The Gell-Mann amnesia effect is not uncommonly cited among rationalist-adjacent circles. It states that readers tend to be able to easily identify mistakes about their own field of research in popular news coverage or essays, while simultaneously abstaining from reasonable skepticism about the accuracy of news coverage for fields the reader is unfamiliar with.
That is, we tend to assume that anyone who can write engagingly and who comes off as confident and knowledgeable is correct, even though our priors on accuracy ought to be largely informed by how accurately the writer represents the field in which the reader has firsthand experience.
So, with that having been said: I am used to reading coverage of Mormon precepts, cultural attitudes and religious beliefs which border on the absurd for their inaccuracy and frequent leaps in logic. It is not universal, but it is common.
Because of this pattern, I was pleasantly surprised to read this well-informed, clearly researched piece on the BoM. It’s a low bar, but every claim checked out and there were no obvious errors. Is it possible that you could be LDS? If not, kudos. I’m impressed.
Mormons certainly have a public vs private set of beliefs, and that can be considered esoteric or Straussian. This was more pronounced in the polygamist era, but continues to this day with "milk before meat". However, Joseph Smith seems more like an anti-Straussian American Kabballist figure than anything else. Masons and esoterics were quite interested in Egyptology and the connection to the patriarchs. Joseph buys a mummy and publishes the Pearl of Great Price. Or consider his translation of Corinthians which discusses heavenly and earthly bodies (Celestial and Terrestrial), and to which he explicitly adds a third: Telestial. Other people are reading between the lines and he is popularizing those ideas.
The Jesus of the New Testament was a radical. Contrary to perception, Jesus vocally and explicitly denounced the Jewish authorities, the Pharisees, Priests and Scribes. They had motive to kill him because he was openly blasphemous. Read John chapters 5, 8 - 10 to appreciate how clear Jesus was in denouncing the Jewish leadership and "religion". He didn't drop hints. He openly disdained them, calling them hypocrites, thieves and frauds.
What is Straussian is the Gospel that Jesus taught. Here we have parables and metaphors and deliberately obtuse language. Why? Perhaps the reason is that Jesus wants adherents to think for themselves. A leader who lays out rules gets faithful who are rule followers. Jesus wants faithful who embrace his philosophy - his world view - and rule following is actually something he doesn't particularly care for.
The Book of Mormon is esoteric. It begins suddenly with a man in 600BC Jerusalem having a spiritual calling to prophecy destruction of the city. There is no plot or character development. Within a couple of pages this man and his family are nomads. The book gives a reason for this situation but it does so without providing any background other than the man's life is threatened by "people" and God warns him to flee.
Yet hidden inside the Book of Mormon is the most acute and prophetic criticism of wicked American / Gentile government. There is nothing Straussian about this. The Book of Mormon says there will be deceit at the highest level of government. It provides examples of deceitful leaders. It explains how lies and schemes are used for the wicked to gain power. Many familiar with these portions of the Book of Mormon see a direct correlation to the current day.
The curious thing is the leadership of the LDS / Mormon church are not especially interested in talking about these things. A former leader, Ezra Taft Benson was and he cited these Book of Mormon writings in his sermons to denounce Communism specifically and threats to freedom generally.
Mormon observers see the church as socially conservative. Leaders speak against abortion and same sex marriage and defend chastity and family. However, at the local level the church is very socially accommodating. In particular, the church puts up zero resistance against the transgender movement and provides members little support against it. Furthermore, at all levels of the church, political conservatism is kept at a distance.
The LDS church supports illegal immigration, globalism, popular Liberal activism such as BLM, opposes concealed carry and only defends the First amendment as it serves its corporate interests - the church explicitly denies its members "freedom of association", calling it discrimination, while it demands the privilege for itself.
The Book of Mormon doesn't address specific social issues but it is politically conservative. It speaks of the rule of law, of government by the consent of the governed, of the right to bear arms in self defense, of the importance of freedom and liberty for individuals to prosper and enjoy happiness.
So there is a disconnect between the politics of the LDS church and its doctrine. In truth, most members of the church are more conservative than the church itself. This despite Liberal Mormons being so vocal about the church not caring for their concerns.
So the Book of Mormon stands apart from the church that claims it. For the church, the existence of the book is sufficient. And while reading the book is encouraged, only superficial discussion of the book is allowed. People who take what the book teaches seriously will be radicalized!
Does this make the Book of Mormon Straussian? I suppose so, but only in that the book can have a superficial existence even among the people who defend it as the word of God. The language of the book itself is plain, albeit culturally esoteric.
