Continuing the Dialogue

Mike's response warrants having a full post devoted to commenting on his concerns.  So here goes.  I'll start by reposting Mike's own comments (sans the "2 glaring typos" he mentioned, which is still fewer than most of my own posts).  Mike said:

'Somehow I doubt that will happen.'




Absolutely not! I won't touch this subject with a ten foot pole.


But if I were to, I would likely begin by stating that this is a thought-provoking proposition. Given that it is a question of theology it's not the strongest argument in Mormonism's favor unless you are already otherwise religious, a fact you explicitly recognized. It does, however, have the benefit of being logically sound if the theological assumption is accepted.


However, it does seem to me that it is not altogether clear that Mormonism is in a league of its own with regard to the amount of venom directed its way. I don't mean to suggest that there isn't a disproportionately large amount of it, or that it isn't almost entirely illogical. I know it is. Believe it or not I have also discussed/debated/argued about the various aspects of Mormonism on numerous occasions, not out of any desire to act as Defender of the Faith but simply because whenever I hear or see something stated that I know to be factually incorrect my instinct is to point that out regardless of the subject matter.


If we accept the theological premise that we can judge the truthfulness of a religion by the amount of opposition it engenders I think Judaism would have a solid claim on the throne. Admittedly, if I were to peruse the shelves of the nearest Barnes & Nobel I doubt I would see as many anti-Semitic books as I would anti-Mormon. I may not see any. Within the national media anti-Mormonism is politically correct in a way anti-Semitism is not. Nevertheless, within private conversations it is my personal observation that it is a toss-up between Jews and Muslims as to who gets ridiculed the most. More tellingly, the FBI's annual statistics on hate crimes shows there are about twice as many crimes committed yearly against Jewish targets in the United States as there are against all other religions COMBINED. By contrast, there are apparently not enough hate crimes targeted against Mormons to warrant a separate category for them as they appear to be lumped in with "Other". This is a staggering figure when you consider that there are a roughly comparable number of Mormons and Jews living in the US.


What does that prove, or disprove? Nothing, really. It's food for thought. Hopefully you don't take this as an attempt to throw water on the basis of your faith. I would not want to do that. But you really wanted to know what a heathen thought, so I guess there it is.

Fair points to make.  However, it's critical to maintain the distinction between attacks against people and attacks against an institution.  You concede that the Mormon church is the disproportionate victim of unfair attacks, but then point out that Mormons (church members) are not disproportionately victimized - the most popular targets for hate crimes in the U.S. are in fact Jewish people.  You go on to comment that your personal experiences indicate that Muslims and Jews take the brunt of expressed hostility, not Mormons.


Now, I want to ask, how many times have you heard the Jewish faith attacked?  Not the people, but the religion.  I'm guessing that the number is nowhere near how many times you have heard the LDS faith attacked.  By your disclosure, I would even bet that you've defended Mormonism more times than you've heard attacks against Judaism as a religion.  I've bet you've heard plenty of, " those eff'ing Jews/Muslims", but not so much, " that eff'ing Judaism/Islam". 


Granted, Islam is frequently attacked as a religion.  But in its case, the sociologic explanation is entirely sufficient to explain the hatred.  Muslims, as a group, are not currently seen as "good world citizens" (right or wrong, that's the perception).  So attacks against Islam make sense from the sociologic perspective.  Still, on purely theological terms, Mormonism's theology is attacked more frequently than Islam's in our culture.  So I think we can agree that Mormonism wears the unwanted crown as King of wrongfully attacked religious institutions, even though its members do not suffer the same fate.


It may seem like semantics, but I assure you the difference is critical.  I was pointing out that the Mormon church comes under disproportionate attack.  But I intentionally declined to extend that argument to members of the church, even disavowing the blatant attack on a church member that inspired the post.  My argument addresses only the religious institution, and for good reason. 


Now, if this was the 1830s or 1840s, I would be extending my argument from institution to individuals.  Until Brigham Young led the pioneers across the plains, I have absolutely zero doubt that Mormons were the per capita champions of hate crime victimization.  It's a shame the DOJ wasn't around back then, keeping statistics on the issue.  Nonetheless, this is not the 19th century, and things are different now.  And now it's time to make some cohesive theological sense out of all this. 


