Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Burgess, Allan K., and Max H. Molgard. 1994. Straight Talk About Gospel Principles: What They Are, What They Are Not. Bookcraft Pubs.

Rating:
1

Summary:
This is a poorly-written exegesis on Mormon doctrine.

I thought this book was so problematic that I actually outlined the entire thing to provide a framework for my comments (see ‘outline’ below). In short, the authors are trying to explain basic gospel principles.

Review:
This is one of the most poorly written exegeses on Mormon doctrine I have ever read. In addition to my specific comments (see the outline below), there are several criticisms that apply to the text generally.

First, the book is poorly-written. There are incomplete sentences and poor grammar and vocabulary choices throughout the text. The writing is not colorful or imaginative. This is not a well-written book. I repeatedly asked myself while reading it if the authors had disallowed an editor from actually reading the book. Just one additional person brushing through this book quickly could have pointed out some of the major problems.

But the poor-writing pales in comparison to the illogicality of the arguments. Chapter after chapter is chock full of contradictions. Perhaps the best example of the author’s contradictions is chapter 3 on repentance. They begin by arguing that repentance cannot be done piecemeal. The implication is that you can’t just repent for one sin at a time. If you are going to repent, you have to repent for everything. But then they point out that no one is ever perfect (which implies a need for repentance) and that we need to be constantly striving for perfection and repenting along the way. When you try to bring both positions together you realize one of the two (or both) has to be wrong. If you can’t repent piecemeal but are never perfect, then how does repentance work? This is a contradiction that a simple proof-reading by a critical eye would have caught.

Additionally, the authors take some very extreme liberties that are beyond the pale. For instance, at one point they re-write a scriptural passage to bolster their argument (p. 36). They also claim that certain things are ‘laws’ when, in fact, they are not laws but rather recommendations (e.g., Chapter 28 – The Law of the Fast). Finally, and this point was probably the most annoying to me, the authors’ use of stories was horrendous. I would submit that 1 out of every 8 stories in the book actually seems to fit with the principle they are trying to discuss. The other 7 are either indirectly related (probably 3 out of the 7), not at all related (3 out of the 7), or actually illustrate the opposite of the intended point (1 out of the 7, e.g., p. 67). In addition to the stories not being relevant, nearly 70% have no reference and I would guess about 30% were made up by the authors (see, for instance, the story on p. 107).

As a result of these problems the text reads like a rough draft of a 4th grade school project. I’ve read more profound thoughts written on the walls of bathroom stalls. Why the authors felt the need to re-hash what has already been covered in a number of more authoritative books is beyond me. Most Mormons are probably familiar with Gospel Principles, which is published by the Church itself and considered the basic source for information on these principles. Additionally, Mormon Doctrine, which isn’t officially doctrine but is likely the perspective of the majority of members, is still in print and referenced much more commonly than this text will ever be. I would highly recommend reading Gospel Principles for a simple exegesis of these principles instead of this book. For conservative Mormons, stick with Mormon Doctrine; it’s the most exclusivistic and offensive to outsiders and will likely best represent your perspectives. For more liberal-minded Mormons, I’d recommend The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Ludlow 1992), which often comes in electronic form, is closer to actually reflecting current Mormon doctrine (it has changed over time), is better written than Mormon Doctrine, is less-offensive, and includes a lot of additional information, including Mormon demographics and history.

Mauss, Armand L. 1994. The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle With Assimilation. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Rating:
10

Summary:
The “Angel” and the “Beehive” from the book’s title are used by the author as symbols of two opposing forces that have led Mormonism into a battle over its identity. Each symbol can be argued to represent two elements: the angel represents both peculiarity (or distinctiveness) and charismatic spirituality while the beehive represents assimilation and bureaucratic organization (or correlation). Mormonism has long considered itself a “peculiar” religion, or, at least a “peculiar” people in the sense that they are distinct (and special) from all of the other people on the planet – they are god’s chosen people (1 Peter 2:9). However, that peculiarity or distinctiveness is really only as a body or collective, as internal distinctiveness is frowned upon while strict obedience and adherence to the dictates of the leadership of the religion are praised. Ergo, Mormons consider themselves “peculiar” in a good way. The other elements – bureaucratic organization and correlation – have their roots in the 1960s growth and expansion of the religion. At the time, the many facets of the religion were becoming increasingly unwieldy. As a result, a strict top-down organization was instituted through which the leaders of the religion (i.e., the “general authorities) fortified their positions at the top of the hierarchy and gained near absolute dominance over every aspect of the religion. That organizational development has increasingly pushed the religion to take the form of a multi-national corporation rather than an institution dedicated to the spiritual growth of questing souls.

