Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith
by
by
Jon Krakauer (Goodreads Author)
The Spirit of America
Harold Bloom has called Mormonism the American Religion. Not only was it created in America, Mormonism also articulates the American Dream in both its history and its doctrine: the ultimate deification of its members united in a theocratic independence of civil authority. Mormonism, although a relatively small sect, represents the mainstream of American evangelical, perhaps national, consciousness. What Under the Banner of Heaven demonstrates, if nothing else, is just how strange and syncretistic that consciousness is.
Mormon faith is something quite distinct from that of Pauline Christianity, for example. In the latter, faith refers to intellectual assent to certain unchanging doctrines. In Mormonism, faith means obedience to the authority of the church hierarchy, which may decide to change fundamental doctrines from time to time. In Christianity there is a tradition of opposing ecclesiastical authority with dogmatic tradition. Mormonism opposes doctrine through hierarchical authority.
Widespread doctrinal debate is not possible, therefore, within Mormonism. Mormon sectarian divisions are much like the personal loyalties of hyper-orthodox Jewish sects which are directed toward individual religious leaders, and only incidentally to the dogmatic stance of these leaders. Loyalty is not to the position but to the individual, literally the definition of a cult of personality.
As Bloom has noted, there is a decided gnostic strain in Mormonism. The world, notably but not solely other human beings outside the church are, when not actually evil, a threat to the Mormon faithful. This attitude is expressed in extreme form by the so-called Fundamentalist Mormon Church which doesn’t recognise the legitimacy of civil government at all and openly conducts a strategy of ‘draining the beast’ by exploiting local, state, and federal government to obtain welfare benefits for members.
But even ‘moderate’ Mormons appear to tolerate democratic institutions as a necessary and temporary evil. In this, Mormonism echoes the sentiments of the first Puritan, Baptist, and Methodist settlers who traditionally accepted democratic government only so long as it conformed with their doctrinal interpretations. ‘One nation under God’ is meant literally.
Mormonism bases its legitimacy on the idea of continuing divine revelation. Where Christianity declares revelation ‘closed’ with the death of the Apostles, Mormons accept not only the writings of Joseph Smith to be divinely inspired, but also the possibility of direct revelation to any (male) member of the church. Inspiration is a part of being Mormon.
Spiritual insight is a virtue/skill/capacity for all those who are bona fide members of the Mormon priesthood, which includes all Mormon men. This patriarchal egalitarianism appears almost Roman in its presumption that the boundaries of the state end where the household begins. The state has no right to intrude upon family matters, even if these involve questions of statutory rape, child abuse or paedophilia. The paterfamilias is sovereign in his sphere.
This recognition of continuing revelation (and its literal interpretation) at the level of the household has caused problems since the earliest days of Mormon development. Joseph Smith’s revelations about polygamy, for example, were countered by revelations to his sons (and his wife) that suggested Smith was being self-serving, not to say lascivious. In a highly authoritarian structure like the Mormon Church, there is only one path for those who revelations are either not recognised or condemned as heretical - separation.
Consequently Mormonism is even more fragmentary than Christianity. Not only are there a variety of formal sects, there are also an untold number of ‘independents’ who conduct their unique cults at effectively within their own households. One’s family gods in Shintoism naturally come to mind. Within the American legal system, such independents may claim religious affiliation and constitutional protection when convenient; and reject hierarchical supervision when not.
Factually, all religions have their extremist adherents. Although Mormonism arguably has structural and cultural characteristics (as well as a history) which are amenable to violent interpretation by its members, this is not what I think is most interesting about either the Church or Under the Banner of Heaven. Rather, it is Mormonism as an interpretation of being American that is more significant and more informative.
The ‘official’ interpretation of the American Dream involves several mythical principles. Devotion to democratic government operating independently of religious affiliation; an openness to opportunity for talent and effort regardless of social status; and political involvement based on principles of equality and an absence of coercion are some of the most basic of these principles.
But this dream has never been approached in reality; nor has it it even considered as desirable by whatever one chooses to define as the ‘establishment’ of American culture and politics. The mainstream of this culture is represented rather well by Mormonism. Not only does the Church accurately capture a perennial and persistent part of the American character, it also embodies the functional American ideal.
