Mormonism, secularism cited as sin within USA by late 19th century Protestant America

---

At the 2013 Mormon History Association gathering, in Layton, Utah, there was a discourse delivered by Leigh Eric Schmidt, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Schmidt, who is not a member of the Mormon Church, delivered a fascinating address titled, “Mormons, freethinkers and the limits of toleration.” It primarily dealt with how Mormonism, as well as atheism and proponents of secularism, were received by a late-19th century America that was dominated by Protestantism.

In that era, Schmidt explained, freethinkers and Mormons were, of course, miles apart in ideas. The coalition of freethinkers included atheists, agnostics, critics of organized religion, and critics of the era’s rigid sexual mores. Mormons, on the other hand, followed a rigid ecclesiastical authority and professed to follow strong morals. But there was that polygamy thing, which in an era of Protestantism and Republicanism, was considered as libertine and immoral. An example — in 1887, Schmidt said, Mormonism, secularism and atheism were proclaimed as “sin within (the) land” by Presbyterian leaders.

To sum up, 120-plus years ago, atheists and Mormons were both outcasts, oddities to be gawked at by most, and pursued and prosecuted by the more zealous advocates of a approved religious-state.  As Schmidt noted, two separate pieces of legislation, the Edmunds-Tucker Act and the Comstock Act, were in essence “religious tests” for both public comportment as well as “fitness” tests to run for public office. The former was directed at Mormons, the latter politically active freethinkers. Both fell outside of boundaries of American Christianity drawn by Protestants.

In his discourse, Schmidt included an overview of two prominent secularists of that era — Robert Ingersoll and D.M. Bennett — and recapped their visits to Utah as well as their viewpoints on Mormonism. For Ingersoll, who regarded secularism as the best religion — Ingersoll idealized the moral, secular family spending time together in the home on Sundays — Mormonism was an abomination. As Schmidt noted, the conservative freethinker regarded the Utah religion as “horrible” and founded on ignorant superstition.  Ingersoll, Schmidt added, was a monogamist and was not sympathetic to the LDS Church’s persecution by the government.

Schmidt related an interesting 1877 account in which Ingersoll, a frequent traveling lecturer, spoke at the federal courthouse in Salt Lake City. During the lecture, Ingersoll praised the virtues of families and the proper raising of children. In an interesting contrast, notes Schmidt, the anti-Mormon Salt Lake Tribune proclaimed the lecture as an attack on polygamy. However, the Mormon Church-owned Deseret News “loved the speech,” said Schmidt, and wondered in its coverage why Schmidt often referred to domestic life in Utah as prostitution. The remarks were probably ironic, since the editors were certainly aware of Ingersoll’s harsh views on polygamy.

As for D.M. Bennett, the founder of the periodical “The Truth Seeker,” he was a far more radical secularist than Ingersoll. Bennett was also an advocate of free love. His efforts led to his arrest and conviction under the Comstock law. He served 13 months in prison.  As the masthead of “The Truth Seeker” noted, it was “Devoted to: science, morals, free thought, free discussions, liberalism, sexual equality, labor reform, progression, free education and whatever tends to elevate and emancipate the human race.” Conversely, the masthead also noted that religion tended to produce the opposite.

Schmidt noted that Bennett, also a traveling lecturer, visited Salt Lake City often. He also spoke in Ogden. Utah charmed him, and he wrote about his visits in a travel guide he published. He spoke warmly of its Mormon inhabitants, even publicly expressing his opinion that Protestants had no right to criticize Mormons, adding that the residents of Utah were more moral than their critics. However, Bennett was careful to remind his readers that his comments should not be interpreted as approval for Mormon theology. In my opinion, Bennett may have felt empathy for Mormon men jailed for polygamy, as he had experienced the same for his advocacy of morals that were criminally prosecuted.

Schmidt also talked more about the secular publication, “The Truth Seeker,” and its off and on empathy with the Utah Mormons. The famous secular cartoonist, Watson Heston, drew cartoons that included Mormons as being persecuted by mainstream Christianity of that era. In fact, one of his “Truth Seeker” cartoons, “An Example of Christian Consistency,” was reprinted in an 1896 Mormon missionary magazine in Tennessee, Schmidt told the audience. (Although I can’t find a copy of the cartoon “An Example of Christian Consistency,” below is another cartoon from Heston, “The Amusement of the Saints in Heaven,” that offers readers a look at his style.)