Mauss begins the book by illustrating, through the use of his symbols, that there is a conflict inherent in these two forces, “Perhaps we are entitled to wonder, then, if there is anything portentous about the diminishing visibility of the angel as Temple Square in Salt Lake City is increasingly surrounded and obscured by modern high-rise office buildings” (p. 4). The one symbolic point not included here is that the truly megalithic office building in downtown Salt Lake City is the LDS religion’s own Church Office Building, which towers both above the famed temple and all of the other office buildings in that growing city. Turning the symbols into their referents, the conflict is between assimilation to a bland bureaucratic corporation with characteristics typical of other U.S. religions and the unique characteristics that drew so many adherents to Joseph Smith’s fledgling religion in the early 19th century, including his charisma, prophetic zeal, and sometimes bizarre doctrinal forays (e.g., plural marriage and temple rituals). The conflict is similar to that which faced Catholicism prior to the charismatic movement that engendered reforms and lead to an internal push that brought new life to a nearly lifeless, ritualized organization. In short, is Mormonism assimilating or remaining distinct? That is the question Mauss is attempting to answer in this book.

The question is framed within a social movements perspective and clearly illustrates that all social movements must find a way to resolve that particular tension, “If, in its quest for acceptance and respectability, a movement allows itself to be pulled too far toward assimilation, it will lose its unique identity altogether. If, on the other hand, in its quest for uniqueness of identity and mission, it allows itself to move too far toward an extreme rejection of the host society, it will lose its very life. Its viability and its separate identity both depend upon a successful and perpetual oscillation within a fairly narrow range along a continuum between two alternative modes of oblivion” (p. 5). In setting up the conflict, Mauss draws upon previous research (Shipps and Shepherd and Shepherd) to illustrate that Mormonism has edged closer to both extremes at different times in its past. In the first 60 years or so of the religion, it was clearly closer to the distinctive side of the continuum. But with the discontinuance of polygamy and the gaining of statehood in the 1890s, a new age of assimilation was introduced that ultimately led the religion to become what some authors argued was the stereotypical “American religion” – engendering standard U.S. values like hard work and frugality.

To illustrate just how much the religion assimilated up through the 1960s, Mauss draws upon survey data he collected during that decade (see p. 35) that shows Mormons both inside and outside Utah were increasingly similar to their non-Mormon counterparts, at least in very specific ways. Mormons had increased their educational attainment, socio-economic status, and to some degree, their tolerance of both other religions and other races (despite the fact they were still almost exclusively Anglo-Saxon at that point; see p. 47).

It is at this point that Mauss introduces the argument of the book – the Mormon religion is undergoing a “retrenchment” toward peculiarity in its ongoing battle to maintain a balance between assimilation and distinctiveness, “…beginning in or around the 1960s, Mormons began to become increasingly aware of their new predicament of respectability” (p. 78). Mauss argues that the awareness was apparent on at least three levels: the official level (i.e., church leaders), the folk or grassroots level, and the intellectual level. Each of these groups has since found ways to celebrate those elements of Mormonism that make the religion distinct. For the leadership, it was charisma and the importance of modern day prophets and revelation. For the regular members it was the values and norms that make them unique, like their abstention from alcohol and tobacco and their emphasis of family values and participation in temple rituals. And for the intellectuals it was a new found interest in the history and identity of the Mormon people, often referred to as the “New Mormon History” (see pp. 78-79).

