“Kingdom of Matthias” Blog Part II Utopian America
In the second half of the “Kingdom of Matthias,” the Prophet leads his flock to the rambling estate of Ben Folger north of New York City on the Hudson River where he establishes his patriarchal kingdom. Communal instability and infighting, alleged murder, and collapse follow not long after creation. The two most intriguing questions for me concern the appeal of this utopian community for those under Matthias’s spell in the 1830s and the wider appeal of similar utopian experiments throughout American history.
Johnson and Wilentz describe Matthias’s motives on page 92: “Matthias’s mission was to establish that reign of Truth and redeem the world from devils, prophesying women and beaten men.” What exactly was this so-called “reign of Truth” and how did Matthias hope to achieve it? How was his Kingdom constructed with regards to work assignments, gender roles, and diet and dining rituals to this end? In what ways did Mt. Zion reflect Matthias’s reaction against both the Market Revolution and the Second Great Awakening? Finally, why were so many apparently sane, stable adults drawn to this place?
As to the wider point about utopian communities and their popularity throughout American history, Johnson and Wilentz offer this assessment on page 172: “Moreover, ever since the 1830s, various wild American holy men who resemble Matthias even more closely have formed their own communal cults, basing their prophesies on scripture and translating their personal disappointments into holy visions of restored fatherly power. To be sure, the social background to these movements has changed enormously over the past century and a half. Yet repeatedly, Americans caught in bewildering times have made sense of things primarily with reference to alterations in sexual and family norms, and a perceived widespread sexual disorder.” Americans have been more willing than others to withdraw into experimental communities whether they be for purposes intellectual (Brook Farm), industrial/religious (Oneida), hippie dictatorial (Manson family) religious dictatorial (Jonestown), or pure Matthias/prophet-like millennial (Branch Davidians). If you’re interested in this topic, explore one of the above examples (and associated leader) and compare it to Matthias’s Mt. Zion.
Remember to follow the blog instructions posted on our class page and incorporate the suggestions I offered for your first blog. Be sure to post before midnight on Saturday, November 27 by 6 PM and I look forward to reading your responses.
Mr. B
Matthias builds a kingdom and society on the Ben Folger estate that represents his attempt to counteract the Market Revolution and Second Great Awakening that dismantled his life. Aspects of life in the Kingdom are indicative of an internal conflict within Matthias as he lashes out at the failures brought to him by the Market Revolution and the Second Great Awakening.
ReplyDeleteMatthias blamed his failed economic and commercial ventures on the system created by the Market Revolution. “In the Kingdom of Matthias there would be no market, no money, no buying or selling, no wage system with its insidious domination of one father over another, no economic oppression of any kind” (96). This is Matthias’s attempt to strike out against the Market Revolution. He continued to attack the Market culture by moving the Kingdom to the countryside and “reviv[ing] the rural ways he had known in his youth” (prior to his experience in the Market) (106). He even changed decorum, such as with the food code, to suit his anti-Market sentiments. “Parts of the Prophet’s food code, however, had nothing to do with even the most wildly imagined Judaism… [and] stemmed not from Matthias’s kinship with the ancient Hebrews but from his hatred of new-fangled, middle-class ways introduced by the market revolution” (109). Matthias’s Kingdom sought to return to the rural, traditional roots he was familiar with in Coila prior to his failures in the Market Revolution. His Kingdom “echoed the rustic abundance of the [his] half-remembered, half-idealized Coila” (110). This makes it apparent that despite his vigorous recitation and belief in his Judaic principles of God, Matthias’s resentment for the Market Revolution was a fundamental building block in his Kingdom. (It should also be noted that Matthias’s extreme love for personal opulence acts an inferiority complex in which he is compensating for his economic failures prior to the establishment of his Kingdom.)
Matthias also sees that the empowerment of women seen in the Second Great Awakening was a factor in his demise and pitiable state prior to his Kingdom. The actions of his wife, Margaret, led to Matthias being ostracized and abandoned by his community, and he saw her subordination as a fundamental cause of the failure in his life. As a result, Matthias condemned women in his “Spirit of Truth” by preaching that “every thing that has the smell of woman will be destroyed” (93) and that “female spirits… participate in Christian chaos and disobedience” (95). Matthias even blamed Christianity as a whole (part of his anti-Second Great Awakening feelings) by claiming “Christianity was the work of devils” (103). Matthias’s subordination of women and rebuke of Christianity as a whole indicate that his Kingdom was also built on his resentment for the Second Great Awakening and how it had played a role in destroying his prior life.
