes it seem like the love child of B. B. Warfield and Madame Blavatsky. But how is it surviving in the 21st century?

Jim Whitefield's series The Mormon Delusion is essential reading for anyone trying to understand Mormonism, both its history and how it exists today. Whitefield is a former Mormon-turned-atheist who provides an insider's exhaustive knowledge of a faith that remains mysterious to outsiders.

What is the appeal of this relic of 19th century Americana? Why, among so many other religious movements initiated then, has Mormonism continued to thrive?

I chose to begin with The Mormon Delusion. Volume 4. The Mormon Missionary Lessons - A Conspiracy to Deceive. to answer this question. Young Mormon men are strongly encouraged to devote two years to proselyting, and some young women do likewise. Volume 4 of TMD explains exactly how the young people are prepared to go forth and win converts to their oddly anachronistic faith.

Whitefield describes a pattern of rigid indoctrination that discourages genuine questioning and reflection. This is necessary, Whitefield says, because Mormon doctrines -- which have undergone many changes since Joseph Smith's day -- are full of internal inconsistencies, never mind having been subject to sudden and radical changes over the years.

Mormonism developed at a time when literalist scriptural interpretation was taking hold of Christianity. But most of Christianity has deep roots in earlier times, when mythic language still spoke to the psyche, and it has a deep tradition of theological scholarship that allows for questioning.

But Mormonism's roots are not that deep, and its origins are not nearly mysterious enough to hide how it was cobbled together out of fantastical stories that make no sense as myths. Like the proverbial frog, if you have to swallow the thing it's best to not chew it or even think about it much.

Although fundamentalists deny this, much Christian theology shows us that Christianity and faith in God are not dependent on believing the Garden of Eden had a geographical location or that an actual large fish swallowed Jonah. Bible stories have rich allegorical meanings that shine forth more clearly when you don't have to "believe in" them literally.

But I don't see that Mormonism's founding "myths" enjoy the same benefit; they appear to have no meaning other than to give divine authority to Joseph Smith and his doctrines. This means Mormonism really does depend on literal belief in fantastical things and could not survive a loss of that belief. This eventually could lead to its downfall, but at the moment it seems to be surviving pretty well.

There was a lot I did not realize about Mormon teachings. Whitefield says Mormons today are taught God has a physical body, for example, although that wasn't originally a Mormon doctrine. However, even in the early days as Whitefield presents them, Smith appeared to make it up as he went along. Whitefield argues also that the LDS Church is perpetually retooling itself to keep itself marketable. Polygamy was dropped years ago, of course. The Church is currently struggling to justify a teaching central to its myths, that Native Americans are descendents of a lost Hebrew tribe, which is now thoroughly debunked by DNA.

In short, Mormonism requires a degree of credulity high even by American religious standards. Is that credulity sustainable in an Internet age? I suspect the LDS Church will eventually be forced to move back toward mainstream Christian doctrine to survive.

Whitefield also criticizes Mormonism's current antagonism toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. You may know that the LDS Church put a lot of effort into "Prop 8," a law meant to stop same-sex marriage in California that was found unconstitutional. More recently a church member named John P. Dehlin, who publicly advocated for welcoming homosexuals into the LDS Church, was ordered to either resign from the church or face a disciplinary council. Apparently the church isn't budging.

My biggest criticism of The Mormon Delusion, Volume 4: The Mormon Missionary Lessons is that (for my taste) Whitefield spends way too much time arguing with an unseen Mormon reader that Mormon doctrinal claims cannot possibly be factual. Someone who doesn't need to be persuaded can see this without being told and probably would be inclined to skip those parts, although I understand why Whitefield felt it important to make the arguments.

This is a richly detailed book, and the series as a whole is an invaluable resource for anyone trying to understand Mormonism.

Faithless Faith

The Faith and Freedom Coalition's "Road to Majority" conference in Washington DC ends today. An annual event, this year's shindig turned into a contest over which potential 2016 Republican presidential nominee could blow the loudest dog whistles.

The biggest headlines from the event so far told us that some genius put Obama bobblehead dolls in the men's urinals. And the speeches seemed to be on about the same intellectual level. One speaker after another declared unquestioning loyalty to the Coalition's dogmas: abortion must be criminalized, same-sex marriage must be stopped, Barack Obama is evil incarnate, and Christians must be restored to their rightful place as the dominant tribe of the U.S.

There were reports a few meek voices spoke up to suggest the attendees ought to recognize America's religious diversity, but it seems they were mostly shouted down.

Groupthink just doesn't look like "freedom" to me, no matter how many "don't tread on me" T-shirts one may spot in the herd. It also seems to me that the attendees espouse a peculiarly faithless faith.

This faithless faith rests on the proposition that the reality of God depends on a literal interpretation of scripture. If evolution is true, for example, then God is not real. It's a faith with conditions.

And for all their expressed devotion to the Bible, their "God" seems more to be based largely on their own projections. He all-too-perfectly reflects and confirms their fears, biases, resentments and various social and psychological pathologies.

I wonder what they'd do if Jesus himself materialized at the conference and said, you know, you've got God all wrong, and you've entirely missed the point of everything I taught. I bet some of them would boo their Lord and Redeemer off the stage.

Their real faith isn't in God, or even the Bible. It's in their fears, biases, resentments and various social and psychological pathologies, which they cling to the way someone cast into an ocean might cling to anything that floats.

It's through those fears, etc., that they define themselves and make sense of the world. It's the conceptual box they live in. Whatever is outside the box terrifies them, because if the box is destroyed the "me" they've always believed in and the world they've constructed in their heads would disappear.

This isn't freedom, and it isn't faith, either. As I wrote in my book, Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World ,

The notion that Christianity is mostly about arranging one’s mental furniture in accord with a belief system would have been alien to most of the great Christian theologians of history. “Faith” to early Christian theologians — and many recent ones, for that matter — was not at all a synonym for belief. It was more about love of or trust in a God whose nature and opinions were beyond human understanding. To declare you know what God thinks about anything, including which politicians he supports, would have been blasphemy to them.

It's possible to have great religious faith with no God-object at all (see, for example, Buddhism). Genuine faith does not demand the world conform to one's belief system; just the opposite. According to many great theologians, genuine faith requires trust, compassion for others, and sometimes self-sacrifice. Not a lot of that on display at the "Faith and Freedom" conference.