To develop his argument, Mauss draws upon several additional sources of data (beyond his 1960s surveys). His primary source often seems to be his personal experience as an active, faithful (though questioning and intellectual) member of the religion. But he also draws upon GSS data and other pre-existing surveys to highlight that in some ways Mormons are growing increasingly distinct from mainline religious groups in the U.S. One of the ways they are growing distinct is in their move toward religious fundamentalism. In many regards, Mormons are closer to Southern Baptists than they are to Presbyterians. While their style of worship remains somber and relatively low-key (think Episcopalian or Lutheran here), the beliefs themselves have moved toward Pentecostalism – they are increasingly Biblical (and Book of ‘Mormonical’) literalists. They also hold extremely orthodox views of the elements of Mormonism that make the religion distinct – that Joseph Smith spoke with god, that there is a devil, and that Jesus Christ literally lived and died for their sins. In short, the retrenchment is pushing Mormonism toward religious fundamentalism and orthodoxy.

Mauss’s thesis is clearly situated in the early 1990s when the book was written. He does, however, offer some insights about possible conflicts that loom on the horizon of the increasingly international religion. For instance, he talks at some length about the cultural conflicts that arise as a result of the bureaucratic mindset running the religion that insists on the assimilation of its members into the peculiar lifestyle of the membership. There is very little accommodation for the beliefs and values of societies that differ from the U.S., at least not after the religion gains a foothold in the country and begins to develop a strong foundation of faithful adherents. As a result, cultural conflicts develop and, to date, have not found a means of resolution (short of excommunicating their serious offenders). Mauss, as a proponent of the faith, offers some suggestions for alleviating those tensions, but he is fairly reserved in his suggestions (see p. 205).

Review:
Aside from some very minor concerns, this book has everything going for it. It is well-written, compelling, and fun reading (at least, for those who are interested in the sociology of Mormonism). While I have reservations about the repeated use of small, convenience samples as the basis of generalizations about Mormonism (all of which are couched in qualifications and reservations by the author), it is often the personal tone of the book that makes it so engaging. The book is littered with instances where the author uses his personal experiences to illustrate broader points, “During my visits with friends or relatives back in Utah during those years, the church had a different “feel” there; it felt more powerful and secure, to be sure, but also more smug, complacent, parochial, rigid, and intolerant” (p. xii).

The author’s personal insights, based upon a lifetime of attendance in Mormon congregations and decades of social scientific interest in the religion, are some of the most resonant points he makes. Some were so insightful that I found myself laughing at how true they rang, despite lacking substantiating evidence from large-scale random surveys, “The surviving converts from the pioneer period, often lovable eccentrics, were appreciated as exhibits of devotion and endurance, but they were usually shunted aside from real leadership positions by younger and perhaps better-educated converts and westerners who were not in a position to appreciate the lore and history of the old struggling branches” (p. 13). Having spent a considerable amount of time outside Utah as an active Mormon I can attest to the fact that many early adopters are, in fact, eccentrics – people who are in some ways distanced from their local culture or society and willing to join a budding cult-like group. Mauss’s observation is an insightful truism.

The personal tone takes a slightly different direction at times as well. As the author notes, he is not your stereotypical Mormon, “Whatever the reasons, the fact remains that I have come to feel increasingly marginal to the Mormon community during my adult life, at least in a social and intellectual sense, despite my continuing and conscientious participation in church activity (including leadership), and despite my own deep personal faith in the religion itself. As much as anything, then, this book is an effort to help me understand my own changing relationship to the Mormon institutions and people. Perhaps it will thus have special meaning to others who have experienced similar migrations to the margins, but I hope it will enhance the understanding of everyone who reads on” (pp. xii-xiii). While Professor Mauss hasn’t written a self-help guide for marginal Mormons, he has put together a compelling explanation of why intellectually-minded, liberal-leaning Mormons are likely to feel less comfortable in the religion of their youth.

As the author notes, there was, prior to his writing this book, substantial evidence and research to indicate that, indeed, an ebb and flow of assimilation and retrenchment had taken place in Mormonism’s past. As the evidence has accumulated, the basic thesis seems to be wholly without question – clearly the Mormon religion has been working hard to find both a unique niche and safe balance between the two conflicting forces. Inasmuch as the book focuses on that well-determined point, I have no problem with the findings. There are, however, a few instances in which I found statements or conclusions of the book a bit questionable. For instance, at one point the author argues that the Mormon religion’s survival as a unique body beyond a generation or two is an “anomaly” (p. 16). While it is certainly the case that new religious movements (NRMs or cults) do not spring up everyday and survive close to 200 years, Mormonism is not the only one to have done that. Another U.S. born religion, The Jehovah’s Witnesses, is only slightly younger than the Mormon religion and it, too, has maintained its distinctiveness while surpassing the LDS religion in worldwide growth. Arguably the Seventh-day Adventists have maintained a degree of peculiarity as well, though less so than the other two. Finally, while still young, the Hare Krishna, Bahai, and Unification Church movements have maintained substantial vitality and show no signs of disappearing; they are arguably the Mormon religions of the future.

