We LDS like to refer to ourselves as a peculiar people. This formulation can be traced back to the scriptures, of course. I sometimes hear it invoked in the political context. For example, church members may refer to the need to guard against the values of “the world.â€? The chasm between our own (persecuted, underrepresented, peculiar) ideals and the (popular, widely shared, unpeculiar) beliefs of “the worldâ€? — it is argued — is exactly what makes us a peculiar people. And we are told that this chasm indeed exists: “the worldâ€? wants to approve of gay marriage, but we must as a peculiar people fight that trend; “the worldâ€? wants to approve abortion, but be must as a peculiar people fight that trend; and so forth. From the frequency of our self-characterization, one might be excused in thinking that Mormons were political pariahs, alone in a barren political landscape. And we certainly are alone. Alone, isolated, iconoclast, forlorn, and peculiar — a solitary eagle in his eyrie, silhouetted against the friendless sky — with no companions on which to call who might share our desolate beliefs or support our (peculiar) goals . . .
. . . except for the, oh, 59,459,765 people (a majority of 51%) who voted for the presidential candidate who was overwhelmingly supported by Mormons. And the (growing) majorities in both houses of Congress who come from a political party overwhelmingly supported by Mormons. And the majorities in every state to vote on the issue that approved same-sex marriage bans that church leaders have supported.
Other than those inconsequential allies, we’re all alone and lonely, and we’re certainly still peculiar. After all, can’t we be firmly within the political majority, wield (vast?) political power, hold mainstream political views, and still be peculiar?
Let’s face it — our self-characterization of peculiarity begins to look a bit peculiar itself on even the most casual glance at the political landscape. We oppose gay marriage because we are a peculiar people? Well, so does the vast majority of the electorate. We’re so damn peculiar that we agree with 75% of the country on this issue! Looking at other key issues like abortion or the Iraq war, the position of most Mormons is again peculiar only in its striking non-peculiarity. Our position is exactly the same as that of mainstream social-conservative and evangelical political groups, which happen to be the most politically powerful groups in the country. How peculiar! It looks like we may actually be a peculiarity among peculiar peoples — a peculiar people that isn’t actually peculiar!
Of course, the time was once that we were truly a peculiar people. When Utah was a polygamous state, alone against the union, our peculiarity was strong. Joseph Smith’s presidential platform was incredibly peculiar, as was the theocratic government of the early church. But we lost our peculiarity somewhere along the way to becoming a mainstream church. And now, we’re increasingly looking just like the rest of the social-conservative right, and their friends who control the White House and both houses of Congress. We’ve become carbon copies of the evangelical voters, minus the political clout.
A reflexive move away from the evengelical position, and towards the left, will not recover our lost peculiarity. After all, our liberal lioness Kristine, for all her lovable quirkiness, isn’t really all that peculiar either — she’s mostly an everyday Democrat, and they’re so peculiar that they pulled in 48% of the presidential vote. As for me, I’m a left-leaning centrist — again, not much peculiarity there. The honest assessment is that Kris and I — and all of those wingnuts over at BCC — are really as unpeculiar as Matt or Adam, our resident conservatives. In fact, I think that Russell Arben Fox, our communitarian conservative (to the extent that his views can be summarized in two words), is probably the only truly peculiar person on this blog.
Is the loss of our peculiarity something that we should be concerned with? Do we, as a church and as a people, lose something important when we lose our peculiarity? Should we all lay down our existing political allegiances and line up behind Russell, to champion a new communitarian future? (And if we did, would Russell’s unique position then lose its own peculiarity?) Considering the changes the church has undergone to this point, does it make much of a difference if we’re really a peculiar people anymore? After all, even if we’re no longer a peculiar people, we’re certainly still a bunch of odd ducks.
Our #1 claim to peculiarity is our unique belief in the Book of Mormon (including the story as to how it was delivered to Joseph Smith and translated). That is something that makes us weird right away. I’m not saying this as a criticism, as I’m quite fond of the BOM myself.
Living in Seattle, I would nominate our coffee abstinence as extraordinarily peculiar. I think the premarital sex prohibition might also be peculiar, not because we have one (many faiths do), but there is a reasonable effort to adhere to it.
Judy : I know I’m different, but from now on I’m going to try and be the same.
Howard : The same as what?
Judy : The same as people who aren’t different.
–What’s Up, Doc? (1972)
Kaimi,
Determining whether we are peculiar depends solely on which axis you look. If you say, hey, if Mormons are so peculiar, why do their mothers love their children, just like everyone else?!, then you’ll find many instances where we’re not at all peculiar. Mormons love ice cream. And basketball. And grandparents. Just like everyone else. Like everyone else, they oppose stealing and child neglect and throwing snowballs at nice-old ladies. They’re also opposed to gay and sibling marriage, like most everyone.