This ideal incorporates several apparent contradictions. Political authoritarianism is combined with a traditional rejection of the mechanism of civil government necessary to carry out that authoritarianism. The result is a government that is tolerated as long as it affects only those who have not achieved the status of authority. This class has included the native population as well as a succession of immigrant groups, most recently aspiring immigrants from Islamic countries and Central America.
Similarly American politics is highly factional without being ideological. Whatever political doctrines prevail at the moment may be replaced seamlessly by there opposite when required - especially at the call of a charismatic leader. The potential elector therefore chooses his tribe, and adopts an attitude of loyalty to that tribe regardless of its policies. This provides a great degree of moral as well as intellectual flexibility which Americans perceive as freedom.
American freedom, like Mormon faith, also has a peculiar meaning. It is the freedom to conform. If conformance is not forthcoming, the alternative is to leave. Freedom, as a practical matter, does not include the freedom to disagree, debate, or dispute while remaining a part of the polity. This is not a new development in Mormonism but it is a more modern expression of the original European settlers (Recall that the Baptists emigrated to the Rhode Island Plantations because they had been banned from the Massachusetts Bay Colony).
The ideal of truth in America has always been a matter of politics. This is a natural implication of the right of every American to their own divine revelation (or biblical interpretation if they prefer that term). To put it crudely but accurately: Being right is a personal right. Expertise, intellectual skill, superior knowledge have no priority over the intuition, the hunch, and the prejudiced opinion.
This congeries of peculiar ideals lead to another which is peculiar in a different way: idealised violence. Violence in America is not a consequence of frontier lawlessness or pioneering necessity; it is an essential part of the dream. The combination of faith as obedience, authoritarian rejection of authority, freedom as withheld commitment, self-serving claims of conscience, and truth as relative to doctrine create an implicit appeal to force as the ultimate virtue. This ideal goes some way in explaining not just the statistics of violent crime in America, but also its resistance to any reforms, like gun control, likely to improve them.
My suggestion, therefore, is that Under the Banner of Heaven is not as probative about the nature of the Mormon Church as it is about American culture, particularly political culture. In this light, the book is far more informative than as a typical salacious exposé of cultic error or abuse. As is also the title itself.
Harold Bloom has called Mormonism the American Religion. Not only was it created in America, Mormonism also articulates the American Dream in both its history and its doctrine: the ultimate deification of its members united in a theocratic independence of civil authority. Mormonism, although a relatively small sect, represents the mainstream of American evangelical, perhaps national, consciousness. What Under the Banner of Heaven demonstrates, if nothing else, is just how strange and syncretistic that consciousness is.
Mormon faith is something quite distinct from that of Pauline Christianity, for example. In the latter, faith refers to intellectual assent to certain unchanging doctrines. In Mormonism, faith means obedience to the authority of the church hierarchy, which may decide to change fundamental doctrines from time to time. In Christianity there is a tradition of opposing ecclesiastical authority with dogmatic tradition. Mormonism opposes doctrine through hierarchical authority.
Widespread doctrinal debate is not possible, therefore, within Mormonism. Mormon sectarian divisions are much like the personal loyalties of hyper-orthodox Jewish sects which are directed toward individual religious leaders, and only incidentally to the dogmatic stance of these leaders. Loyalty is not to the position but to the individual, literally the definition of a cult of personality.
As Bloom has noted, there is a decided gnostic strain in Mormonism. The world, notably but not solely other human beings outside the church are, when not actually evil, a threat to the Mormon faithful. This attitude is expressed in extreme form by the so-called Fundamentalist Mormon Church which doesn’t recognise the legitimacy of civil government at all and openly conducts a strategy of ‘draining the beast’ by exploiting local, state, and federal government to obtain welfare benefits for members.
But even ‘moderate’ Mormons appear to tolerate democratic institutions as a necessary and temporary evil. In this, Mormonism echoes the sentiments of the first Puritan, Baptist, and Methodist settlers who traditionally accepted democratic government only so long as it conformed with their doctrinal interpretations. ‘One nation under God’ is meant literally.
Mormonism bases its legitimacy on the idea of continuing divine revelation. Where Christianity declares revelation ‘closed’ with the death of the Apostles, Mormons accept not only the writings of Joseph Smith to be divinely inspired, but also the possibility of direct revelation to any (male) member of the church. Inspiration is a part of being Mormon.
