- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just finished reading this very disturbing book. I found myself disturbed on many levels. The abuse was disturbing at a general level and in all the sordid particulars. The depth and breadth of it was astounding. The insights into FLDS culture were disturbing; the fact that such a strange little oppressive, totalitarian kingdom exists within our borders. Even giving allowance for some bias, Ms. Jessop does a tremendous job in describing what amounts to slavery. Sex is the only currency for those women, because everything else is taken away. I was not surprised at being disturbed by the above items. I was more surprised at being disturbed at other levels:
1) While I expected some commonality with LDS teachings, what disturbed me was the use of the SAME teaching by both groups to, and I’m struggling to find the correct verb here, because, there is a huge variance in degree, . . . to control, manipulate, encourage certain behaviors. I’m thinking of things like obedience to priesthood, the ‘apartness’ of being the chosen people, patriarchal blessings, ‘harmony’ with the priesthood, etc.
2) I hesitate to make a comparison here, because there is again a huge gulf in the degree, but some of the same things that keep FLDS in the ‘Faith’ are the same things that and LDS member faces if he/she leaves; ‘going to hell’, estrangement from family and support, etc.
3) Inability of the indoctrinated to see outside the framework of the doctrine they’ve been taught their whole life. This is a partial explanation for why the abused stay in the abusive situations, and Carolyn’s daughter Betty chose to go back. In the LDS framework, I have a sister-in-law whose youngest daughter is getting married to a young man this summer who is not a returned missionary. They are marrying in the temple, but this is not enough for my sister-in-law who has always been taught that young women should marry returned missionaries as prescription for exaltation and happiness in this life. There is a social component to this as well, because my sister-in-law’s husband is an erstwhile Stake President, and my sister-in-law views certain expectations as going along with that role. She has made herself ill over this issue. Again, I think there is a huge gulf between the FLDS example and the LDS example, but I think the concept is the same. While a framework of thought can be useful, it can also be a prison that causes much cognitive dissonance, reflected in the insanity of Merril Jessop’s wives and in perhaps less extreme examples all around us.
4) Education. The FLDS maintain their control, in many ways, by limiting the education their people can receive. The LDS church, at least outwardly, embraces education. My feeling is that the major focus on education though is on the ability of an educated person to provide for his/her family. Indeed, the LDS people generally are better educated that other populations (I don’t have stats on that, but that’s what I’ve heard.) On the other hand, any time knowledge threatens doctrine, then there is a loophole, or fallback point that defers to ‘God’ or the scriptures. I’m thinking here of things like genetic markers of Native American populations, evolution and the nature/origins of homosexuality as examples.
5) There are those in the LDS church who say that polygamy was righteous as long as it was condoned by God through his prophet, and the splinter groups went down wicked ways when they chose not to follow Wilford Woodruff. After much study and thought, my opinion is that polygamy was rotten in Kirtland, in Nauvoo and in Salt Lake City, long before the fundamentalists got their hands on it. It is a system that is fundamentally flawed in an economic sense, and ripe for abuse in a social sense.
The other thing that is interesting to me, is that if I think back to my childhood in the sixties, I think the attitudes of the main-stream LDS at that time were less divergent from some of the FLDS concepts than they are today. I’m talking about attitudes towards race, towards gender, towards science and education, towards medical care, etc,
Lastly, my other thought is the nature of isolationism vs. mainstreaming. I think the LDS church began a path of mainstreaming with the Manifesto that continues to this day. Living in a society makes the mainstream LDS more answerable to the laws of the land and to society, than are the FLDS, who are a completely isolated society which literally operates behind closed doors and high walls. I wonder if Wilford Woodruff foresaw the fundamental change in direction that the Manifesto would bring. Particularly in recent years, there is less emphasis on our LDS Doctrinal Quirks, and more on very basic things, which are much less offensive to society in general and Christianity in particular. Indeed most LDS, and I’m sure nearly all new LDS would be surprised to get a real factual view of our history and our doctrine. The focus of the church now is on raising families at a very practical level. It will be interesting to see what forty more years will bring.
I apologize for expressing my strong opinions here, but it is a passionate subject. I respect other opinions and know that there are those with fundamentalist leaning who read posts on this site.
Oh, I thought of two others: 1) Outside world and outside influences are evil.
2) Exploiting current events into a context of the world falling apart and the hastening of the final days.
Fwiw, ss, every single thing you mentioned that is not polygamy specific is relevant to ALL religions – and even most non-religious organizations. It’s just human nature, and it’s not within what I call “pure Mormonism”. (I’m a bit rushed, so that’s it for now.) Ray, I’ll look forward to further response, but I think your observations reflects the reasons for my growing distrust of formal religious institutions. I understand. I really do. I just try hard to separate the extremes (on BOTH ends of all organizations) from the normative middle (the majority of most organizations) from the ideal (the rare in all organizations). When I do that, I realize (for myself) that it’s no more critical to divorce one’s self from religion than it is to divorce one’s self from all human organizations – meaning socialization in general. ALL movements spawn extremes, norms and ideals – and I happen to love the ideals of Mormonism, really like most of the norms (when viewed by a broader lens than just the culture that arose in isolation in the Mountain West) and dislike the extremes (again, on BOTH ends of the LDS Church).
I had little time earlier, but, ironically, I would have added my belief that “Escape” hits the nail on the head with regard to most of the things you mention. There is LOTS to dislike within the culture that has been produced in much of the fundamentalist Mormon break-off groups – and there was much to dislike in the early practice of polygamy within the LDS Church. I would never argue otherwise, even as I can appreciate and understand that the whole experiment with plural marriage (in its multiple iterations back then) actually might have been an inspired attempt to model my vision of eternity in a way.
However, there also are many polygamous groups who are NOT examples of the horrors Jessop describes, as Bruce in Montana will attest. Therefore, my foundational assertion that it’s important to put it all in broader perspective – that the issues themselves are inherent to humanity and need to be addressed within ALL human organizations.
I do apologize for commenting when I was so rushed. It left the wrong impression, for that I am sorry.
SS, Yeah.
Tom
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.