another take on Mormonism
I've been reading god is not great by Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens doesn't even give god the respect of capitalizing the word god. And that is perfectly fine by me, since the monotheistic God is not any more convincing or real than all those other gods whom God-believing people don't give the dignity of a capital letter. But that's not the point of this post. The point of this post is to delight in Hitchens's take on Mormonism.
First of all, take note of the chapter in which Hitchens discusses Mormonism.
Chapter 11: "The Lowly Stamp of Their Origin": Religion's Corrupt Beginnings
This is the chapter in which he discusses the formation of modern religions, what he calls "openly manufactured sausage religions." This particular metaphor comes from the idea that if you want to continue to enjoy eating sausages, "take care not to be present when [they] are being manufactured" (p. 155). In other words, these are the easily-debunked, obviously-false religions. Mormonism is grouped here with Melanesian cargo cults and a Pentecostal preacher Marjoe, who was trained from a too-young age to awe and fool audiences. If I hadn't left Mormonism, I would have been appalled by the author's grouping. But now, I can only see too well why Hitchens would make the association.
He refers to Joseph as a "gifted opportunist" who "openly plagiarized Christian terms" and had a thing for Muhammed (p. 161). After that quick introduction, he moves on to Joseph's court appearance for peep-stoning, his residence in the Burned-Over District, and the local fascination with Native American burial grounds in the area. Joseph managed to combine interest in the treasure of the mounds with interest in their origins. It was a popular idea at the time that the Native Americans were really descendants of Hebrews, a lost tribe.
This sets the stage for "the imposture [that] is almost embarrassing to read" (p. 162).
And how was this same story rendered in Sunday School?
Joseph, age 14, wasn't sure which church to join, so he prayed and was told to join none of them, but to start his own.
It's flabbergasting to see that juxtaposition, isn't it?
Hitchens also calls Joseph's story "almost embarrassingly easy to uncover" (p. 162.) I had mixed feelings about that statement. He is so flippant when he points out the fact that Mormon origins are so obviously fraudulent, and that they are so easily uncovered to be embarrassing. And yet I, along with millions of others, were duped. And to uncover that truth? Embarrassingly easy? Hardly. Perhaps the process of finding the information was relatively easy--once I got past the cultural block that all that information is just a pack of lies I shouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. Really, the information to show that Mormonism isn't all it claims to be is legion and, since the advent of the Internet, easy to find. But actually disbelieving it? Actually letting my brain put the pieces of the puzzle together, against all socialization and family support? That, my dear Hitchens, was agonizingly hard. Nevertheless, I forgive Hitchens this slight, because, you know what? It is embarrassingly easy to uncover, when viewed from the outside.
First of all, take note of the chapter in which Hitchens discusses Mormonism.
Chapter 11: "The Lowly Stamp of Their Origin": Religion's Corrupt Beginnings
This is the chapter in which he discusses the formation of modern religions, what he calls "openly manufactured sausage religions." This particular metaphor comes from the idea that if you want to continue to enjoy eating sausages, "take care not to be present when [they] are being manufactured" (p. 155). In other words, these are the easily-debunked, obviously-false religions. Mormonism is grouped here with Melanesian cargo cults and a Pentecostal preacher Marjoe, who was trained from a too-young age to awe and fool audiences. If I hadn't left Mormonism, I would have been appalled by the author's grouping. But now, I can only see too well why Hitchens would make the association.
He refers to Joseph as a "gifted opportunist" who "openly plagiarized Christian terms" and had a thing for Muhammed (p. 161). After that quick introduction, he moves on to Joseph's court appearance for peep-stoning, his residence in the Burned-Over District, and the local fascination with Native American burial grounds in the area. Joseph managed to combine interest in the treasure of the mounds with interest in their origins. It was a popular idea at the time that the Native Americans were really descendants of Hebrews, a lost tribe.
This sets the stage for "the imposture [that] is almost embarrassing to read" (p. 162).
And how was this same story rendered in Sunday School?