I think the statement that we are a peculiar people is based on theology, and relies most on our belief in modern miracles, modern prophets and an open canon. More than any other people, we believe that God is not dead. If you trot out your belief in continuing revelation and modern prophets to your friends at work, I’m confident they’ll assure you that you are indeed peculiar.
Matt, you’re opposed to sibling marriage? Open your mind, man! I’m tired of you being such a staunch conservative.
It’s peculiar, Kaimi, that you haven’t drawn out Russell Arben Fox yet. Damn peculiar.
Is this a posting to get the membership to buck the trend and become peculiar again? I sense a lot of antagonism towards the conservative (although it be narrow) majority in this election and the political similarities with the majority (not narrow at all) of Latter-day Saints.
Looking at it globally – the church may have helped in solidifying a conservative swing to the country but that does not make the church less peculiar, it makes the United States more peculiar. We are one of the few western nations that still promotes religious virtues and a belief in God as the ultimate moral voice. The election this year reiterated that message to the western world. Unlike the European Union, which is grappling with its own Christian heritage and its role in the philosophies and policies of the union, the United States still feels faith is important and God is relevant. We are quickly becoming the only openly Christian nation. That is peculiar.
FWIW, we miscontstrue the scriptural passages that talk about a “peculiar” people. The word is used in the KJV in its archaic sense, and the expression does not mean “weird, strange,” but refers to possession: “God’s own people.”
Kaimi: “But we lost our peculiarity somewhere along the way to becoming a mainstream church.”
Not yet, I think. And previous comments affirming the uniqueness of our faith show it. But the scary question then seems: are we slowly also giving up doctrinal uniqueness, simply by de-emphasizing certain aspects, and focusing almost exclusively on morality and values, in order to come closer to being “a Christian church”? Due to this strange desire to be accepted… Public Relations going too far?
But is it not an illusion to think that the Christian world will ever view us as Christian? Are we not stronger, and is our youth not safer, when we continue to affirm our unique doctrinal and historical identity?
I agree with Kevin.
I prefer the alternative definition of the Hebrew word segullah, translated as peculiar in the Old Testament. My understanding is that the alternative translation is “treasured.” See footnote to Deuteronomy 26:18. I defer to our more knowledgeable Hebrew scholars (I have had only one semester, 30 years ago) on this issue, however.
The english word peculiar comes from the Latin peculium, meaning private property (it has been 32 years since my year of high school latin). Thus, peculiar, to me, does not mean odd or even unusual. It means we are the property of the Lord, not just because He claims us, but because we have given ourselves to Him. And for that reason, we (and anyone else who gives or will give himself or herself to Him) are “treasured.”
I suspect that the word “peculiar” passages has been interpreted as odd or unusual by Church leaders with sufficient frequency for us legitimately to be concerned about whether we are sufficiently distinctive. But, for me, I prefer what I think is the “original meaning” of peculiar: treasured, the Lord’s property, or, as Kevin points out, God’s own people.
Kevin, David, you scooped me! I would have made the same comment.
“It’s peculiar, Kaimi, that you haven’t drawn out Russell Arben Fox yet.”
My apologies. I went a little crazy after the elections last week, wrote several posts roughly the length of War and Peace on my other blog, and then went into a meltdown. But I’m recovering fine. Really, I am. Truly.
For what it’s worth, I fully agree with Daniel’s first comment: to whatever extent we want to use, whether consciously or unconsciously, the trope of being a “peculiar people” as a way to identify us as being substantively and socially different from other folk, it is the BoM which does the most “peculiarizing” work. The acceptance of new scripture really does distinguish us in rather complicated theoretical and theological ways; Terryl Givens has written the best treatment of this, though I don’t think even he gets deep enough into it.
More pointedly: do we even want to make much of the stereotypical reading of “peculiarity” as a matter of “difference”? The phrase “peculiar people” in the New Testament doesn’t mean that Christians were unique or different or weird or unusual in any specific way; it merely meant that they were “owned”–they were (as they understood themselves) someone else’s property, set aside and marked by a particular relationship with their owner (namely God). It’s about covenants, not conventionality (or the lack thereof).
(Oh, and yes Kaimi, all of you should lay down your existing political allegiances and line up behind me. Immediately. I intend to call roll.)
Crap, Kevin and David and Rosalynde beat me. Man, my fingers are tired.