The Gell-Mann amnesia effect is not uncommonly cited among rationalist-adjacent circles. It states that readers tend to be able to easily identify mistakes about their own field of research in popular news coverage or essays, while simultaneously abstaining from reasonable skepticism about the accuracy of news coverage for fields the reader is unfamiliar with.
That is, we tend to assume that anyone who can write engagingly and who comes off as confident and knowledgeable is correct, even though our priors on accuracy ought to be largely informed by how accurately the writer represents the field in which the reader has firsthand experience.
So, with that having been said: I am used to reading coverage of Mormon precepts, cultural attitudes and religious beliefs which border on the absurd for their inaccuracy and frequent leaps in logic. It is not universal, but it is common.
Because of this pattern, I was pleasantly surprised to read this well-informed, clearly researched piece on the BoM. It’s a low bar, but every claim checked out and there were no obvious errors. Is it possible that you could be LDS? If not, kudos. I’m impressed.
Mormons certainly have a public vs private set of beliefs, and that can be considered esoteric or Straussian. This was more pronounced in the polygamist era, but continues to this day with "milk before meat". However, Joseph Smith seems more like an anti-Straussian American Kabballist figure than anything else. Masons and esoterics were quite interested in Egyptology and the connection to the patriarchs. Joseph buys a mummy and publishes the Pearl of Great Price. Or consider his translation of Corinthians which discusses heavenly and earthly bodies (Celestial and Terrestrial), and to which he explicitly adds a third: Telestial. Other people are reading between the lines and he is popularizing those ideas.
The Jesus of the New Testament was a radical. Contrary to perception, Jesus vocally and explicitly denounced the Jewish authorities, the Pharisees, Priests and Scribes. They had motive to kill him because he was openly blasphemous. Read John chapters 5, 8 - 10 to appreciate how clear Jesus was in denouncing the Jewish leadership and "religion". He didn't drop hints. He openly disdained them, calling them hypocrites, thieves and frauds.
What is Straussian is the Gospel that Jesus taught. Here we have parables and metaphors and deliberately obtuse language. Why? Perhaps the reason is that Jesus wants adherents to think for themselves. A leader who lays out rules gets faithful who are rule followers. Jesus wants faithful who embrace his philosophy - his world view - and rule following is actually something he doesn't particularly care for.
The Book of Mormon is esoteric. It begins suddenly with a man in 600BC Jerusalem having a spiritual calling to prophecy destruction of the city. There is no plot or character development. Within a couple of pages this man and his family are nomads. The book gives a reason for this situation but it does so without providing any background other than the man's life is threatened by "people" and God warns him to flee.
Yet hidden inside the Book of Mormon is the most acute and prophetic criticism of wicked American / Gentile government. There is nothing Straussian about this. The Book of Mormon says there will be deceit at the highest level of government. It provides examples of deceitful leaders. It explains how lies and schemes are used for the wicked to gain power. Many familiar with these portions of the Book of Mormon see a direct correlation to the current day.
The curious thing is the leadership of the LDS / Mormon church are not especially interested in talking about these things. A former leader, Ezra Taft Benson was and he cited these Book of Mormon writings in his sermons to denounce Communism specifically and threats to freedom generally.
Benson was of a very conservative mindset. The current church leadership is much more moderate. This is a point Infoveres made in a post last year: https://infovores.substack.com/p/will-the-mormon-moderation-persist
Mormon observers see the church as socially conservative. Leaders speak against abortion and same sex marriage and defend chastity and family. However, at the local level the church is very socially accommodating. In particular, the church puts up zero resistance against the transgender movement and provides members little support against it. Furthermore, at all levels of the church, political conservatism is kept at a distance.
The LDS church supports illegal immigration, globalism, popular Liberal activism such as BLM, opposes concealed carry and only defends the First amendment as it serves its corporate interests - the church explicitly denies its members "freedom of association", calling it discrimination, while it demands the privilege for itself.
The Book of Mormon doesn't address specific social issues but it is politically conservative. It speaks of the rule of law, of government by the consent of the governed, of the right to bear arms in self defense, of the importance of freedom and liberty for individuals to prosper and enjoy happiness.
So there is a disconnect between the politics of the LDS church and its doctrine. In truth, most members of the church are more conservative than the church itself. This despite Liberal Mormons being so vocal about the church not caring for their concerns.
So the Book of Mormon stands apart from the church that claims it. For the church, the existence of the book is sufficient. And while reading the book is encouraged, only superficial discussion of the book is allowed. People who take what the book teaches seriously will be radicalized!
Does this make the Book of Mormon Straussian? I suppose so, but only in that the book can have a superficial existence even among the people who defend it as the word of God. The language of the book itself is plain, albeit culturally esoteric.