The Book of Mormon purports to be the record of Israelites who emigrated to the American continent around 600 BC. (Actually, there are records of two immigrant groups in the Book of Mormon, but the above-mentioned one is by far the predominant one.)
Until recently, Mormon belief was that these Israelites were the primary ancestors of the indigenous peoples of the Americas as well as the Pacific Islands. This was supported by statements of LDS prophets as well as the preface to the Book of Mormon itself, which stated in part, “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” Having served an LDS mission in South America, I can tell you that the belief that the people there were descendants of Jews was discussed commonly and openly. For a long time, this was a claim that was certainly considered outlandish, and lacked convincing evidence in its favor, but was hard to falsify directly. But as DNA and archaeological evidence has grown, it has become more and more apparent that the indigenous peoples of America most likely crossed the Bering Strait (and were Asiatic in origin).
Finally, a few years ago, the LDS Church amended the preface to the Book of Mormon to read, “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.” (bolding mine) While this may seem like a small change, it’s a very significant one, as the LDS belief that the indigenous people of the Americas are part of the lost tribes of Israel is not merely a historical belief, but a spiritual one.
Another would be the Book of Abraham. This book is another work of Mormon scripture, and its importance in detailing the LDS cosmology and creation myth cannot be overstated. It is enormously formative.
Originally, Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham from some ancient Egyptian scrolls that he purchased from a traveling mummy exhibition. Upon buying the scrolls, he claimed that they had been written by the hand of Abraham himself. (I’m just repeating here.) For the longest time, this was the official LDS teaching: Joseph Smith obtained scrolls > Joseph Smith translated them into the Book of Abraham > at some point, scrolls were lost in a fire. (It seems far-fetched, but the need to believe in translations of texts whose original sources you are not allowed to see is built into Mormonism from the beginning.) At no point is there any indication that Joseph Smith’s translation was anything other than a literal translation.
Only problem is, the original scrolls, or parts of them, turned up in the 1960s. And they turned out to be (though Smith wouldn’t have known it in the 1800s) plain old Egyptian funeral scrolls, identical to the ones that thousands of mummies were buried with. By the 1960s, of course, Egyptology had progressed to the point that the actual scrolls in question had been translated for real, and of course they said nothing whatsoever like the Book of Abraham.
So recently, the LDS Church has altered its position, saying that the Book of Abraham is an “inspired translation” by Joseph Smith, not a literal one. It strikes me as pretty thin whitewash, raising more questions than it answers, but apparently less embarrassing to the Church than continuing to claim that the scrolls said something they didn’t.
Last one: a few years back, the LDS Church came out and officially apologized (or expressed regret) for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, though still stopping short of stating that it had been ordered by Brigham Young.
This, after 150 years of first denying that Mormons were involved at all (blaming it on Paiute Indians), then admitting that Mormons were involved but not officially sanctioned, to finally admitting that local LDS leadership had been behind it.
I’m with Der Trihs and robert_columbia. Orthodoxy of any stripe requires the followers to believe that their faith is not just a good faith or a true faith or even a better faith, but the One and Only Faith Delivered By God To Us. It’s much easier to inculcate that belief when everyone else follows the same instructions, prays with the same words, and fears the same damnation. Once the world opens up and you can see that not only are there people who live and believe differently, not only that they aren’t afraid of coloring outside the lines of your beliefs, but that your beliefs do not impinge on them even the tiniest bit and they couldn’t care less about your algorithm for salvation.
Once you see that, it’s very difficult to go back to the rituals of that one orthodoxy with the same devotion. It would take a very large existential threat, invented or otherwise, to keep people from straying. For some people, that threat (sexual immorality! teh mooslims! socialisms!) exists, and so they cleave to their One True Path all the harder. But those who aren’t terrified of the world around them are going to wander off and explore it, and fewer of them will return to the fold of orthodoxy.