First let's talk about the psychological effects of persecution on groups.  I recall a study carried out several decades ago wherein potential members of a reading group were randomly assigned to one of two groups.  One group underwent very mild electrical shocks and the other group underwent painful electrical shocks.  Afterward, both groups separately carried out a normal series of reading group interactions.  Following the conclusion of the reading groups, the researchers discovered that the group members that underwent painful shocks comparatively enjoyed their reading group more, held their fellow group members and themselves in higher esteem, and had more desire to continue the group.  Lesson to be learned - shared suffering creates group cohesion and esprit de corps (and now you understand the psychology of boot camp).  Now back to the religious application.


Within the theological assumption that there is 'one true church' (and God and Satan obviously), Satan would want to focus attacks on the institution of the one true church and avoid attacking its members.  Remember that Satan's ultimate desire is to turn people away from the church - not kill them.  He's interested in claiming souls, not counting coup on scalps.  Persecuting people who share a religion creates entrenchment of values.  The only time that attacking people (instead of the institution) makes sense is when the attacks have a realistic chance of utterly destroying the institution, as in the early days of the LDS church.  Once the institution is robust and geographically diverse enough to survive physical attacks, then said physical attacks become counter-productive from Satan's point of view.  And this is exactly the pattern that we see in the persecution of the LDS church.  The ideas behind it are assaulted relentlessly, but Satan is far too good a psychologist (better than me) to use his influence to engineer attacks against "those poor poor Mormon cult members who suffer under the yoke of their Satanic master"  (sarcasm intended). 

By attacking the theology of Mormonism but not the members, Satan offers Mormons a nice shining path to being embraced by society as a person who is smart enough and savvy enough to abandon the delusions that others were not smart or savvy enough to overcome.  Remember that cognitive dissonance reduction is driven by the urge to protect ego.  Satan is smart to portray the abandonment of religion as an ego-enhancing enterprise that is open to one and all. 


I also have to add that there are sociologic reasons why Mormons are infrequently the victims of hate crimes.  As stated before, they tend to be good world citizens.  But this was not always the case.  Mormonism went through three phases of societal relations: 1. Separatism (1830-1847), 2. Isolationism (1847- WWII), 3. Integrationism (WWII - present).  Mormons were most victimized during the separatism phase, and that's also when they were the poorest neighbors.  Now, I'm not saying they deserved what they got, but objective histories show that Mormons in Missouri/Illinois were fairly clannish and frequently less than subtle about their distaste for outsiders.  The isolationist phase obviously decreased individual victimization, but notably had the U.S. Army sent against the LDS church, the only time in history such an event occurred (except Waco, TX, but let's keep that between us).  With integrationism, LDS leaders have embraced "living in the world, but not of the world", and the public opinion of Mormons (but not Mormonism) has risen steadily ever since.  Granted, Mitt Romney will still never be president precisely because he's Mormon.  But that's not because people don't trust him.  Rather, it's because they don't trust the power they think the LDS church would wield through him if he were elected.  Irrational fear and hatred of the institution comes into play yet again.


Now, however well Mormonism fits into this framework, it still doesn't explain what's going on with the Jews.  What's the deal there?  For that I need only to point out that the Bible says the Jews are a cursed people for taking responsibility (verse 25) for Jesus's execution.  And yet, they are still God's chosen people from now until the end of time.  As such, you would expect God to allow persecution of them as part of that curse (it does NOT justify believing Christians participating in anti-Semitism however).  You would also expect God to allow/engineer such persecution in such a way that they will be eventually humbled, but never destroyed.  They are the chosen ones after all.  And what do we see today?  We see the exact opposite of Mormonism.  The people are persecuted much more than their theology - driving them together and maintaining their distinctiveness.  The only thing left to be seen is whether or not the prophecies come true to the extent that the Jews turn to Jesus in their humility.  That much remains a very open question.  I would add though, that a curse is only a curse so long as its purpose - humbling and turning people back to God - is ignored.  Once its purpose is embraced, a curse becomes a blessing. 


So ultimately, the reality you portray dovetails flawlessly with my theological interpretation of the LDS church's place in the world. The LDS church is viciously attacked and hated without cause, and without any plausible explanation other than Satan's unique obsession with its destruction.  However, Satan's goal is also to claim souls, and attacking LDS members is counterproductive to that effort.  Make sense?