Regarding Margaret Matthews the wife of Robert Matthews or Prophet Matthias.
DeleteIt should be noted from her own written statements that she attempted to stand by her husband during all his pre and post Prophet Matthias years. The final straw as presented by Margaret and confirmed via a few newspaper reports happened only after Prophet Matthias was discharged from sing-sing prison.
The meeting happened when Sojournertruth and Prophet Matthias attempted to contact Margaret together.
The meeting was interesting for so many reasons, the words of Margaret towards her then husband Prophet Matthias are kind yet very firm in her resolve never to let him back into her life!
As you may know Prophet Matthias then experiences challenges via the violent intentions of the citizens of White Planes!
You can read FREE chapters from Clash of the Prophets.
Just send them a e-mail and they will give you the Free chapters.
The e-mail address is clashoftheprophets@gmail.com
You can also visit the new Web Site at;
http://www.clashoftheprophets.com/
Hope that this helps.
Matthias & Joseph Smith:
DeleteTwo of America's most memorable prophets had the ability to change lives forever. Together they had the opportunity to bless or curse the destinies of those who walked in their long shadows! They issued commandments along with striving to proselyte their visions for the future of humanity! Both worked to establish their New Jerusalem’s on the American continent. Matthias & Joseph Smith would talk, work and experience dreams or visions instructing them on how to spread their message of claimed Christianity. Both Prophets professed to receive communications from spiritual entities. They attested to the difference between good and evil spirits. Each had the ability to then preach their doctrines! Death, destruction and great sacrifice often became the rewards of those men and women who followed in the footsteps of these trailblazing prophets! Both had a vision, a doctrine and a desire to lead their followers into their visions of Zion. As the commandments, doctrines and visions of these two Prophets increased, a dramatic series of coincidences start to become apparent: but have remained unexplored within the pages of history for almost 200 years! The overwhelming alarming principals and connections provide us with evidence of coincidences which cannot be negated as they are recorded within the annals of American modern history. Within the manuscript ‘Sojournertruth Victorious The Devil Is In The Detail,’ you have the opportunity to experience the shocking story of some of these coincidences. Eventually Matthias and Joseph Smith met face to face. The meeting between these two American prophets was extremely rare, dramatic and definitely unforgettable. After a three day conclave both so called prophets declared their opinion of each other!
Updated information.
Regarding my blog as presented in this forum:
My new web-site is: http://www.sojournertruthvictorious.com/
The old web-site no longer exists.
I hope that this helps in some way.
Mike Wilkins.
sorry, I forgot to sign my name
ReplyDeletefob007 is Apurv
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Apurv, when he says “Matthias blamed his failed economic and commercial ventures on the system created by the Market Revolution.” The effects of this religious revolution were seen on Elijah Pierson and Robert Matthews. Prior to Sarah’s death, the revolution had a positive impact on Pierson; he was economically stable, had a loving wife who also became his spiritual mentor, was actively involved in the Church, and was also an important part of the reform that was an effect of the Second Great Awakening. Unlike Pierson however, Matthews never had a positive impact from the revolution; he had both economic and religious troubles, and was constantly turned down by employers and by churches. All this caused Matthews to become a serious anti-Finneyite, and when he began receiving messages from God, he headed to New York City in order to start his own Kingdom, in which the principles are the complete opposite of the present Christianity beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that Matthias took it too far in certain situations. For example, Matthias decided that anything that would cause grief should be banned, including markets, money, or economic oppression of any kind; there was even a ban on pudding, pies, and the roasting of meat. “The ban on puddings and pies and the insistence that meat be boiled and never roasted stemmed not from Matthias’s kinship with the ancient Hebrews but from his hatred of new-fangled, middle-class ways introduced by the market revolution.” (109)
Also, in Matthias's kingdom, women “belonged” to men and were to stay home, cook, clean, and perform sexual favors for their husbands. Matthias believed that Christians “stole” women and children from their fathers. The Second Great Awakening showcased Matthias’s thoughts of how women were showcased and used. He stated “ They who teach women are of he wicked….All women not obedient, had better become so as soon as possible, and let the wicked spirit depart, and become vessels of truth…” (93) This shows only an inkling of the hatred Matthias has towards women. He seems to degrade them the longer he is with and around them.
kelsey o.
word count:351
The “reign of truth” was Matthias’s version of heaven, where all were happy and free from the market revolution and Second Great Awakening. “The return to Truth would provide each household with far more than it needed, but the surplus would never got to the market.” “Wives would cheerfully assist the patriarchs, bearing their children, preparing their food, keeping their houses, spotlessly clean, and obeying husbands who were their only source of knowledge and material support.” (pg 96-97) Matthias planned to achieve this by using “prophecy and terror- not to mention his disciples’ money,” (pg 105)to make reformed households that were reading for the coming Kingdom.
