“Getting” the Mormons
In my cultural history work on Mormonism, I often encounter contemporary critics attempting to assess just what the Mormons were claiming. Often, critics were so angry that all they could sputter was that the Mormons were strange sectarians and were headed for hell. These critics are also notorious for misinformation. One Methodist critic from 1842 seems to have aptly understood the nature of Mormonism, even though he hated it.
‘the first and fundamental principle of Mormonism’ is to believe implicitly all the pretended revelations of Joseph Smith, as much as though they were written in the Bible [specifically, Mormons believe] the following cardinal positions—a meager and ghastly skeleton. 1. Joseph Smith is a prophet of the Lord, and a priest after the order of Melchisedek. 2. The Book of Mormon is true, i. e., inspired. 3. Zion is on this land, (Nauvoo, Illinois.). 4. Matter is eternal. 5. God is a material being. 6. The saints are to be baptized for their dead relations, on peril of their own salvation.â€[1]
Beyond his mixing Missouri with Nauvoo, how do you think Kidder did? What does it indicate about how early Mormons were interacting with their neighbors and intellectual milieu? Could we accept this today as a credo of sorts? Would we be comfortable if Helen Whitney’s documentary presented this list?
——————————–
[1]Daniel P. Kidder, Mormonism and the Mormons: A Historical View of the Rise and Progress of the Sect Self-styled Latter-day Saints. New York: Lane & Sandford for the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1842, 232-4.
Sam,
You should take a look at Steve Taysom’s recently completed dissy on Mormon boundary maintenance (available through UMI). He worked with Stephen Stein at Indiana. Taysom analyzes the changing conceptions of the boundaries of Zion, and argues that during the 1840s Zion was Nauvoo, not Jackson County. So maybe Kidder wasn’t that far off on that point.
Comment by David — April 30, 2007 @ 9:07 am
“a meager and ghastly skeleton,” indeed. Although nothing is inherently wrong with the description, it is so full of holes and complete blanks that it looks like it was written by a freshman high school student. I much prefer the 13 Articles of Faith, although even they are sketchy and miss some doctrines of importance. It would be like saying:
‘the first and fundamental principle of Catholicism’ is to believe implicitly all the pretended revelations of Jesus Christ, as much as though they were written in the Old Testament [specifically, Catholics believe] the following cardinal positions—a meager and ghastly skeleton. 1. The Pope acts as Jesus’ Christ’s representative. 2. The New Testament is true, i. e., inspired. 3. Rome is the center of Ecclesiastic authority. 4. Communion turns to the actual blood and flesh substance of Jesus Christ 5. God is a Mystery 6. They pray to the Saints and the Virgin Mary.
All true enough, but that leaves off so many explanations of what the meaning and purpose of the theology. Not to mention those are far from the only things they believe or how they are related to other teachings and doctrines.
Comment by Jettboy — April 30, 2007 @ 9:11 am
Sam, I think those points show rare insight for someone — in 1842! — who is an outsider. Mentioning melchizedek, the BoM as “inspired,” the eternal nature of matter — these are not easy points to seize upon. I think the idea of “Zion is on this land” is something a contemporary could likely grasp due to a multitude of similar cults, but the rest of it is really pretty good, in some ways better than our current array of pamphlets.
I’d be comfortable if Helen Whitney had presented this list. I think it is above-average as non-mormon summaries go. Jettboy, I think your angry characterization is a bit unfair.
Comment by Steve Evans — April 30, 2007 @ 9:42 am
Sam, it seems — and I can’t produce references right now, so this is my recollection for whatever it’s worth — that some Mormons believed that Nauvoo would actually replace Missouri as Zion. So maybe he was even right on that.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — April 30, 2007 @ 9:47 am
The saints are to be baptized for their dead relations, on peril of their own salvation.
This is one that I think is quite important, even if it doesn’t have as much traction in our modern conceptions. The idea that we can only be saved together is tremendous.
Comment by J. Stapley — April 30, 2007 @ 9:49 am
David O. McKay was even pithier: “divine authority by direct revelation”
Ok, so he was talking about “the most distinguishing feature” of the Church (then again, the Methodist critic appears to be drawing up a similar list), not the catalog of its beliefs, but the point remains that brevity in describing our beliefs doesn’t bother me a whit.
