John Hajicek recently made a post comparing the arrest of Nicolás Maduro to the arrest of James Strang. I will not comment on the comparison itself or on the political views Hajicek expressed later, but I was disappointed by the level of ignorance displayed by many Brighamite Mormons in the comments.
Name
As a Reform Mormon, I study many different branches of Mormonism, and It can be jarring for me when I encounter Mormons who are so unaware of different aspects of our tradition. One of the most glaring examples was when Hajicek correctly referred to Strang as leading “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and many readers took offense, because they incorrectly assumed that he was referring to “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. Some even accused Hajicek of lying. More ecumenically informed Mormons understand that numerous Mormon denominations bear remarkably similar names, but more isolationist members often do not. Embarrassingly, several of those who objected went on to misspell the name of their own church. Others, seemingly well-intentioned, suggested that Hajicek should have added a parenthetical “(Strangite)”, without recognizing that they themselves rarely extend the same courtesy by identifying their own church as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Brighamite)”. A few took this ignorance even further by claiming there was no meaningful succession crisis at all or that no significant alternative branches of Mormonism ever emerged.
Council of Fifty
A significant number of LDS Mormons appeared unaware of our shared Mormon history. Many confidently insisted that the LDS Church never had a king, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Joseph Smith Jr. (and later Brighamite prophets) were anointed as king within their Councils of Fifty. One commenter even suggested that Hajicek should visit the LDS Church History Library, apparently unaware that Hajicek’s citation from the Joseph Smith Papers Project is an LDS-sponsored scholarly initiative and one of the most authoritative sources available. Those who did acknowledge Joseph Smith’s anointing as king attempted to dismiss it as merely “spiritual” rather than political, yet when pressed on how the Council of Fifty itself understood that anointing, they had nothing to say.
Conclusion
The mixture of ignorance and apologetics on display in the comments was astounding. I was deeply disappointed, and frankly angry, that fellow Mormons were so quick to accuse John of dishonesty when he was accurately representing his own branch of the Restoration. I was equally frustrated by how little many seemed to know about Joseph Smith Jr.’s Council of Fifty and its explicitly political ambitions. Reading the comments was a sobering reminder of how shallow many Mormons’ awareness can be about their own tradition and its different facets.
Even more disappointing, was how cruel so many Brighamite Mormons were in their discussions with John Hajicek, who is a Strangite Mormon.
One commenter perfectly captured my reaction: “I feel like the Utah LDS church truly is the quintessential American religion. Just as Americans seem baffled to discover there are other countries that have freedom, Utah Mormons are baffled when they discover they aren’t the only Mormons.”