ReplyDeleteMatthias’s ordered people to do assignments and had the men work the fields and the women cook, clean; serve the men, wash and do any other job that confined them to the house. His ensured they follow his commands through the warning that “he had granted each of them a part of his own spirit; he would know precisely what they did…when things went wrong Matthias flew into a rage and threatened his household with terrible judgments.” (pg 112) The dining rituals were “the women served Matthias separately, bringing plates of food for his sole use;” (pg 111) “For it was at the supper table that Matthias spun out a fine-tuned spiritual economy that inflicted terror and conviction of sin, then resolved them through obedience to the Father.” (pg 111)Basically, Matthias gave orders that people do certain jobs, in certain roles, and eat certain foods, certain ways, while listening to him preach at supper, and if they ever did something to upset him, his would scream and be violent.
Mt. Zion showed Matthias’s reaction against the Market Revolution because now there was no profit for anyone person, but everything was for all and the best for Matthias. Also, there were no puddings and pies or roasted foods because of “his hatred of new-fangled, middle-class ways introduced by the market revolution.” The food was boiled and supper was called supper not dinner. He reflected his hatred of the Second Great Awakening by his treatment of women at Mt. Zion. “All women who lecture their husbands the sentence is the same …women is…full of all deviltry.” (pg 93) Matthias hated that men were becoming subordinate to men spiritually in the Second Great Awakening, so he taught that this was evil and that women must be obedient, which is he tried to have them be at Mt. Zion.
I think so many apparently sane stable adults were drawn to this place because they were people who were not doing well in the Market Revolution. They may have been men who did not have families, so were unable to fit in to the Second Great Awakening well and what Matthias preached gave them hope for a life in which they were superior to the society they were not accepted into. I don’t think many women followed Matthias unless forced to by husbands who were not willing to accept the teachings of the Second Great Awakening and not happy with the way the Market Revolution was going for them.
I agree with Apurv in that I believe that Matthias simply used people and created a religion from which he was able to gain fame and wealth from, that he had not been able to gain from the Market Revolution or the Second Great Awakening and that he, like Kelsey said, was not preaching any true Christian value or belief. He preached to the drowntrodden what they wanted to hear to get them to give all they had to him and to do all he wanted for him. However, he showed his true self when he "practiced a system of pretension and hyprocrisy for the purpose of defrauding" (pg 101)
The “Reign of Truth” was, as Chiara put it, Matthias’s version of heaven; a place where all of his followers were sheltered from both the terrors of the Market Revolution and the Second Great Awakening. He shielded his Kingdom from all of the corrupting elements of the market system. His reign of truth would, “provide each household with far more than it needed, but the surplus would never go to market. In the kingdom of Matthias there would be no market, no money, no buying or selling, no wage system with its insidious domination of one father over another, no economic oppression of any kind.” (96) Consequentially, Matthias’ Kingdom was much born out of spite, as opposed to religious calling. Since Matthias’ strokes in the market revolution got him nowhere, he bitterly resents anything relating to his failure in the economic world. Since the Market revolution calls for sales, money, and merchants, Matthias deems all of those things damned by god. Matthias additionally condemns any other ideas inspired by the Second Great Awakening. The Second Great Awakening sparked many women’s interests and as a result, women gained a powerful voice in the new Christian community. Determined to isolate himself from any memories of failure brought on by the market revolution and the second great awakening, and memories of his failed marriage with Margaret, Matthias quickly casts judgment upon all women as well. Matthias preached that all men who educate their women are wicked and that, “everything that has the smell of women will be destroyed. Woman is the cap sheaf of the abomination of desolation—full of all devilry. All women not obedient had better become so as soon as possible.” (93) He also continued to list those upon whom he would cast judgment, which included merchandisers, professionals in law, medicine and religion, and those who educated and supported women.
