- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
When I was reading Rough Stone Rolling, I was amazed at how many of the original people who testified against Joseph in Missouri actually returned to the church, after they were excommunicated — Oliver Cowdrey and so many others. Does anyone know why they did that? Any historical writings or other credible descriptions why — not correlated reasons, but historical ones like Bushman’s? Bushman doesn’t go into the reasons.
They did not find anything else better, and there are historical records that they always clinged to their spiritual experiences they had prior to leaving the church. Interesting to think about. Perhaps some faith crises over a major issue, but finding a way to return when thinking of the good that is still found in the church. The very first StayLDSers! Something I’ve thought for a long time…what we are going through with our doubts is not new. It has been dealt with since the church started, generations upon generations.
Does anyone know how many of the disaffected returned AFTER Joseph’s death? It could be interesting to see if there’s a correlation between the disaffection and JS as opposed to disaffection with the entire church.
There was a completely different culture at play back then, one that is unfamiliar to us (I mean, really, thank God!), the “Honor Culture.” People were very emotional (by today’s standards), reacting (we would say overreacting) to even the smallest slights and demanding absolute loyalty or “satisfaction” (e.g. dueling, fighting, etc.) It’s kind of a back woods Appalachian culture. Some hypothesize that it was part of the Scottish herder culture (hence the deep South connection), but others say it was propagated by religion and poverty and not originally limited to the Deep South (hello, there sits JS at the crossroads of religion and poverty). *Bear in mind that Missouri and the frontier were more like the rural south back then than they were like the more sophisticated, more established New England.* Once the “satisfaction” is achieved, the breach is healed and the relationship can be resumed. The way these things are interpreted in the church’s manuals has a very modern spin on it. For example, the Danites make a lot more sense (as does blood atonement) in the mindset of Honor Culture. (Of course, Danites & blood atonement are basically omitted from our manuals). My favorite example of this mindset is during the succession crisis when the Q12 excommunicated Sidney Rigdon who was hoping to take over for JS. He turned around and said “You can’t excommunicate me! I excommunicate all of you!” Good times. Too bad we’ve lost a little of that drama I guess. That would certainly be more entertaining that today’s Darwinian, uncontested approach.
hawkgrrrl wrote:There was a completely different culture at play back then, one that is unfamiliar to us (I mean, really, thank God!), the “Honor Culture.” People were very emotional (by today’s standards), reacting (we would say overreacting) to even the smallest slights and demanding absolute loyalty or “satisfaction” (e.g. dueling, fighting, etc.) It’s kind of a back woods Appalachian culture. Some hypothesize that it was part of the Scottish herder culture (hence the deep South connection), but others say it was propagated by religion and poverty and not originally limited to the Deep South (hello, there sits JS at the crossroads of religion and poverty). *Bear in mind that Missouri and the frontier were more like the rural south back then than they were like the more sophisticated, more established New England.* Once the “satisfaction” is achieved, the breach is healed and the relationship can be resumed.
The way these things are interpreted in the church’s manuals has a very modern spin on it. For example, the Danites make a lot more sense (as does blood atonement) in the mindset of Honor Culture. (Of course, Danites & blood atonement are basically omitted from our manuals). My favorite example of this mindset is during the succession crisis when the Q12 excommunicated Sidney Rigdon who was hoping to take over for JS. He turned around and said “You can’t excommunicate me! I excommunicate all of you!” Good times. Too bad we’ve lost a little of that drama I guess. That would certainly be more entertaining that today’s Darwinian, uncontested approach.
Let’s take Oliver Cowdrey. He left over plural marriage, and the idea that a religion could dictate to him about temporal matters, such as his land holdings. He eventually returned after JS died. How does the reasoning above apply to Oliver? This is a sincere question, not a challenge.
hawkgrrrl wrote:There was a completely different culture at play back then, one that is unfamiliar to us (I mean, really, thank God!), the “Honor Culture.” People were very emotional (by today’s standards), reacting (we would say overreacting) to even the smallest slights and demanding absolute loyalty or “satisfaction” (e.g. dueling, fighting, etc.) It’s kind of a back woods Appalachian culture. Some hypothesize that it was part of the Scottish herder culture (hence the deep South connection), but others say it was propagated by religion and poverty and not originally limited to the Deep South (hello, there sits JS at the crossroads of religion and poverty). *Bear in mind that Missouri and the frontier were more like the rural south back then than they were like the more sophisticated, more established New England.* Once the “satisfaction” is achieved, the breach is healed and the relationship can be resumed.
The way these things are interpreted in the church’s manuals has a very modern spin on it. For example, the Danites make a lot more sense (as does blood atonement) in the mindset of Honor Culture. (Of course, Danites & blood atonement are basically omitted from our manuals). My favorite example of this mindset is during the succession crisis when the Q12 excommunicated Sidney Rigdon who was hoping to take over for JS. He turned around and said “You can’t excommunicate me! I excommunicate all of you!” Good times. Too bad we’ve lost a little of that drama I guess. That would certainly be more entertaining that today’s Darwinian, uncontested approach.
That is a great point Hawk! It helps to explain how Joseph could sometimes seem to take offense at petty things but also be so very forgiving (even after major betrayal) after an apology was provided.
SilentDawning wrote:Let’s take Oliver Cowdrey. He left over plural marriage, and the idea that a religion could dictate to him about temporal matters, such as his land holdings. He eventually returned after JS died. How does the reasoning above apply to Oliver? This is a sincere question, not a challenge.