Any group of people who save the world from seeing the sagging arms of aging women have to be chosen and treasured of God. ;-)
Also, if you haven’t been to a high school near you lately, go and sit outside for an hour before or after school. It’ll soon be quite clear to you that we are still quite peculiar.
Etymology is interesting, but what counts is of course the usual connotation as applied to Mormons (linguist speaking).
President Hinckley (“Words of the Living Prophet,� Liahona, Nov. 2000, 32):
“We are a peculiar people. There is a wholesomeness about you that is beautiful and wonderful. We don’t smoke, we don’t drink, we don’t even take tea or coffee. That is strange for a lot of people. We do vicarious work for the dead. We teach that marriage in the house of the Lord is for time and for all eternity, that families can actually be forever. We are a peculiar people, and thank heavens we are. If the world continues to go in the direction it is going, families breaking up, pornography everywhere, drugs and things of that kind, we will become an even more peculiar people. God has blessed us generously and kindly and greatly. How thankful we ought to be.�
Search on lds.org reveals quite a few interesting uses within this realm and related connotations. When was the expression first used in the Church? I don’t have a database on hand here.
Wilfried, I thought of you and your previous posts. I think it is safe to say that in many (if not an overwhelming majority) countries Mormonism is very much strange and bizarre. I think the intended idea of Kaimi’s original post is confined to North America.
how does political belief affect our religous ‘peculiarity’ kaimi? seems like a strange separation of church/state argument…
Only in a Mormon meetinghouse are you likely to find two people heatedly arguing about whether or it’s O.K. to drink Diet Coke, and that makes us pretty darn peculiar.
Thanks for the comment, J. Stapley, and your reference to the situation internationally. “I think it is safe to say that in many (if not an overwhelming majority) countries Mormonism is very much strange and bizarre.”
Yes, certainly, but how does the average non-Mormon American (if that can be defined) still view Mormonism? Others could respond to this better than I can. It turns Kami’s viewpoint around: how do others still look at us?
In Europe, the image of the Church is usually either positive-bizarre (Mormons are a brand of Amish) or negative-bizarre (Krakauer-imagery). Peculiar for sure.
I wonder if some position that accounts for the etymology and the common conotation isn’t actually very simple to grasp. The word certainly means something like “private property,” but that meaning doesn’t take away from members of the Church their bizarre character. We are a bunch of odd ducks.
But why? I think that our peculiarity derives from our peculiarity. That is what Pres. Hinckley is trying to get at in the quotation above, provided us by Wilfried. What makes us so different than the world (in whatever ways) is that we are Christ’s (speaking of the Church collectively and not individually). Because the Church is the very body of Christ (His attitude or position in the world), the Church is necessarily a “strange” institution, with standards at odds with the rest of the world. We are an odd people.
Heavens be thanked that we are odd. The word of God, free from the philosophies of men ought to stand out against the gray of those philosophies. (This is not to say that philosophies of men don’t have their perhaps usurped role to play in the Church, just to say that it is what goes beyond the philosophies of men in the Church that makes the Church something other than the philosophies of men… which is somewhat tautological.)
Hey, Kaimi, who you calling odd?
I would argue about this with you, but I need to go finish the argument my neighbor started yesterday about whether using the grill on the backyard deck on a Sunday constitutes a violation of the Sabbath.:)
I agree with J. Stapley in comment # 2. Our committment to chastity and our current interpretation of the WoW set us apart as different.
Aaron,
Not just in Church. Is it or isn’t it okay? Or is Pepsi the drink of choice?
CB,
Just tell him you are giving the stove the day off, not to metion your wife from cooking indoors. Not to metion there are usually not pots and pans to scrub after cooking on the grill.
A certain amount of accommodation is inevitable in any diaspora religion, I think. If we put theological differences aside, there are certain behavioral differences that remain (WoW, modesty, Sabbath observance, chastity), even if political differences recede. Personally, I think it’s not such a bad thing that we slip into the political mainstreams; the persecutions of Missouri enacted fear and envy of the Mormon vote bloc. I wonder, though, as time passes, whether it is our family culture that marks us most distinctly in the US (this difference is less apparent abroad, in my experience)–large families, family religious observance, technologies of the family, etc.
Isn’t it a little disconcerting that when we think of ways in which we are are “peculiar”, we usually fail to mention the one characteristic that Jesus said should distinguish us from others–that we have love one for another. Do outsiders see that quality in us in greater abundance than they see it in others? I don’t think so, as a general rule. Yet, if we aren’t distinguished by that quality, does anything else matter?