Mauss also argues that Mormons had assimilated into U.S. culture by the 1960s to such a substantial degree that in many regards they were indistinguishable from non-Mormons. In some instances, these claims are stretched a bit beyond the reality. For instance, he claims that Mormons achieved “virtual parity” socio-economically with Episcopalians and Presbyterians by the mid 1980s (p. 22). Having recently read his source for that claim (Roof and McKinney 1987), I can attest that “virtual parity” is not “actual parity” and that Mormons had not quite reached that level of socio-economic status. Granted, it was close, but the difference was still significant enough for Roof and McKinney to group Mormons with the echelon just below Episcopalians and Presbyterians.

There are also several instances in which the author’s subtle favoritism toward Mormonism seeps into his writing. I don’t intend to label Mauss as an apologist, as he is clearly more critical of the religion in this book than he is laudatory, but there are instances where things would have been worded differently if the author was not LDS. For instance, on p. 50 Mauss says, “This anomaly in a church with an otherwise strongly egalitarian tradition was scarcely noticed by other Americans until the crest of the civil rights movement in the early sixties.” He is referring here, to the Mormon policy banning blacks from full participation in the religion. The part that is questionable is the reference to an “egalitarian tradition,” which I found questionable. While some Mormon scholars may argue otherwise, Mormonism is not a pillar of egalitarianism in any real sense of the word – it is a patriarchal religion that bars women from most leadership positions, maintains an aura of exclusivity and elitism, and is governed by a well-to-do body of men who nepotistically appoint their family members and close acquaintances to positions of power. While the religion is clearly not fascist or outrightly bigoted (anymore), it does not deserve the label egalitarian (see also Mauss’s brief treatment of the removal of the priesthood ban for blacks on p. 211 for subtle hints of favoritism). Finally, while not exactly an example of favoritism, Mauss also occasionally projects what I believe are his own views onto the Mormon body politik. For instance, on page 110 he argues that Mormonism has consistently taught and favored peaceful resolutions to political conflicts. While there have been instances when that was the case, I believe the real motivation behind pro-peace statements have been specific leaders and not the actual doctrines of the religion. As the current war with Iraq illustrates, the LDS religion is positioned in such a fashion that it can use its doctrine and scripture to support a war effort as easily as it can to support peaceful resolutions (see the following link for the religion’s position on the Iraq War of 2003: http://lds.org/newsroom/showpackage/0,15367,3899-1—-19-699,00.html ).

Criticisms aside, this is an excellent and insightful book. Let me highlight a few additional points that are particularly clear and unique in their insightfulness. The author goes to some length to point out that Mormons do not qualify as a distinct ethnic group (see pages 63-65), at least no more so than does the international conglomeration of Catholics. The author also points out that orthodoxy in the religion does not differ by educational attainment, but rather by two other important factors: whether you live in the Mormon corridor (Utah and its immediate environs) or not and one’s discipline of study. Those who live outside the Mormon corridor are less orthodox, as are those who study the social sciences, humanities, and liberal arts. Hard scientists are as orthodox, if not more so, than are Mormons without advanced education.

Mauss also notes that the assimilation and bureaucratization of Mormonism, while not a conscious and intentional push by the leadership of the religion, is the result of changes in the leadership of the religion, “Different kinds of education, training, and careers create different cognitive orientations or mindsets. People who are trained and work in practical fields, such as business, engineering, medicine, and public administration, are likely to approach problems (even church problems) in a pragmatic way. This does not imply any lack of values in even the most pragmatic decisions, but the decisions are likely to reflect primarily cost-benefit analyses” (p. 84). This is a particularly insightful perspective on why the direction of the religion has changed so substantially in recent decades.