Comment by Peter LLC — April 30, 2007 @ 9:52 am
I’m not sure that was the question Sam was asking, Jettboy. He was asking if it would serve as a credo. Surely credos will always be “full of holes” and “blanks,” as they have to be pithy and general. Obviously you could have a much more complete statement of our faith if you took a couple of thousand pages to do it, but then you wouldn’t have a very useful credo.
Comment by jimbob — April 30, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Angry characterization? Is that because of what I said or how I am percieved. There wasn’t any anger intended - only observation. My comment might have been a little sarcastic, but not angry.
Comment by Jettboy — April 30, 2007 @ 10:02 am
It seems this list is quite accurate, as has been noted above, considering the Chruch was only 12 years old that time. At least he didn’t claim we weren’t Christians.
Comment by lamonte — April 30, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Re: Nauvoo as Zion. I agree it was a very complex issue. They continued to have wistful feelings about the original Zion even as they were establishing anew something like a replacement for it. I think the Adam-ondi-Ahman traditions about Adam’s patriarchal farewell and the apocalyptic rethinking of Daniel’s Ancient of Days argue for Missouri, but the temple and the hotel argue for Nauvoo, even though Nauvoo had a stake, which would not, by contemporary taxonomy, have referred to Zion proper. I’m excited to look at the PhD.
Jettboy: I’m impressed that Kidder didn’t misunderstand core beliefs, even if he didn’t like them. That’s relatively rare and fairly useful insight about how people negotiate denominational and sectarian identity.
Comment by smb — April 30, 2007 @ 10:07 am
“Angry characterization? Is that because of what I said or how I am percieved [sic].”
Jettboy, as always perception counts for a lot. That said, when you characterize someone’s writing as “so full of holes and complete blanks that it looks like it was written by a freshman high school student,” that’s not sarcasm — that’s straight-up harsh criticism. To call it “only observation” isn’t quite right, is it?
but you’re not the topic here — the summary of mormonism is. Jimbob’s got it right.
Comment by Steve Evans — April 30, 2007 @ 10:12 am
I think the difference is everyone is answering the first question where I am answering the last. I still think Kidder didn’t do a good job even after 12 years - although much better than most of the period short of alowing Mormons to tell it themselves.
Comment by Jettboy — April 30, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Fair enough, harsh criticism. That isn’t the same as anger. As for it not about myself, I would agree if “anger” wasn’t such a personalized perception of my response.
Comment by Jettboy — April 30, 2007 @ 10:27 am
If you allow Kidder’s bald statements to stand as shorthand for the fuller doctrines implied by those statements, it’s remarkable. His scope is broad and points directly to the ways Mormonism is utterly different from generic Christianity.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — April 30, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Sam, Do you have information on the context of this critic’s six points? Who was his audience? Was it in reaction to anything?
As a believing Mormon, none of his statements seemed outrageous or unfair in its depiction of LDS beleifs (and sure, I would be comfortable with Whitney presenting that list as long as she put it in its historical context), but I think it is a safe assumption to believe that for this Methodist critic, these six points were quite outrageous.
Why?
I am not a student of history, so I haven’t seen a lot of these early Mormon critics, but it struck me as odd to see “matter is eternal” make the top six.
Ardis, this is a new idea to me — I did not know that “matter is eternal” is contrary to traditional Christianity. Is the blaspheme here the suggestion that God didn’t “create” the matter? (maybe I answered my own question there –that seems to make sense).
Comment by Glenn — May 1, 2007 @ 6:42 am
Glenn, he was writing to Methodists at a time when it was becoming clear that the Mormons had a shot at an enduring utopia in Nauvoo and sympathy over Missouri was starting to wane.
Yes, matter is eternal is an attack on creation ex nihilo and aligned Smith more with metaphysical materialists than with mainline Christianity.
Comment by Sam MB — May 1, 2007 @ 7:23 am
Glenn, you did answer it on your own. Ex nihilo (creation from nothing) is a core traditional Christian belief, particularly in the context of the argument over the age of the earth and the nature of God and man. Ex nihilo allows those who believe it to ignore things like carbon dating and claim the earth is only thousands of years old. (created fully mature, without evolutionary influence) Also, “physical material” is seen as the corrupt aspect of our soul, which explains why #5 (God is a material being.) would be on the list, as well.
Richard L. Bushman (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling) said at a fireside last week that he believes one of the most under-explored aspects in academia of JS’s teachings is his concept of the cosmos, so I would say that the critique in 1842 is amazingly astute.
Comment by Ray — May 1, 2007 @ 7:29 am