Cult. Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon. Polygamy. Gold bible. These are some of the words that come to mind as an average American is asked about Mormons or the “Mormon Church.” And like the example of the Middle East, these are often not only the first, but the only things some may know about this group of people.

Unfortunately the stereotypes aren’t new, the prejudices aren’t isolated to one generation, and the fear of a different way of thinking and living than that of the so-called norm holds strong. Isn’t it interesting that these two religions- these two groups of people- which started at different times in history, in different parts of the world, and by different people, can have something so strongly in common? Isn’t it interesting that two philosophies that are so very different in certain points of doctrine and outward worship and lifestyle are both viewed in such a similar light by so many? Perhaps the peoples of the Middle East and the peoples of Mormonism aren’t very different at all. Perhaps no other two groups in the modern world could so well relate and understand the unique scrutiny and criticism faced by the other.

In brief, the following was addressed in the lecture: Orientalism defined, Orientalism in history, particularly American history, how Mormons were Orientalized by others, and Orientalized themselves and their surroundings (including the belief that Native Americans come from the Holy Land), and “real” and attributed connections or similarities between Mormons and various Eastern peoples, including ancient Egypt, Muslims, and ancient Israelites. A major theme running throughout was that the West’s ambivalent attitude toward the Orient enables Orientalism to serve at least three purposes: to differentiate, to venerate, or to denigrate. Detractors of the Mormons have compared them unfavorably to Oriental peoples and traits that were held in disregard, others Orientalized the Mormons to better understand and differentiate them from other groups, and Mormons created an identity for themselves that connected them and their surroundings to that which was revered and considered wise and sacred from the East.

A very interesting aspect of the Mormons’ Orientalizing behaviors is their affinity with Egypt, a subject that was touched on very lightly in the lecture. According to Dr.Francaviglia, Egypt is associated with both negative and positive characteristics, as is the Orient in general (e.g., servitude and oppression, as well as wisdom and accomplishment). In the official canon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was allegedly translated were inscribed with “reformed Egyptian” (see Mormon 9:32 and 1 Nephi 1:2 in the Book of Mormon), and the Book of Abraham is purportedly translated from an Egyptian papyrus (Smith, 1978, pp. 236, 248-251)[1]. Dr. Francaviglia also briefly mentioned in the lecture that the name Deseret, taken from the Book of Mormon, supposedly denoting the honeybee, could be related to the Egyptian word Deshret. This is the desert land surrounding Egypt, the Red Land (David, 2002, pp. 12-13, 46, 49; Mercantante, 1978, p. 35). Lower Egypt, also called the Red Land, is symbolized by the honeybee (David, 2002, p. 49), and, as was explained in the lecture, the crown itself bears a stylized tongue of the bee.

The similarities and connections between Mormonism and Ancient Egypt extend beyond that which was covered in the lecture. Surprisingly, in many respects, there are a seemingly large number of overlapping characteristics between the two religions. There are far more dissimilarities than similarities; the theologies are fundamentally and substantially different, but those connections which can be demonstrated, whether they are directly linked or coincidental, attest to the Orientalized nature of the Mormons and their theology.

Leonard Arrington’s diaries are true to life in their diversity, their scope, and their honesty. They subtly teach the attitudes of a time while unfolding an account unlike any other. Newspaper clippings he read are preserved among his papers, comments like “yes” or “me too” found under the headlines. Personal letters reveal interactions with family and friends. Diary entries record observations of common, but non-textbook, historical practices.

These papers stunningly illustrate that life includes so much more than what one writes in a journal or preserves in a picture. It is that newspaper article that made one think, and those anecdotes to start a talk. It is more than just the quality of penmanship or the academic essays. Arrington’s collection shows that a man can think so much more than he ever writes. As he argued in “Marrow in the Bones of History”, diaries reveal new qualities of the people written about. After a lifetime of writing about these qualities in other people and the church, perhaps there is no more fitting honor for this historian than to remember his life and its history.