Overall, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the study of Mormonism. Combining this volume with O’Dea’s treatise on Mormonism from the 1950s would arguably provide outsiders as thorough an understanding of Mormonism as is necessary to truly grasp the complexity of this maturing religious movement. There is no doubt that the primary argument of the book is accurate, even if there are some minor issues that are less solidly developed: Mormonism underwent a significant period of retrenchment from the 1960s through the 1990s. The only real question is whether that retrenchment has continued… I may be alone on this, but I don’t think it has…

Casanova, Jose. 1994. Public Religion in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rating:
6

Review:
The initial premise of Jose Casanova’s 1995 book, Public Religions in the Modern World, seems bold and daring – proposing that there is a place for public religions in a modern, secular world. But the conclusion of the book undermines the overt premise as what the author actually concludes is a complex modification of what it means to be a ‘public’ religion.

The book begins by arguing that the 1980s saw a reversal in the trend of privatization that was characterizing religions around the world. During this decade, a number of religions moved from the private, individual sphere of personal salvation to the public spheres of ‘publicity’ and ‘political involvement’ (p. 3).

Casanova then presents the first version of his book’s thesis,

The central thesis of the present study is that we are witnessing the “deprivatization” of religion in the modern world. By deprivatization I mean the fact that religious traditions throughout the world are refusing to accept the marginal and privatized role which theories of modernity as well as theories of secularization had reserved for them. (p. 5)

What follows is a lengthy discussion of what it means to be a public religion and how being a ‘public religion’ is possible considering classical secularization theory has argued for the differentiation and diminution of religion for the last 150 years. In this discussion, Casanova does make several important points, including a reconsideration of what is meant by secularization. Casanova argues that secularization is actually used to refer to, “three different propositions: secularization as religious decline, secularization as differentiation, and secularization as privatization” (p. 7). As a result of this distinction, Casanova argues that the three dimensions of secularization must be analyzed separately, which is a valid point. However, rather than discuss each topic in turn, he dismisses the first proposition off-handedly within the very same paragraph, “The assumption that religion will tend to disappear with progressive modernization, a notion which has proven patently false as a general empirical proposition, is traced genealogically back to the Enlightenment critique of religion.”

The rest of the theoretical discussion centers around the second two propositions, namely differentiation and privatization. Casanova does not seem to have a problem with societal differentiation, the result of which is primarily distinct (though admittedly fluid) spheres for religion and the other elements of society.

But the proposition of secularization which most interests Casanova, and with which his book takes issue, is the idea of religious privatization. Casanova believes religions are, want to be, and can continue to be ‘public’ institutions. He believes secularization theory has unduly relegated religion to the ‘private’ sphere, the result being that only, “established state churches are designated as “public” religions whereas all other religions are considered to be “private” (p. 55).

Casanova then uses comparative historical analysis to illustrate how religions can vary as ‘public’ institutions. Casanova analyzes the historical development of five socio-religious relationships from the late 1700s through the present in four countries using two religions: Catholicism in Spain, Catholicism in Brazil, Catholicism in Poland, evangelical Protestantism in America, and Catholicism in America.

Casanova argues that his historical analysis of these socio-religious relationships results in a refined understanding of what it means to be a ‘public’ religion,

This study has constructed a particular typology of public religions using the tripartite division of the modern democratic polity into state, political society, and civil society. Since to each of these levels there corresponds a different form of public sphere, there can be in principle public religions at the state level, public religions active in political society, and public religions which participate in the public sphere of civil society. (p. 218)

But Casanovas revised understanding of ‘public’ religion is only part of his conclusion. Casanova ultimately concludes that, “privatization is not a modern structural trend” but rather an option,

In other words, this study has tried to show that there can be and that there are public religions in the modern world which do not need to endanger either modern individual freedoms or modern differentiated structures. It is true that, like religious decline, privatization is also a dominant historical trend in many societies, usually in the same ones which experience religious decline, both processes being interrelated. But privatization is not a modern structural trend but, rather, a historical option. To be sure, it seems to be a modern “preferred option,” but it is an option nonetheless. (p. 215)

Despite making some valid points, there are a number of problems with both the book and the author’s conclusions. One of the biggest problems with the book is the nearly unintelligible historical analysis of the first three countries, Spain, Brazil, and Poland. None of the chapters begins with a clearly articulated plan for analyzing the relationship between Catholicism and the socio-religious development of the country. In each treatment, Casanova jumps around both conceptually and chronologically and, without the reader having at least some prior knowledge of the histories of these countries and the involvement of Catholicism with their governments, the writing is difficult to understand at best and indecipherable at worst. Thankfully the poor historical treatment improves once the analysis moves to America and its relationship with both evangelical Protestantism and Catholicism.

