And the enlightenment continues

[Anonymous]

I picked up a good book recently called Extraordinary Groups. Very fascinating as it describes fringe groups in society, and gives a brief history peppered with a sociological analysis of the reasons for their successes, failures, challenges, and in some cases, their future.

So far I have read about the Oneida group, and the Shakers. The Mormons are also described in the book. One thing that enlightened me was the time in which JS founded Mormonism. There was a substantial amount of experimentation going on at that time — particularly with utopian societies. It appears that no assumption was left unquestioned in some of the religions.

I was surprised at how very unusual sexual philosophy dominated many of the religions. The Shakers with their celibacy and lack of interaction between the sexes, the Oneida group, in contrast, with their “complex marriage” concept where everyone was considered married to everyone else. And therefore, if you wanted sex with a member of the local community, you asked a go-between to invite the person, and then spent a couple hours with them in their private room. And then, the Mormons with plural marriage. It seems that sexual experimentation, on a community basis, was at the root of several of the fringe groups at the time.

Also enlightening was one passage in which the author described the lack of safety net and social support systems available to the poor at the time. I believe this made joining a communal group very attractive — you could have the stability and security of living with people who tried to live a clear philospophy. And more importantly, if you needed basic necessities, they were normally provided in some format. There were hoops to jump through in the Oneida and Shaker groups — and periods of probation before you were accepted into the community. My sales training indicates that this can be effective in heighening desire for membership.

There was also a contrasting absence of this probationary period and intense screening in the Mormon beginnings. All groups — Mormons, Oneida, and Shakers all discouraged eating meat, although it was not apparently prohibited. I read other beliefs that were in common to these groups that appear to be the product of the time, rather than absolute revelation that I believed was unique to Mormonism when I first learned about it.

The more I read, the more I believe that JS and Mormonism were a product of the time. Unlike the Shakers and the Oneida, Brigham Young managed to hold Mormonism together, develop solid succession planning, and had a philosophy that encouraged perpetuation of the organization. The Shakers and the Oneida didn’t do as good a job of this.

The Shakers’ philosophy appealed to people dissaffected from marriage, and alienated young people so there wasn’t the potential for internal growth like we see in Mormonism. Children brought into the Shaker society usually left as soon as they were free to make an adult decision (about 21 years old).

The Oneida never had a solid succession plan, and when their leader appeared to falter in his enthusiasm for leadership the organization suffered. Further, that group’s philosophy toward child bearing was also restrictive — producing only 50-60 children from the community (all of whom, by most reports, were above average in a number of ways) wasn’t sustainable over the long term. They only permitted certain couples to have children, in hopes of engineering a more perfect society.

Anyway, I plan to read more, but I feel this objective and historical look at these religions has opened my eyes about the Mormon religion I joined 30 years ago 00 thinking it was unique. In many ways, it was unique, but in many ways, it was a modified form of prevailing thought during the time of JS.

Here is the book in case anyone is interested. I like how the author defines terms such as cultural relativism, complex marriage, and other terms that normally, only academic sociologists would know. It’s turning out to be a very good read. I will probably do some kind of short book review in the Book Reviews section at some point, but this post is for the historical context and how it has altered (a bit) my perception of the supposed uniqueness of Mormonism.

http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Groups-Examination-Unconventional-Lifestyles/dp/1429232242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426998158&sr=8-1&keywords=Extraordinary+Groups” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Groups-Examination-Unconventional-Lifestyles/dp/1429232242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426998158&sr=8-1&keywords=Extraordinary+Groups

[Anonymous]

Oh that is interesting. It changes the mental grip a bit. I have always loved the similarities between Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons. Dietary, Prophet beginning, Devout Sabbath Observance. It’s an interesting study. Thanks for this. I may need to add this to my reading.

[Anonymous]

Thanks. Too many books – to little time to read. I am looking forward to a more holistic review of the book as it does sound interesting.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Also enlightening was one passage in which the author described the lack of safety net and social support systems available to the poor at the time. I believe this made joining a communal group very attractive — you could have the stability and security of living with people who tried to live a clear philospophy. And more importantly, if you needed basic necessities, they were normally provided in some format.

I especially see this in the success of the early foreign missions. Yes there is a compelling message about God re-establishing his kingdom on earth – but it is also interwoven with “Come to america and be part of Zion.” Depending on your prospects in your home country it might be very appealing.

mom3 wrote:

Oh that is interesting. It changes the mental grip a bit. I have always loved the similarities between Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons. Dietary, Prophet beginning, Devout Sabbath Observance. It’s an interesting study. Thanks for this. I may need to add this to my reading.

I likewise have seen similarities between LDS and SDA. I like how the SDA seem to be downplaying their “fringyness.” I had understood that they believed that the world would end and the millennium would begin in the beggining of the seventh day (or period of 1k years) – thus the name “Seventh Day Adventist” (synonymous with Seventh Day Second Coming). When I talked to the pastor about it he totally downplayed it and said that it seems to make alot of sense to alot of people but is not something that they are committed to. Also with the dietary restrictions. Many are vegetarians, yet it is not required. I was told that one should only become a vegetarian if they feel personally called from God to take that step. I see how a church similar to ours can transition to be more mainstream.

SilentDawning wrote:

The more I read, the more I believe that JS and Mormonism were a product of the time. Unlike the Shakers and the Oneida, Brigham Young managed to hold Mormonism together, develop solid succession planning, and had a philosophy that encouraged perpetuation of the organization. The Shakers and the Oneida didn’t do as good a job of this.

I find it ironic that we LDS are stuck between seeing the restoration events as unheard of in their miraculous nature or “sounds weird by today’s standards but it was more accepted in that time.” I have even heard it explained that God used all the folklore, magic, and treasure digging to prepare JS and others to be receptive to his latter day “marvelous work.”

[Author]

Posts