ReplyDeleteMt. Zion, the new home of The Kingdom, had extremely strict rules, orbiting around the strict social hierarchy envisioned and dictated by Matthias. The core belief of the kingdom was that Matthias was the Spirit of Truth, or God, and therefore the father of all of his followers. He assigned explicit roles for both genders within the Kingdom, and with them specific tasks they needed to complete. Women and children tended to the household affairs while the men did more labor intensive work out in the fields. Men within the Kingdom were still undoubtedly dominant over the women, and women would cheerfully assist their patriarchs, “ bearing them children, preparing them food, keeping their houses spotlessly clean and obeying their husbands who were their only source of knowledge and material support.” (96)
The ‘Reign of Truth” was a perverse interpretation of an idealistic society controlled by male domination and a loss of free thought and action. It is based on absolute obedience to the will and prophecies of a power hungry narcissist.
I agree with Apurv and Kelsey about the reason Matthias formed this “separatist” community, that his personal failures during the Market Revolution lead him to want to distance himself from society. There were many reasons that he personally chose to distance himself from a society now engulfed in materialist pleasures, but many others also possessed a growing doubt in this new system. The transcendentalists feared industrialism from an intellectual standpoint, and, in an effort not to conform, created the Brook Farm experiment. George Ripley, the founder of Brook Farm, did not necessarily have any personal grievances with the Market Revolution, but he distrusted a society based on materialistic values. He, like Matthias, believed that morality was becoming distorted and hoped to restore it. Matthias, preaching against materialism, taught that “earth and everything on it belonged to God”(97) and that when the world was “rid of gentiles and transformed into paradise”(97) his moral “Truth” would be restored. Both Ripley and Matthias structured their communities to reinforce their beliefs. Brook Farm was based on gender equality and intellectual pursuits, with work being secondary and only for subsistence. Mount Zion reflected Matthias’s sexist views of women and revived “the ideals of manhood he had learned to respect back in Coila”(106). Women were placed in traditional female roles and were under complete control of Matthias, at first socially, and later sexually, which allowed him to further exercise his strange religious beliefs, such as the idea of matched spirits.
ReplyDeleteRipley and Matthias both had strong motives, but lacked a practical method of carrying out their ideas. Matthias obviously indulged himself further than he could account for. His own personal desires, such as desiring an intimate relationship with Ann Folger and his involvement with the death of Elijah Pierson, ultimately brought down the community. Brook Farm similarly declined due to the community members’ unwillingness to cooperate for the good of the whole and members succumbed to personal gratifications.
This was obviously a time of great change in American society, and many wanted to hang on to the traditional ways that they had felt comfortable with. During the Market Revolution, Matthias was unsuccessful, unwanted, and disrespected. If he had continued to live in Coila, he would have become a well-respected family man, in charge of his family and powerful within his society. Mount Zion “railed against the humiliations men suffer(ed)”(173) at the time, and instead of incorporating new ways, Matthias acted aggressively against a way of life that had harmed him. Though Brook Farm may not be considered as “extreme” as Mount Zion, Ripley too saw the dangers and humiliations that could come from being obsessed with material values. Other extremist societies (as stated in the prompt quote) in American history have continued to exemplify resistance to changing times, but this resistance often comes with a personal price for its members. Rather than reaffirming morality, these “ultraists” ultimately damage the traditionalist ideals they stand for.
Word count: 488
Shelby Hall
Mathias viewed himself as the true spirit to lead people into his so called reign of truth. His reign of truth is modeled by his “half-remembered, half-idealized Colila” (110). Unlike Alex, I see Mathias’s kingdom not as a place to shelter his followers, but a reformation to the traditional farm family arrangements. I do agree that he fears the market system and does inhibit people from partaking in free economic activity, but his purpose is not to shelter his people but to revert back to his idealized Colila in which none of these behaviors existed. He used the colloquial to go along with his traditionalist attitude such as “supper” instead of dinner (id). This same principle can be applied to his interference into the trivial details of his follower’s lives to insure that their actions would be appropriate to his view. He went as far as outlawing pudding, pies, and meats that were not boiled since Colila did not have them. Mathias tried to lead people to heaven and tried to implement a utopian society that resembled his version of heaven which looked closely like Colila.
ReplyDeleteMathias also heavily criticizes the Cult of Domesticity by restricting the rights of women along with casting women into the “abomination of desolation” (93). This is a direct response to his hatred of the 2nd Great Awakening in which moral free agency was stressed and women gained a new found voice in government and church. His damnation of women is where it is best elucidated the fact that as Alex put it he was a “power hungry narcissist”. He wanted to get rid of anyone that wanted to be an individual since it would cause conflict to his dictatorial control. He preached self-restraint and resisting the temptations that come with the market revolution; however, he walks around wearing elaborate clothing and living the high life. He wanted a society in which he had total control and used religion as a foil to his true motives.