However, Heston was no fan of the Utah Mormons, Schmidt said. He was a particularly harsh opponent of polygamy, seeing it as a threat to American womanhood. In fact, Heston’s conservative secularism eventually moved him away from “The Truth Seeker.”

It was an interesting lecture from Schmidt. In fact, I just bought one of his books via Amazon (1). As the secularist movement radicalized and began advocating moral issues at odds with most of America in the late 19th century, its influence waned and adherents moved away, to liberal churches or to the secular Sunday afternoons in the family hearth so treasured by Ingersoll.

Still, as Schmidt noted in his lecture, there were secular activists of that era who saw the potential for a “probable but meaningful alliance” between freethinkers and Mormons. The time frame for this was the latter half of the 19th century, when both were despised by chief opinion-makers.

Ironically, as the 20th century began, Mormonism began a slow but consistent march toward conformity, conservatism and traditionalism while organized freethinker movements became more radical and its organized number declined.

One wonders if events will ever transpire to bring the twain — Mormons and freethinkers — together as allies.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally posted at StandardBlogs.

1) The Schmidt book I purchased is “Heaven’s Bride: The Unprintable Life of Ida C. Craddock, American Mystic, Scholar, Sexologist, Martyr and Madwoman,” Basic Books, 2010. Buy it here.

Slim book ‘Talking with Mormons’ makes a lot of sense

On page 38 of theologian Richard J. Mouw’s book, “Talking with Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals” (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), the author recounts a telephone call from an LDS man who, 10 years after his baptism, was questioning whether he was a Christian.

Mouw asked the following questions , quoted from the book:

How many Gods are there, I asked.

Well, there is one Godhead, made up from three divine Persons — Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he responded.

Will you ever become a god like them?

Oh no. I hope I’m becoming more Christ-like, but only the three Persons of Godhood are worthy of worship. More like God — yes. To be a God — no way!

What is the basis for your salvation? Do you earn it by your good works?

No, my good works can’t save me. I’m saved by grace, through the atoning work of Christ on the Cross. My good works — those I perform in gratitude to what He has done for me.

Mouw assured the caller he was a Christian, and he also told the man to remain a Mormon, so long as he can give those answers without reproach to his LDS leaders. That anecdote, delivered in this slim, valuable volume, shows the wisdom of the author. There is nothing untruthful in what that man told Mouw.

There are Latter-day Saints who would chastise the man for choosing to become more like God rather than deciding to be like God. And there are evangelicals who will jump all over the man’s statement that the Godhood is comprised of three divine persons. Mouw offers the rational response — why diminish that man’s beautiful testimony of Christ’s atonement?

Mouw, who has angered some evangelicals, is not an apologist for Mormon doctrines that he disagrees with. the book contains, for example, his strong defense of the Nicene Creed. Mormonism’s rejection of that, and its substitution of three separate personages, two with limited form, comprising a Godhood, is the foundation of claims that Mormons are not Christians. Mouw tosses aside this contention by quoting the 19th century scholar Charles Hodge, a prominent Calvinist. Hodge disagreed fervently with an earlier scholar, Friedrich Schleiermacher, who rejected the Bible as infallible and divine. Nevertheless, and this is the important point, Hodge was convinced that the deceased Schleiermacher, who in his lifetime had admired and adored Christ, was with the Savior. Mouw writes: And then Hodge adds this tribute to Schleiermacher: “Can we doubt that he is singing those praises now? To whomever Christ is God, St. John assures us, Christ is a Savior.”

The idea, from any religion that believes in Christ, that one persons’ faith in Christ’s atonement is invalid due to doctrinal disputes, is noxious. Mouw understands that. He’s a remarkable example of religious tolerance, willing to debate long-disputed doctrinal points with Latter-day Saints but willing to concede spiritual equanimity.

Frankly, “Talking with Mormons” should be required reading for LDS missionaries, both full-time and local.

Moux easily dismisses the LDS-is-a-cult argument by pointing out the wide variety of organizations and media that daily engage in debate over Mormon doctrine, as well as the many efforts by LDS leadership to engage in dialogues, whether with other religions or the media. The book contains an account of evangelical apologist Ravi Zacharias, and Mouw, speaking in the Salt Lake City tabernacle, the result of a 2004 invitation from LDS church leaders.