Etymology is interesting, but one shouldn’t confuse it with truth. What a word once meant does not necessarily have any bearing on what it means today. (OK, Wilfried just made that point.) True, it’s important to recognize that the meaning changes over time, as noted about ‘peculiar’ in the KJV, but Kaimi’s point is valid: peculiarity/distinctiveness plays a role in our cultural identity; are we deluding ourselves about how peculiar we are? Several people have commented that we have religious/theological points that distinguish us from other politically conservative religious groups. If nothing else, it shows that letting our religious identity become conflated with our voting patterns is not a good idea, as it tends to erase important distinctions.
Being unique among Christian faiths presents us with a hard argument to make. On the one hand, we insist that we are too Christians, on the other, that we’re different from all other Christian religions. Personally, I think it’s beneficial for the church to be part of the general Christian conversation, because it forces us to remember our common heritage of belief and scripture and, to a certain extent, tradition shared by all Christians. Our message ist first of all about Christ, not about Joseph Smith. However, we have to be careful of how the questions are framed. For example, the question “Are you saved?” and its variants are, I believe, alien to our religion, like asking a Jew if he’s Catholic or Protestant. For us, it presents us with a false dichotomy; if we answer “yes” or “no,” we lose the argument. To maintain our distinctiveness, we have to answer something like, “So what?” “None of your business!” or “I haven’t endured to the end yet!”
As Danithew pointed out, Latter-day Saints are a peculiar people (in the popular use of that word) because of our belief in the BoM and myriad other aspects of the Restored Gospel, such as the literal restoration of the priesthood; and Latter-day Saints that actually believe in BoM historicity and truth (most of them still, I think) are really really peculiar.
Fowl one,
Is it the LDS who believe in historicity — a majority within a minority — who are really peculiar? Or is it the LDS who don’t believe in historicity — a minority within a minority, and thus perhaps more similar to majority beliefs in some ways, but even less likely to find communities of generally like-minded individuals — who are the peculiar ones? I think that’s an open question.
I remember when I was at a Tull concert back in the seventies; some folks in the crowd were freely passing around joints. The guy next to me took a hit and then passed it to me. I thought his eyes were going to fall out of his head as he watched me pass it on without putting it up to my mouth. It would have been interesting to see what his reaction might have been if I had shared with him my feelings about a forteen year old boy who had seen heavenly beings and later translated a book from golden plates. He probably would have thought that I was stoned out of my mind on secondary smoke.
Wilfried wrote, In Europe, the image of the Church is usually either positive-bizarre (Mormons are a brand of Amish) or negative-bizarre (Krakauer-imagery). Peculiar for sure.
And Wilfried asks how non-Mormon Americans view Latter-day Saints. I would answer: in the exact same way as in Europe. I hope that noone thinks that Evangelicals have changed their position on the Restored Gospel any because of this uncomfortable political alliance (and Kaimi, don’t you see that you are simply framing the argument in a way that supports the point you want to make–after all, if both Latter-day Saints and other denominations share a belief in scriptural condemnation of homosexuality and end up on the same side of that issue in an election, then so what?, somehow that makes our myriad alien beliefs less peculiar?). Trust me, baptist preachers are still showing the Godmakers to their youth groups on Wednesday nights in all those red states.
Kaimi, the world certainly does NOT believe in the BoM’s historicity.
Everywhere I move, stake presidents call on their stakes to attend the temple more frequently. This ties in well with both meanings of being a peculiar people, and also with the concept of being a royal priesthood.
Jack,
That was my point. The world doesn’t believe in historicity. The majority of LDS does. So an LDS member who believes in historicity is a majority within a minority. An LDS member who does not is a minority within a minority, which might be considered an even more peculiar position.
The original post asks us to consider our peculiarity in light of our values and how they correspond to the majority votes when looking at issues this past election. Sure there are similarities in marriage views, gambling, and political affiliation. But aside from religion there are two things that make us to be peculiar.
One, there are a lot of people who share values mentioned above but do not necessarily apply those into thier lives on a wider scale. The best example I can think of is Kerry as a Catholic. He says he is a devote Catholic but does not practice some of the basic teachings of his own doctrine. I believe Mormons are accountable to their church leaders for thier actions more. We are expected to live the standards of morality not just publicly proclaim what is right or wrong.
I also believe that the people we are at odds with are a very vocal minority. Those in favor of immoral social advances. They are not the majority as the election showed, but they are far more vocal about it. I believe one of the peculiar notions of Mormons is that we are a very vocal minority of the general majority that believes as we do. This makes us more visable to the world and may make us appear to be more peculiar than many other protestants that would agree with our values.
Small nit concerning: ” When Utah was a polygamous state”. If I remember history correctly Utah could NOT become a state until it officially gave up polygamy?