During the second half of the book, Matthias is able to convince Elijah Pierson, the Folger’s and Isabella Van Wagenen that he is the almighty Father and he was the word of God. People that were outsiders looking in on the Kingdom claimed “Matthias’s followers had succumbed to a baleful spirit of fanaticism, of the kind that had turned the evangelized parts of northern and western New York into a moral and spiritual wasteland”(154). Matthias constructed a Kingdom all of his owned with out spending any of his money which he never had any while establishing it, instead he convinced mourning and spiritually depressed people like Elijah Pierson to follow him and to pay for his lavish expenses all because Matthias “said” he was the Prophet. The so-called Prophet of Matthias, or called by his believers Father, lived in Sing Sing, New York which was originally Benjamin and Ann Folger’s house, “a thriving village on the Hudson” (103). This does not make a lot of sense because Matthias was not a supporter of the Market Revolution so why would he settle in a place that was increasingly growing in economy? The Kingdom was run in a very odd way which only what Matthias said went. Matthias would arrange who your spiritual partner was, what you were to do around the house, what you ate as food and if what you have done was right or wrong. For instance, Matthias clamed the he and Ann were spiritual partners that Benjamin had to give up Ann to Matthias all because said so. How could someone ever be happy and satisfied with the reasoning of because I said so and I am your Father? Adults that obviously had some spiritual issues or depressions with Christianity were dumb enough to follow the word of Matthias because it sounded like a better alternative to what they were going through, especially for Elijah Pierson who went through a complete depression after his wife died and he was not able to bring her back to life. Thus when Matthias came to him, Elijah thought he had been saved, which he would come to find in the end to be the exact opposite, his own death,
ReplyDeleteThe second half of this unique story answers and spawns new questions about the occurrence of experimental communities in 19th century America. Chapters three and four reveal to modern readers that it wasn’t “crazy” or outlandish to be attracted to one of these experimental communities. Volatile value changes of the time period such as The Second Great Awakening cause many Americans to reassess their religious priorities. The virtual appeal of a cooperative community, minimizing the stress of cut throat capitalistic life would even appeal to many today, if such historical examples of its failure had not occurred. A clear example of such good intentions, not based on fanatical or insane religious tendencies are exhibited in the Thompson Family. When Johnson and Wilentz explain that
ReplyDelete“Thompson seriously doubted that the Prophet was the supernatural character he claimed to be, but he was willing to sit through the sermons so long as he could live in a large communal family,”
they reveal the common reality that peaceful family life was comforting in response to the social volatility of the time period. More than likely, it occurred that a majority of those living in the Kingdom of Matthias were in search of the same familial closure. However, what is not understood, is the affinity to an environment of such autocratic nature. As described, Matthias was treated as if he was on a pedestal of his own.
This observation links into another issue of division of labor within the Kingdom of Matthias. In effort to reflect his extreme patriarchal beliefs, he emphasized the need to undermine women’s position in society, specifically in their ability to be religious leaders. However, even in secular dimensions of “community” life, this “Kingdom” evolved into a society lacking any egalitarian basis. The King, Matthias, wore the best of clothes, and proudly flaunted his eccentric tendencies. At dinner “Matthias washed down his food with water from his engraved silver chalice; others drank from ordinary glass.” These are just a few of the ways Matthias enforced his religious despotism.
Ultimately the Kingdom of Matthias fails miserably in an abyss of legal quarrels. Although, its genesis is based on a 19th century American’s need for stability as well as familial togetherness. Unfortunately, this legitimate interested was manipulated by the insane Robert Matthias into a backwards community run by a less-than capable despot.
Rohit
Word Count:390
Matthias describes “The Reign of Truth” as the act of the ridding of devilish ways and the dedication to religion in the second half of the book. Matthias wants and plans to protect everyone from Christianity with this doctrine. He believes that male dominance is decreasing in the common household, and thinks that women are far inferior. Johnson and Wilentz describe Matthias’ hatred of women when they wrote, “All women, no obedient, had better become so as soon as possible, and let the wicked spirit depart, and become vessels of truth,” (93). His solution to this problem is Mt. Zion, where he planned to spread the truth, or the male role in government. Matthias’ perfect living community, Mt. Zion, was a very large kingdom, with men, who worked in the fields, and women, who worked mainly indoors, especially the kitchen. I agree with Shelby when she addressed the sexism that is displayed in Matthias’ kingdom as he attempts to restore the power back to the men.
