Episode 29: The Occult in America and the Rise of Mormonism

Thank you. This podcast was extremely informative and interesting.
I’m looking forward to reading the book. Mitch has given us such great insight to the historical connection of the Albany area and the rise of many religious demoninations, including Mormonism. It gave me a better understanding of Joseph Smith’s interest in treasure hunting and seer stones. Thanks again for this and all of your podcasts!

This was one of your best podcasts so far. Great stuff. It’s amazing that Mormonism is not mentioned until half an hour into the episode and then isn’t the central focus of the remainder of the discussion and yet I feel so much more informed about early Mormon history. This is the kind of context that so much of Mormon history is lacking. How great that you got Mitch to visit Mormon Expression — this was a real treat.

This was GREAT! Really enjoyed it. Thank you so much.

Dudes.

A-M-A-Z-I-N-G

Seriously. I DESPERATELY wanted to hear the 2nd hour (about the Occult and Joseph/the early church).

Have ya’ll considered doing multiple hours and splitting them up into multiple episodes? That totally worked for me and MoSto…fwiw.

Ya’ll freaking rule.

John

The Jupiter Talisman is mentioned. I actually own a copy of it, I sometimes play with it while doing the podcast. Its a bogus story though:
A silver “pocket piece” was bought by the Church from Charles Bidamon, the son of Major Bidamon, who was married to Emma Smith after the murder of Joseph. He said, “This piece came to me through the relationship of my father, Major L. C. Bidamon, who married the Prophet Joseph Smith’s widow, Emma Smith. I certify that I have many times heard her say, when being interviewed, and showing the piece, that it was in the Prophet’s pocket when he was martyred at Carthage, Ill.”

Questions about the authenticity are really strong. First, Bidamon never said anything about the piece for fifty-eight years after Emma’s death to make his certification, which at the time of her death he was but merely a fifteen-year-old boy.

Second, no such piece was listed in Joseph’s personal effects which were turned over to Emma. The itemized list of the contents of Joseph Smith’s pockets was pubished by the lawyer who collected the propeht’s personal effects. This listing is:

“Received, Nauvoo, Illinois, July 2, 1844, of James W. Woods, one hundred and thirty- five dollars and fifty cents in gold and silver and receipt for shroud, one gold finger ring, one gold pen and pencil case, one penknife, one pair of tweezers, one silk and one leather purse, one small pocket wallet containing a note of John P. Green for $50, and a receipt of Heber C. Kimball for a note of hand on Ellen M. Saunders for one thousand dollars, as the property of Joseph Smith. – Emma Smith.”

The so-called talisman was not in any way similiar to a coin, being larger and with symbols and Hebrew characters. Certainly not any coin of the realm.

Third, Emma never once mentioned a talisman in any of the interviews every recorded. Since the claim was that the propeht carried this medallion, and Emma spoke of it often (according to Bidamon) it is strange no one else every heard about it.

Awesome podcast. I like Dehlin’s idea. 2 hours would have been even better. Thought the same thing about the stages of faith podcast. But hey, who am I to complain. Thanks for all you guys do.

I can’t see how a gay man who has relationships with men, can possibly be “worthy” to have any calling in a ward, unless the relationship is utterly non-physical.

The ward Mitch attends appears to be in apostasy. This isn’t Mormonism.

Hi Gail- thanks for the questions. There are many like you, who remain culturally Mormon yet don’t attend–and that makes me sad. Really, though, it’s sadness for the loss of YOU to the faith, not so much the loss of the faith to you–if that makes sense. Divergent viewpoints and voices are needed–there is more diversity in our Father’s kingdom than we even have the remotest ability to comprehend in our mortal state. What a wonderful day it will be when that is reflected inside our religion as well.