I can’t speak for Oliver but I imagine that he felt a big hole in his life where the church had been. In the church he was second Elder, witness to many events of the restoration, scribe for the BoM. Outside the church he was just a guy. Add that to the normal pull of Mormonism of a community of family and belonging and I believe the reasons could be very compelling.
I remember seeing a video about Martin Harris as an old man and how he was cared for in his later years by the Brighamite (LDS) church. I wonder what type of support structure/ saftey net/ elderly care options would be available to Martin Harris besides the church. In exchange he shared his testimony of the events he witnessed – not a bad trade.
Could also be the desire to join the “winners”, the group that was growing the fastest and had greatest numbers = legitimacy to some. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know that Oliver Cowdrey tried to get involved in leadership outside of the LDS church after he left Missouri — everywhere he went, as soon as they found out he used to be a Mormon, he lost his office, was defeated in government, etcetera. That would make it easier to return to his roots — at least his past Mormonism would not be as much of an issue, particularly since reinstatement seemed a lot easier back then, than it does now. He apparently, on his deathbed, indicated he did see the plates and was involved in the work of translation, and never denied that. Emma testified that the plates were under their bed for long periods of time.
Roy wrote:I can’t speak for Oliver but I imagine that he felt a big hole in his life where the church had been. In the church he was second Elder, witness to many events of the restoration, scribe for the BoM. Outside the church he was just a guy. Add that to the normal pull of Mormonism of a community of family and belonging and I believe the reasons could be very compelling.
This is my perspective as well. Everybody wants to feel like they’re important in some way. A lot of the guys that we read about who left the church held high offices. They were important and respected people in the church. They had authority over people. They were looked at as knowledgeable sources of information and revelation. When they left, they were reduced to the same level as everybody else. Imagine working as an executive in a large corporation where people respect your opinion, and you’re called on to answer questions that would impact the entire organization. Then you decide to leave it behind and become a small business owner where you’re basically just a salesman. I’d imagine that could be a scary risk. And if you found it too unnerving and you had the opportunity to go back to the organization (even if it was in a middle management role), you’d probably welcome the familiarity.
We don’t hear as much about the people who didn’t have high important callings when they left. I’m guessing far fewer of them returned, but that would only be my guess. I’d be interested to know whether anybody has ever taken the time to look into those folks.
I think Heber nailed it when he said it was the spiritual experiences. I was ex’d too and I explored all kinds of spiritual paths. Jewish stuff, evangelical, Pentecostal (scary), Baptists (they are quick to believe in predestination and everyone that hasnt gotten a chance to hear about Jesus will burn in hell), New Age stuff like Edgar Cacey (which experimenting with resulted in a demonic manifestations), alchemy, apochrapha, astrology, ancient aliens, etc. Nothing made more sense than LDS theology. Having the gift of the HG and having it stripped from you… it feels empty. The only way was for me to get that back. Despite my disaffection. Their personal reason(s) to return outweighed their personal reason(s) not to return. It’s no different, at the most basic level, than why people who have reasons to leave don’t leave – why they stay. Their reasons to stay outweigh their reasons to leave. That is true of religion, but it also is true of family relationships – and jobs – and even life itself.
rachael wrote:I think Heber nailed it when he said it was the spiritual experiences. I was ex’d too and I explored all kinds of spiritual paths. Jewish stuff, evangelical, Pentecostal (scary), Baptists (they are quick to believe in predestination and everyone that hasnt gotten a chance to hear about Jesus will burn in hell), New Age stuff like Edgar Cacey (which experimenting with resulted in a demonic manifestations), alchemy, apochrapha, astrology, ancient aliens, etc. Nothing made more sense than LDS theology. Having the gift of the HG and having it stripped from you… it feels empty. The only way was for me to get that back. Despite my disaffection.
Rachel — did you feel a loss of the Spirit after excommunication? I am no longer a Tr-holder, but I still feel the Holy Ghost in church, when I contribute in class, and even when I pray. I felt it before I was a member as well — my testimony of God’s reality was more powerful than any other spiritual experience I’ve ever had. So, I wonder how much of the loss of the spirit is real, and how much is imagined. I’d love to hear your perspective — as you’ve trodden a path I haven’t.
SD, yes I did. YES. I will not willing submit to a displinary meeting to take that away again. I will research any talks, scripture, and appeal it all the way to the the GAs if I had to. I would defend it as the seedy lawyers that defended OJ Simpson when murdered Nicole. Any loophole I can find. And I am not “worthy” or active. But if I’m not an anti I believe that I should not be stripped of that stiil small voice I suppose I appreciate it more now but not enough to play the role of a TBM with endurance. I did it long enough to get it back and I did put forth a sincere effort.
I didn’t really read scriptures, explore other possible paths as much until ex’d. I wanted to regain something that was gone. It was real but I cannot really articulate it. It was like feeling lost and being “chaff in the wind” or a piolet that lost the auto piolet feature. It was all manual and more difficult to navigate. That drove me to study different paths and the compass always pointed back to LDS.
Interesting. I appreciate the perspective. Due to a few grammatical errors above, I think you said that if you were ever brought up on charges again, and faced a disciplinary council, you would fight the “charges” correct?
The “yes” and “YES” were referring to the question whether I felt the loss of the spirit when ex’d. And yes I would fight to not let that happen again. I have dyslexia and a touch phone that I haven’t gotten the hang of so forgive the garbled posts I have made and probably will make
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.