Joseph, age 14, wasn't sure which church to join, so he prayed and was told to join none of them, but to start his own.
It's flabbergasting to see that juxtaposition, isn't it?
Hitchens also calls Joseph's story "almost embarrassingly easy to uncover" (p. 162.) I had mixed feelings about that statement. He is so flippant when he points out the fact that Mormon origins are so obviously fraudulent, and that they are so easily uncovered to be embarrassing. And yet I, along with millions of others, were duped. And to uncover that truth? Embarrassingly easy? Hardly. Perhaps the process of finding the information was relatively easy--once I got past the cultural block that all that information is just a pack of lies I shouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. Really, the information to show that Mormonism isn't all it claims to be is legion and, since the advent of the Internet, easy to find. But actually disbelieving it? Actually letting my brain put the pieces of the puzzle together, against all socialization and family support? That, my dear Hitchens, was agonizingly hard. Nevertheless, I forgive Hitchens this slight, because, you know what? It is embarrassingly easy to uncover, when viewed from the outside.
One thing that struck me was his sentence about Fawn Brodie and her No Man Knows My History, a biography of Joseph Smith. From a faithful Mormon point of view, this book is positively anti-Mormon (but, then, what isn't, besides syncophancy?). Even I wouldn't touch Brodie's book while I was exploring church history, thinking it was just unfairly harsh. I hadn't read it, of course, which is the way I formed that opinion. When I did read it, I found it to be great, and nothing more anti- than refusing to tell the story as if Joseph actually saw god. Hitchens, interestingly, called it "a good-faith attempt by a professional historian to put the kindest possible interpretation on the relevant 'events' " (p. 162, emphasis added). Isn't it telling that an outsider thinks it good-faith and kind, when Mormons see it as despicably anti-Mormon?
The author goes on to tell the basic story of Smith, with the characteristic unsympathetic voice he employs through the rest of the book. He even makes a couple minor mistakes, saying baptisms for the dead are performed through prayers said in weekly meetings. It couldn't have been that hard to find an insider to confirm the itsy-bitsy details, could it? But then, who cares? Mormonism is, in the grand scheme of things, embarrassingly insignificant.
The way Hitchens tells the history, it is embarrassing that I didn't figure it out before. In my defense, though, I didn't have the information I needed--and I gobbled it up when I found it.
The way Hitchens tells the history, it is embarrassing that I didn't figure it out before. In my defense, though, I didn't have the information I needed--and I gobbled it up when I found it.
3 comments:
I think to many people outside Mormonism, it is "embarassingly easy to uncover". Mormons are the same to them as Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Ultimately, the Mormon church is so small that it just doesn't occupy a lot of mental real estate for most people, so the facts that make the lie obvious are necessarily well known. They've heard the basic tale of a 14 year old boy, written it off as obvious hogwash, so they don't care about all the petty details of polygamy, Herbrew Indians and blood atonement.
When I was Mormon, I was never exposed to any of the truths about the church's origins nor anything about Unscrupulous Joseph Smith. And, I don't know why I wasn't exposed to it other than being so sheltered.
Even people who could have easily told me about that stuff didn't because they assumed that I drank deeply of the Kool-Aid. They'd rather just say nothing than have any form of confrontation with a believer.
Aw, don't be embarrassed. Despite the protests of the folks on the Bloggernacle, hardly anybody knows anything about JS's bullshittery. The church controls the flow of information in most members' lives, period.
I like Hitchens' criticisms of religion (though I find his tone far more condescending than, say, Dawkins' or Harris'), but I don't know if he entirely appreciates how many of us secular/atheist types DIDN'T have the luxury of growing up in a low-pressure, not-very-religious environment as he did.
Mormonism makes perfect sense from within the assumptions of the Mormon system. It's only when you start to look at it from a different perspective, as we all did, that it falls apart. We got hosed, no doubt about it. But I don't think we have to be defensive or embarrassed. I'd like to see Hitchens have done anything differently, if he'd grown up in a devout LDS family.
Post a Comment