Tithing: Deeply personal subject for all of us. Two major philosophies. First, I do believe that we have a responsibility to ‘give back’ when it comes to our financial resources. Some members now choose to donate their tithing directly online to the church humanitarian fund, which helps guarantee that money go for aid to real people–like victims of Hurricane Katrina. Others choose to do that and combine donations to other organizations, such as The Family Acceptance Project, to a sum total of 10% of their income. Then during tithing settlement, show those donations and look at it as a full tithe.

A second school of thought is those who believe that giving back is the right thing, and once we’ve given our 10%, our hands and hearts are clean. If the organization chooses to use those funds for less than righteous purposes, that is something that they, then, will be accountable for and will have to explain to our Savior.

I think both are good and fair approaches–tithing is so personal, I think we owe it to ourselves and our Savior to figure out what works best for us.

Relationships: I’ve often said on this one that I don’t have the crystal ball. I don’t know if that will ever happen for me again. I have agreed to be completely transparent about it, if it does, and that’s the best I can do. I won’t commit to a life of celibacy nor would I advise anyone to do that. We, as humans, can’t really use the terms “always” or “never” with any degree of certainty–only one among us could make that kind of deep promise. What we can promise, and what I have promised, is to always live my life in accordance with what *I* understand my Savior’s will for me to be.

Besides, what happens to me personally is kind of not important to me. I can’t live my life in the “what ifs” of tomorrow and the “should haves” of yesterday. For right here, today, this is an opportunity for me–and that is where my time and attention are focused. (Wow, living in the present–the Buddhist in me is coming out…lol!)

Thanks so much for asking those questions, my sister! Keep the faith!

None taken on this side.

Disappointed.

I’ll agree to take him (and
Ty Mansfield) at face value. And with that, wish them the best of luck.
If they’re truly able to be successful in their heterosexual
relationships, then they’re not really “gay,” are they? Science calls
that “bisexuality,” and my experience
has been while people fall all over the place on the Kinsey continuum,
it’s relatively few who land in the middle–most of us are pretty firmly
tipped to one side or another.

What I fear: There are a
great many MoHos out there who, due to explicit and implicit messages
and encouragement to ‘change,’ that will read this along with Ty
Mansfield’s story and think there’s a way to change who they really are,
based on a faulty belief that they should actually try because they’re
broken/damaged. And, given there is no evidence that demonstrates change
is possible (or that homosexuality is a choice), they will fail.
(Sidebar: Science has proven that attempts to change orientation are
actually damaging to individuals, especially those highly motivated by
faith-based reasons).

Then, when they fail, their feelings of
inadequacy deepen, and the messages often from those they love change
from “Come on, you can do it!” to “You just didn’t try/pray/fast hard
enough.” Self esteem sinks even lower, well meaning friends (and often
church leaders) seem disappointed, and depression ensues–and this is
where we end up seeing MoHos take their own lives.

So good for
Josh Weed and Ty Mansfield, if they are indeed among the small
percentage who fall in the middle of the continuum. However, for the
remaining 90-something percent of LGBT individuals this sends a
confusing and dangerous message.

Mitch,Thank you for answering so thoughtfully and comprehensively. I also thank you for being willing to open up on such personal topics. I have asked very personal questions in a very unequal forum. Your identity in this setting is completely transparent were mine is not scrutinized at all. No one cares if I reveal anything about who I am or even lie about who I am. So I understand it is a bit unfair for me to ask any of these questions. It is with that understanding that I post this follow up.

Concerning your relationship status. How does it make you feel that as far as the church is concerned your worthiness for this calling and many others is contingent upon your relationship status? If one of the best things in the world ever happens in your life the church would see you as unworthy to have this calling. Also how do you feel that the only way you would be worthy or perhaps qualify for many other callings in the church ie bishop, stake presidency, I think high council would be to enter a mixed orientation marriage which even the church does not recommend because of how unhealthy and violating it is?

Thank you again Mitch for your willingness to engage here.

Gail

Excellent response. Exactly what I was thinking. (That is it works for them he is clearly bi, not gay.)