Spiritual insight is a virtue/skill/capacity for all those who are bona fide members of the Mormon priesthood, which includes all Mormon men. This patriarchal egalitarianism appears almost Roman in its presumption that the boundaries of the state end where the household begins. The state has no right to intrude upon family matters, even if these involve questions of statutory rape, child abuse or paedophilia. The paterfamilias is sovereign in his sphere.
This recognition of continuing revelation (and its literal interpretation) at the level of the household has caused problems since the earliest days of Mormon development. Joseph Smith’s revelations about polygamy, for example, were countered by revelations to his sons (and his wife) that suggested Smith was being self-serving, not to say lascivious. In a highly authoritarian structure like the Mormon Church, there is only one path for those who revelations are either not recognised or condemned as heretical - separation.
Consequently Mormonism is even more fragmentary than Christianity. Not only are there a variety of formal sects, there are also an untold number of ‘independents’ who conduct their unique cults at effectively within their own households. One’s family gods in Shintoism naturally come to mind. Within the American legal system, such independents may claim religious affiliation and constitutional protection when convenient; and reject hierarchical supervision when not.
Factually, all religions have their extremist adherents. Although Mormonism arguably has structural and cultural characteristics (as well as a history) which are amenable to violent interpretation by its members, this is not what I think is most interesting about either the Church or Under the Banner of Heaven. Rather, it is Mormonism as an interpretation of being American that is more significant and more informative.
The ‘official’ interpretation of the American Dream involves several mythical principles. Devotion to democratic government operating independently of religious affiliation; an openness to opportunity for talent and effort regardless of social status; and political involvement based on principles of equality and an absence of coercion are some of the most basic of these principles.
But this dream has never been approached in reality; nor has it it even considered as desirable by whatever one chooses to define as the ‘establishment’ of American culture and politics. The mainstream of this culture is represented rather well by Mormonism. Not only does the Church accurately capture a perennial and persistent part of the American character, it also embodies the functional American ideal.
This ideal incorporates several apparent contradictions. Political authoritarianism is combined with a traditional rejection of the mechanism of civil government necessary to carry out that authoritarianism. The result is a government that is tolerated as long as it affects only those who have not achieved the status of authority. This class has included the native population as well as a succession of immigrant groups, most recently aspiring immigrants from Islamic countries and Central America.
Similarly American politics is highly factional without being ideological. Whatever political doctrines prevail at the moment may be replaced seamlessly by there opposite when required - especially at the call of a charismatic leader. The potential elector therefore chooses his tribe, and adopts an attitude of loyalty to that tribe regardless of its policies. This provides a great degree of moral as well as intellectual flexibility which Americans perceive as freedom.
American freedom, like Mormon faith, also has a peculiar meaning. It is the freedom to conform. If conformance is not forthcoming, the alternative is to leave. Freedom, as a practical matter, does not include the freedom to disagree, debate, or dispute while remaining a part of the polity. This is not a new development in Mormonism but it is a more modern expression of the original European settlers (Recall that the Baptists emigrated to the Rhode Island Plantations because they had been banned from the Massachusetts Bay Colony).
The ideal of truth in America has always been a matter of politics. This is a natural implication of the right of every American to their own divine revelation (or biblical interpretation if they prefer that term). To put it crudely but accurately: Being right is a personal right. Expertise, intellectual skill, superior knowledge have no priority over the intuition, the hunch, and the prejudiced opinion.
This congeries of peculiar ideals lead to another which is peculiar in a different way: idealised violence. Violence in America is not a consequence of frontier lawlessness or pioneering necessity; it is an essential part of the dream. The combination of faith as obedience, authoritarian rejection of authority, freedom as withheld commitment, self-serving claims of conscience, and truth as relative to doctrine create an implicit appeal to force as the ultimate virtue. This ideal goes some way in explaining not just the statistics of violent crime in America, but also its resistance to any reforms, like gun control, likely to improve them.
My suggestion, therefore, is that Under the Banner of Heaven is not as probative about the nature of the Mormon Church as it is about American culture, particularly political culture. In this light, the book is far more informative than as a typical salacious exposé of cultic error or abuse. As is also the title itself.
posted by The Mind of BlackOxford @ March 02, 2019
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home