A second problem with the historical analysis is a continual overstatement of the influence of religion. Seldom is the influence of any other group, movement, or individual (other than Catholic priests or bishops) included in Casanova’s analyses of the numerous revolutions that took place in both Spain and Brazil. As the author depicts it, one might think sole responsibility for the current democratic regimes in Spain, Brazil, and Poland lies with the Roman Catholic Church. Admittedly the Catholic Church was influential, especially in Poland, but it did not act alone. Given the author’s inclusion of social movement theories to describe the deprivitazation of evangelical protestantism in America, it would also have been nice to see him branch out to take into consideration the other forces that were actively involved in all of these transitions (corporate and political interests in the conservative, evangelical movement in America during the 1980s and the educated intelligentsia in Spain, Brazil, and Poland, to name just two).

Before discussing the problems in Casanova’s conclusions, an element of his conceptualization of secularization warrants additional discussion. Because a few countries have witnessed relatively recent involvement of religion in ‘public’ life (in the last few decades), Casanova considers this involvement ‘recent’ and uses it to bolster his argument that religion’s ‘public’ life is not over. But Casanova’s conceptualization of secularization is wholly unfair. He presents secularization as though it should have immediately reached its apex (the non-existence of religion, or at the very least, the complete privatization of religion) after its initial formulations. The concept of secularization is no more than two to three hundred years old and was only clearly formulated and advocated in the mid-nineteenth century. By arguing that secularization is an ill-founded theory because religion is still around and occasionally makes forays into public life is akin to arguing homo sapiens are unintelligent because they have existed for 2 to 5 million years but did not develop a steam engine 500,000 years ago. None of the early advocates of secularization, nor any of the current advocates of neo-secularization, hold the erroneous assumption that the complete secularization of society is going to take place over night, or, to put it on a relative timeline, over 150 to 200 years from its earliest formulations. Casanova’s relativization of recency is misleading.

The analytical and conceptual problems are fairly minor compared to the problems with Casanova’s conclusions. Only one of the five cases, Poland, presents even minor support for his argument that privatization is a choice. Casanova eventually admits that, “Of the case studies analyzed in this book, today such a scenario [a public religion which participates in the public sphere of civil society] seems plausible, although unlikely, only in Poland” (p. 220). He goes on to admit that the rest of the case studies support the idea of religious deprivatization only insofar as they are “taking a public stand for the sake of defending the very right to a modern public sphere” (p. 220). In other words, only in Poland is religion still highly integrated into public life.

But even this one case is highly suspect considering Poland’s social, political, and religious history is incomparably distinct from all of the other cases. Though Spain and Brazil experienced brief periods of Communist government, neither were under the control of Communism for near the length of time that Poland was. Couple this fact with Casanova’s own analysis of Poland’s religious history that includes the purging of Jews from the country during World War II, and the result is a distinct relationship with Roman Catholicism; a relationship that is arguably different from the relationship of Roman Catholicism with any other country in the world. But even with these distinctions, Casanova eventually admits that Poland is teetering on the edge of “the vicious cycles of the nineteenth-century French-Latin pattern of secularization” (p. 109) and has already witnessed significant declines in religious authority as Catholics are increasingly disregarding their church’s stance on abortion (p. 113).

As I read the successive case studies and realized that they did not seem to support Casanova’s propositions (nor his conclusions), I could not help but question the contribution of this book. My suspicion that the book had no real contribution was partially validated when the author stated, “Consequently, the case studies were not constructed in such a way that they would best confirm any theory or illustrate any typology” (p. 218). I couldn’t help but wonder if Casanova had actually set out to do something else entirely with his analyses.

This realization was particularly disconcerting considering these analyses could contribute to an understanding of the resourcefulness of religion in movement mobilization. Repeatedly, I was struck by how religion was used by groups to accomplish their ends: to overthrow Communism in Poland, to work towards a political voice for the Moral Majority in America, etc. In each of these processes, religion appeared to ‘deprivatize’ primarily because the movements exploited its ability to produce solidarity. But it also seems that in each case once the ‘end’ was achieved, the ‘means’ was discarded, or at least began a process of decline. Casanova could have used his analyses to illustrate very different processes, but instead chose to argue for a theoretical subtlety that was at best only minimally supported by his data.