The author takes the time to find related ground between doctrines, such as a latter-day prophet and latter-day scriptures, that are usually points of dispute. This effort to look toward similarities, rather than easily leap to long-repeated, well-rehearsed attacks, is admirable and should be reciprocated by Latter-day Saints when talking with people of other faith.

On the Joseph Smith question, Mouw compares him to other prophets who have allegedly spoke to God and provided scripture. His example is Mohammed. Also, Mouw invites evangelicals to think about Mormons, and others, not as “‘How do we keep them from taking over the world?’ to one that emerges when we ask ‘What is it about their teachings that speaks to what they understand to be their deepest human needs and yearnings?”

Framing the question in that manner invites shared knowledge and increased empathy, rather than the sour faux triumph of hurling a negative. However, it must be again stressed that Mouw’s advice is as much for Mormons and others as it is for evangelicals.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs

Memo to 'High Priests': the 1950s were not better

“Boy, I wish we lived in the 1950s.” “We are definitely in the last days.” “The amount of sin and unrighteousness has tripled since I was a young man in the 1950s.” “I’d prefer to live in the 1950s.” Those are popular sentiments I often hear in my church -- High Priest -- meetings. (I kid my fellow High Priests, these sentiments are not exclusive to my elder graybeards -- some of whom have less gray than me.)

I’d kind of like to visit the 1950s for a couple of days. It’d be cool to take in a doubleheader at the Polo Grounds, or Ebbetts Field, watch the Hollywood Stars play baseball, catch a fight card at The Olympic Auditorium, or St. Nicks in NYC. But I couldn’t live in any era where I couldn’t travel 15 minutes and enjoy Schezwan chicken. Try that in the 1950s. (Actually, since I've gone gluten-, soy- and dairy-free I don't eat Schezwan chicken anymore).

I just read an interesting book, “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960 to 2010,” by Charles Murray, and it’s got me thinking about life then and life today. I jotted down a few positives and negatives about the 1950s to early ‘60s, I jotted down a few positives and negatives about the 1950s, whether secular, political, cultural, religious … In the 1950s, most of the professions were off limits to women. My LDS Church was 20-plus years away from allowing blacks the priesthood and temple privileges. There were very few LDS temples. Many Mormons had no access to the faith’s General Conference. (In fact, when I was a missionary in Peru 29 years ago, there was no access to LDS General Conference as well). Members didn’t have the access to church materials, or interests such as genealogy, that are available via our Internet or TVs.

In the 1950s, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder; Salt Lake City was a long way from being regarded a gay-friendly city. People smoked liked chimneys and as a result, lots of us lived shorter lives. Medicine didn’t have near the ability it has now to relieve chronic pain and more from cancer and other illness.

May children may have played outdoors more in the 1950s, but I’d want them to be exposed to the tolerance of today’s culture and benefit from the advances in science, technology, engineering, and other areas that we have experienced the past 40 years due to an increased egalitarianism within the universities, the culture, and workplace.

On the plus side, the food had fewer preservatives in the 1950s. On the bad side, there wasn’t much variety. Whether Indian, Chinese, or many other specialties, there are so many more culinary offerings today. Consider the Internet: We can reach just about anywhere in the world in a split second, face to face; we can watch — in real time — events scores of thousands of miles away.

We have the potential to buy virtually anything we need or just want. TV: We have the ability to watch hundreds of channels, either via our digital TV or on the Internet. ( I was flipping channels Saturday and discovered the Aussie cricket on in the early AM, live; that’s crazy) There are hundreds, if not thousands, of more events, contests, sports offerings today than what was available 50-plus years ago.

Vehicles were inferior to those today. Gas wasn’t as cheap as we remember. Based on today’s prices, a gallon of gas in the early 1960s, for example, was above $2 a gallon.

The level of sports was not as strong as today. No offense boxing purists, but Deontay Wilder would easily KO Rocky Marciano. The movies may have been cleaner, but there weren’t nearly as many available. If you missed a film for a couple of weeks, you needed to hope that it would be on TV in a couple of years.

And even with our LDS religion, how can we live sans instant access to even videos of past General Conferences, many, many books, even from the 1900s and all the lessons, songs, history, etc. we want.

We remember our past fondly. We romanticize it and we devour books and film that details the past, usually in its most alluring forms. But seriously, you gotta be crazy to want to swap 2017 for the 1950s.

-- Doug Gibson

Originally published at StandardBlogs