Thanks OneCentStamp, seems like you have quite a few of those. Do you share your story here on SD of why you eventually left? Was it a gradual change, or some monumental moment that did it?
It’s been about twenty years or so, but I thoroughly enjoyed Fawn Brodie’s biography of him. I thought she was very respective of him, and did a great job of it. Going to try to find the time to reread it again. He was quite the character, and the ease he was able to bamboozle others seemed effortless, although it seemed like a few were always on to him, it just didn’t seem to matter to his followers.
Just a little before my time, but I remember seeing a lot of this on PBS when they often do shows about Elvis.
I am old enough to remember the blue laws in TX, and how nearly all businesses had to shut down on Sunday. Looks like according to wiki some states still have such laws.
razncain, I did in fact do some sharing during my journey out of Mormonism, and religion in general. It’s here. While the thread in question is 8 years old, most of the ideas expressed therein still hold, i.e.; I grew up being taught a certain way, and I decided as an adult that I didn’t agree with it, and in fact had probably not felt that way for quite some time.
I’ve made the same point in relation to the way young women dress: a substantial body of older women (in particular) always complain that young women of today dress far more scantily than young women did back in the day. As I’ve said before, if they were right, young women would be wearing nothing at all by now.
Seriously? I have to ask, this being the Internet and all.
If true, I’m simultaneously surprised and not. I didn’t realize until a few years ago, probably about a decade after giving up on the game (but with longer-lasting peripheral involvement with the game’s mythos) that it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.
This thread makes me think of the endlessly hand-wringing fuddy-duddy Rod Dreher.
Yes, seriously. The Eye of Terror (basically a gateway to hell about 15,000 light years across) exists because the Eldar became so depraved that they created Slaanesh, a god of hedonism, whose birth literally sent the Eldar homeworlds straight into hell.
Born in a rural area in 1953. It’s hard to convey how isolated we were in our exposure to even slightly different lifestyles compared to today. Even the main form of electronic communication, television, was heavily censored, or at least encouraged, to project a certain type of normalcy. Everyone we associated with went to church. And certain things were unquestionably considered wrong just because.
It took college for me to realize that there was a big world out there where many things were different. That didn’t, and won’t in the future, work out so well for the traditionalists.
One interesting counterpoint to the idea that the passage of time leads to less clothing is early 20th century movies with little girls who wore rather short dresses and flashed their underwear all over the place. Back then, nobody cared if you could see Shirley Temple’s bloomers - why would they? It was teens and grown women who had to be careful about modesty. Now, it’s the other way around.
I have to say that skirts have never been shorter. Whether this is sexual immorality is a different question. They have gone up and gone down regularly.
Actually, I have no idea what he means by sexual morality. I do note that the parts of the US with the highest rate of religion (the South) also seems to have the highest rate of teen pregnancy.
I would like to add that IMHO, the opposition to sex education is not based on preventing kids from screwing, but in trying to ensure that they will punished if the do so. And the same for the herpes vaccine. It is absurd to think that the a small chance of uterine cancer 30 or 40 years down the line will induce a teenage girl not to screw. So I can only assume that the parents would like to see them possibly punished. A teen’s horizons don’t extend 30 years, but their parents’ do.
That was one hell of a thread, and had to have been exhausting for you. It doesn’t seem like you missed a single question that was addressed to you either. Interesting thread, and I appreciate you taking the time to share all of that with us. I’ll probably use it as future reference for others inquiring about such matters.
I’d like to think of it this way: The internet is forcing normal human ratios of belief back to its natural percentage
In the past, the religionists were the ones in power so they pushed their beliefs on people whether the people wanted it to not. Diffusing that power amongst the masses serves to bring down the number of people who would have been forced to believe religion in the past to the point where the only people who believe in religion would be the ones who would believe it anyway without any outside coercion. We still have a long ways to go, as I think natural religious belief is based on the number of gullible people, so no less than 15% and no more than maybe 35%. Until atheists outnumber religious people in both population and power, the work is not done