It also seemed as though Casanova was using his book as a sounding board for commentary on present-day Roman Catholicism. He levels a few criticisms at Catholicism, but primarily seems to be offering advice, “Only by retreating again to a private sectarian refuge and abandoning its claims to be a public religion in the modern world can the church [Roman Catholicism] escape the unintended consequences of having entered the modern public sphere” (p. 207).

Ultimately, I’m unsure what, if anything, Casanova intended to accomplish with this book. The primary thesis (which changed according to my count at least five times), that religions have the choice to privatize or not in the modern world, seemed to find only minimal support, and that only in a very unique case. Perhaps I was hoping for a more definitive and clear cut conclusion than the ambiguous final thought the author provides,

Western modernity is at a crossroads. If it does not enter into a creative dialogue with the other, with those traditions which are challenging its identity, modernity will most likely triumph. But it may end up being devoured by the inflexible, inhuman logic of its own creations. It would be profoundly ironic if, after all the beatings it has received from modernity, religion could somehow unintentionally help modernity save itself. (p. 234)

Do religions have the choice to freely enter into the ‘public’ sphere? Based on the evidence provided by Casanova, I’m inclined to believe secularization has advanced too far to allow that to happen in all but the most extreme cases (Iran and perhaps Poland). The irony is that Casanova intended to convince me otherwise.

Buerger, David John. 1994. The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

Rating:
10

Summary:
Essential reading for Mormons and Mormon historians

The book explores the history of Mormon temple worship from its early origins in the Kirtland Temple, through the changes instituted prior to Joseph Smith’s death while the Saints where in Nauvoo, IL, and the changes since the death of Joseph Smith up to the present (at least when the book was written). The book explains that the earliest temple rituals/ceremonies practiced in Kirtland did not include any variation of the endowment ceremony currently practiced in Mormon temples. The precursor of the current endowment was only introduced after Joseph Smith began his association with Freemasonry, which was during the Nauvoo years. The book also points out that while there are many marked similarities between Freemasonry and the Mormon temple ceremony (especially in its earliest Mormon incarnations), the Mormon version has been modified and has evolved over time to its current state. The Mormon endowment is still similar to the rituals of Freemasonry, especially in the secret signs and symbols, but the meanings and presentation have changed from their Masonic roots.

Interspersed in the history of the temple endowment are numerous interesting anecdotes about important Mormon historical events, some critical, some not. For instance, Buerger presents the following quote in relation to the Pentecost-like atmosphere that allegedly accompanied the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, “William McLellin, at the time a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, subsequently wrote that “it was no endowment from God. Not only myself was not endowed, but no other man of the five hundred who was present– except it was with wine!”“ (p.28).

Additionally, the book spends a good deal of time discussing the ‘second anointing’ ritual, which is also a Mormon temple ceremony. This ritual seems to be unknown among the majority of the present membership of the religion, which is surprising considering it guarantees the recipient eternal life (the highest possible reward in the afterlife; even better than being ‘saved’ for evangelicals). Though still performed today, the number of individuals that receive it is small and it is primarily only performed for the hierarchy of the religion, a fact which seems to feed the argument that Mormonism is an elitist religion with an elitist ruling group. The ritual also reinforces Mormon patriarchy – women are presented as subordinate to their husbands while the husbands are subordinate to god (this is also the case in the regular temple endowment as well). Finally, the author (p. 118) also points out that in the guidelines for recommending individuals for the second anointing it is mentioned that potential recipients should be highly unlikely to apostatize. Of course, by stipulating this one could interpret this to indicate that god is not directing who receives the anointing and who does not, as an omnipotent god would know who is going to apostatize and who is not (a point I found particularly funny).

The book concludes with some statistics on temple attendance and the percentage of Mormons that are endowed, indicating that temple work among Mormons isn’t as active as the leadership would like nor are as many members of the religion endowed as the leadership would like (about 1/3 of converts are endowed).

