“The Politics Of American Religious Identity” – Mormon ‘Secrets’
One of the charges that continue to this day to echo through various circles when they discuss the CJCLDS orbit around the idea that the Mormon church is somehow disingenuous, if not outright liars. Such charges usually take the form of some sort of differentiation between the public and private face of the LDS church.
If one presses for specifics, the conversation always ends up discussing Mormon Temple practice. These practices are something Mormons do not discuss with Gentiles like me. It's their secret. So, into the information vacuum flows all kinds of amazing contentions. I have seen and been quoted all sorts of "authoritative" accounts of what happens in Mormon Temples. All of it designed to make Mormons look like something just this side of devil worshippers. I always wonder where such accounts come from since the people who are actually there promise to keep it a secret.
Of course, it's always from former Mormons. But it always occurs to me that it is generally in the best interest of people that have left an organization to engage in exaggeration, and even lying, to make themselves feel better about leaving, and to give general justification to their actions. Such charges from such sources scream for factual, not testimonial, confirmation.
Such charges showed up, entirely predictably, in the closing days of the Smoot hearing. In this case, the charges concerned an oath that Mormons were reputed to have to take to aid vengeance on the nation for the persecution suffered by Mormons prior to their move to the mountain West. An extended quotation from the book is informative:
Unlike their judicial counterparts, senators hold hearings primarily to find prospective remedies, not to apply retrospective punishments. If the L.D.S. Church, as Smith promised, was going to change its ways and, as hoped by those who supported Smoot, discipline wrongdoers Taylor and Cowley, new justification was needed for Senate action. By making the L.D.S. temple oath an issue in the third and final round of the hearing, the protestors hoped to provide that justification. They could show that Smoot himself had participated in the temple ceremony and was bound by the terms of the oath he had taken there not to disclose it. This refusal, like Taylor’s and Cowley’s defiance of the Senate’s subpoena power, could condemn Smoot as one who placed himself above the law and in conflict with his oath of office. Smoot warned his church leaders, “This subject [of the oath] seems to have been revived in the Senate for some special purpose, and this purpose I believe to be the exclusion of all Mormons from holding Federal offices."
Wolfe provided the most confidently detailed, firsthand account of the L.D.S. temple ceremony. “The law of vengeance is this,” he said. “You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray, and never cease to pray, Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation.’ “ Unlike previous witnesses who were confused on the point, Wolfe explicitly named the “nation” as the object of Mormon vengeance. The drama of Wolfe’s disclosure of the “secret oath” was compromised, however, by the evidence of its scriptural basis in the biblical book of Revelation, which all Christians believed but with no visible effect on their behavior. “I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held,” prophesied the Revelator, observing that the righteous “cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, 0 Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” In addition, the force of the protestants’ argument was undermined when it was shown that the Latter-day Saints who took this oath did not act on it. Senator Knox asked one witness, “What did you ever do in the line of keeping that vow? Did you ever avenge the blood of the martyrs upon this nation?” “No, sir,” the witness responded, “I have enlisted twice to try to defend the nation.” Though expressing an unpleasant sentiment, the oath was sentiment only and, because it was never expressed in action, was constitutionally protected, religious belief.
Moreover, the country was accustomed to secret societies of oath-bound men. Many in the Senate belonged to one and were routinely invited to join more. The Methodist Reverend Joshua Stansfield, D.D., had recently written Senator Beveridge inviting him to become a mason in “our Lodge — The Mystic Tie.” Latter-day-Saint-turned-Unitarian John P. Meakin characterized himself as a “joiner” when he testified on Smoot’s behalf, and he was not exaggerating. “I belong to the Knights of Pythias,” he told the committee, “and am the Past Grand Chancellor of our State. I belong to the Benevolent Protective Order of the Elks, and I served as chaplain for six months. I belong to the Fraternal Order of Eagles, to the Woodmen of the World, to the Maccabees, and I still have standing in the Odd Fellows, but not active.” Ultimately, the L.D.S. temple ceremony aroused less suspicion because of its easy comparison to the activities of other secret societies.
Note, like most conspiracy theories, the charges went almost nowhere in the Senate. Flake notes two reasons why the charges went nowhere:
- It was based on scripture held in common by creedals and Mormons
- Secret ceremonies are common and generally do not indicate great revolutionary conspiracies.
To Flake's analysis I would like to add a couple of other reasons why the charges simply don't hold water, for Smoot, for Romney, nor any other Mormon. Firstly, no witness matched the testimony of the "key" witness without prevaricating or being vague. In other words, strict corroborative testimony could not be found. There are and were a lot a ex-Mormons in the world; I would think certainly a few with identical testimony could be found. That is, unless, of course, the witnesses were indeed fabricating, exaggerating, or otherwise embellishing their tales for impact. Meaning at least part of their testimony was a product of imagination, not reality, and two people rarely share identical imagination.
Secondly, after several years of watching Smoot work in the Senate by the time these charges were levelled, other Senators and the public that paid any serious attention, saw no factual evidence to corroborate the testimony. Simply put, Reed Smoot did not act like someone that had sworn vengeance on the United States of America.
The same must be said about all the wild hair stories that circulate today. What Mormon behavior can anyone point to to indicate they are the subversive, perverse, near insurgency that is so often charged? I know nobody will find any such behavior on the part of Mitt Romney, reducing such charges to nothing more than conspiracy theory nuttiness.
Lowell adds: My church's temple ceremonies present Mormons with an interesting (and fairly unique, I think) problem: We hold them so sacred that we do not discuss them outside the temple, even among ourselves. For example, my wife and I may attend the temple, and while inside the temple discuss in detail everything said and done there. Once we are outside the building, however, we will not discuss those subjects, even in private in our own home. That's how sacred the temple and its ceremonies are to us. In fact, we like to say the temple ceremonies are "sacred, not secret."
Knowing that, you can imagine how we feel when ex-members or critics of the LDS Church start talking about the temple ceremonies in public. We cannot in good conscience respond in any detail. It's quite frustrating, to be honest. It provides a wonderful opportunity to attack the church, spread distortions, innuendos and rumors, and generally make Mormons (and Mormon politicians) look weird, because members of the church are all but powerless to respond.
I will not (and really cannot) lapse into Mormon apologetics here, but I can say this: As a lifelong LDS member and frequent temple attender, everything that I have ever experienced in any LDS temple has been wholesome; has centered on the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, and the eternal nature of the family; fundamentally involves the purest form of Christian service; and has been beneficial to me as a man who wishes to be a better person and a true disciple of Jesus Christ. The most sacred and personal experiences of my life, including my marriage, have occurred there.
But I can't and won't discuss them outside the temple. Curious, isn't it? For better or for worse, that's just the way it is.
Technorati Tags: conspiracies, vengenance, L.D.S., Reed Smoot, U.S. Senate, temple, Mormon, conspiracy theories, baseless charges
Posted in Book Reviews, Candidate Qualifications, Issues, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post