Review:
I have but one criticism of this book – it uses a lot of extensive quotes and has a tendency to gloss over the quotes, allowing them to speak for themselves (which works sometimes) rather than discussing and interpreting them (which would have helped at other times). Other than this minor criticism, I found this book to be very informative and would highly recommend it for Mormons and historians of Mormons. I am not an expert on Mormon history (my expertise is more on the sociology of Mormonism), but neither would I consider myself a novice on Mormon history. With the historical knowledge at my fingertips, I failed to see any inaccuracies in the book, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there and perhaps other ‘expert’ historians have pointed them out.

But where I really want to focus in this review is on some of the points that are made in the text. For instance, after reading just the first 15 pages I found it hard to believe that Mormon apologists can still insist that the Mormon temple ceremony was revealed in its “perfect form.” Just like everything else in the Mormon Church, the temple endowment and its accompanying ceremonies have evolved over time. The implication of this evolution is that Joseph Smith created the rituals as an amalgamation of existing rituals (from Freemasonry) and not that God revealed them perfectly to begin with. While some could still insist that Joseph Smith received the rituals and ceremonies from Freemasonry (through divine intervention or not) and then was divinely directed to modify them into their ‘perfect’ form, I find even this argument implausible given the discussion of the evolution of these rituals in the text. If the endowment was in its perfect form upon the death of Joseph Smith, there would have been no need to revise it since then. However, since the death of Joseph Smith the temple ceremony has been heavily revised, including a period in which Brigham Young’s Adam-God doctrine was included as an introductory message (p. 110). As recently as the 1990s the ceremony was being revised (removing the penalties and the minister of other Christian faiths). Of course, critics of my naturalistic interpretation can argue that Mormonism is still being guided by an active god, but I just have to wonder why that god needs 170 years to get something right…

Another positive of this book is that it does not use exclusively ‘Mormon-friendly’ sources. The author includes non-Mormon and even anti-Mormon sources in his search for information on the evolution of Mormon temple ceremonies. I particularly enjoyed an account of the endowment ceremony by an apostate woman. I enjoyed this account because she had left the Church but was presenting her account to an anti-Mormon newspaper to correct their erroneous allegations. The apostate women did not speak favorably of Mormonism, but her depiction of the temple endowment was accurate. There are ex-Mormons that slander Mormonism, but there are also a lot of ex- and non-Mormons who provide accurate accounts of Mormonism, if not faith-promoting descriptions. It would do the membership of the religion well to realize this.

The book also discusses, though not in great length, Mormon cursing (not using profanity – though that was likely included at times). Mormon priesthood and temple endowments include the ability to curse one’s enemies, and cursing has taken place during several notable events in Mormon history, including the dedication of the Kirtland Temple and in 1880 during the crackdown on polygamy. Included among the cursed in 1880 were Martin Van Buren, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James Buchannan. Perhaps I’m overlooking a scripture or verse here, but I don’t seem to recall Jesus ever cursing anyone; this just doesn’t seem to be morally upright behavior (this from an agnostic that does not recognize a divine source for his morals and values…).

Finally, Buerger includes a discussion of how Joseph Smith incorporated his newly revealed understandings of the two-tiered system of priesthood with the Masonic temple ceremony to create the Mormon endowment. Though Buerger does not get very specific here, he seems to indicate that the original intention was to present a hierarchical system akin to the different ranks of Freemasonry, which would have indicated that different ranks in the priesthood (e.g., deacon, teacher, priest, elder, high priest) would have been made privy to only certain components of the temple endowment. This is, in fact, not the case today (with the exception, perhaps of the second anointings). While it is true that one must receive the Melchizedek Priesthood before receiving one’s endowment, after having received the Melchizedek Priesthood, one is then introduced into all of the orders of the priesthood (both Aaronic and Melchizedek) in the endowment; they are presented one after another during the standard endowment. For those that are not in the know, the current Mormon temple endowment includes first and second orders of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. I had often wondered why the distinction was made between the orders of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods in the temple ceremony when you just proceeded to go from the lower to the higher within about an hour’s time. I think I finally understand this now; thank you Buerger.

Overall, as I have said now two times, this is an excellent book that I would highly recommend for Mormons and historians of Mormonism. Those with just a passing interest in Mormonism may find the information contained within to be too specialized for furthering their understanding of Mormonism.