ReplyDeleteMatthias created Mt. Zion in opposition to the Market Revolution and the Second Great Awakening that, “dismantled his life” as Apurv put it. Mt. Zion conflicts with the Second Great Awakening in that it is making a very clear divide in power and responsibility between genders. “Men and boys labored in the fields, and the women and girls worked in the house, all under the command of an authoritative father” (105). Mt. Zion inhabitants were attracted to the kingdom for two reasons: the right to choose their religion and lifestyle, and the outstanding speaking ability of Matthias. "His lectures regularly drew fifty to sixty hearers,” (93).
Patrick
Matthias's idea for his apocalyptic utopian community is strange, but not unheard of. Matthias abandoned almost all the aspects of traditional and modern (for the time period) society. He not only rejected the various teachings of the Second Great Awakening, he also rejected the teachings of the first great awakening. The only idea he kept was the traditional patriarchal structure of the family. Matthias envisioned a regenerated earth ruled exclusively by men, under whom women and children learned the truth of god. (96) Not only did he use patriarchal ideals to reject the Second Great Awakening teachings, he used them to reject the market revolution. Matthias viewed capitalism as placing some patriarchs above others, and pitting them against each other. In the world Matthias envisioned, men would work in an agricultural setting to provide for their families, and take what they did not need to the new temple. (96-97) In preparation for the coming kingdom, Matthias demanded that he be provided with the finest and most expensive items. (98) After he left the city, Matthias incorporated these ideas into his new estate at Mt. Zion. He managed the lives of his followers, assigning them tasks based on their spirits. (105) Matthias also continued his use of fancy clothes. (106-107). In addition to setting his followers to work, he also instituted strict dietary laws. Some of these laws, like the prohibition of pork (109), reflected Jewish kosher laws. Other laws, such as pudding prohibition, reflected not Judaism, but Matthias’s hatred of "middle-class ways introduced by the market revolution.” (109) Matthias banned all forms of Christian worship, including prayer, bible reading, and preaching. The only way his followers gained spiritual knowledge was through his meal-time lectures. (112) He also administered punishments when he thought them necessary. (112) Matthias set these ideas and practices in place to secure his role as spiritual father, and to emphasize his vision of a patriarchal world.
ReplyDeleteMatthias's idea of a holy community is not surprising given the time period. Mathias was a restorationalist, and he was certainly not the only one during his time. Perhaps the most famous restorationalist community to grow out of this period was the one founded by Joseph Smith Jr. Smith's Mormon community shared many similarities to Matthias's. For starters, they were both restorationalist. This means they both believed that a great apostasy (a falling away from the faith) had occurred in the early days of the church, and that the truth was only restored in their time. On page 95, Matthias is described as having taught that the divine truth was lost, and that modern day Christians are the result of the devil. This is almost exactly what Joseph Smith taught. In 1 Nephi 13, one of the supposed ancient prophets of the Book of Mormon has a vision of the Christian Church and states: "And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity. And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it. And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.” (1 Nephi 13:5-7) One of the other similarities between the two groups is the obsession with the difference between Jew and Gentile. On page 95, Matthias is described as placing much of the blame for what he viewed as corruption on the gentiles. This sentiment is echoed in the Book of Mormon which states "And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.” (1 Nephi 13:26) This passage explains how the Bible, which was written by Jews, was corrupted as soon as the gentiles got their hands on it. Like Matthias, Smith also understood the universe in a patriarchal fashion. In Mormonism, the father is the ruling force, not only in the household, but also in the universe. Smith taught that god was the literal father of all humans and angels. He believed that the father, through sexual union with his many goddess wives, begot all humanity. He also taught that the father alone is to be worshiped. Mormons, to the chagrin of many Mormon feminists, are explicitly forbidden from worshiping their heavenly mothers. Not only this, but Smith also taught the idea of priesthood, i.e. divine authority. This priesthood is possessed only by males.
ReplyDeleteOne interesting result of this is that at the resurrection of the saints, a Mormon man makes the decision whether or not to resurrect his wife. Like many cultic leaders, both Smith and Matthias flaunted themselves. Matthias demanded expensive clothes, and silver. Joseph smith preferred rather to vocalize his arrogance. He stated: "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I.” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408, 409) Also, like Matthias, Smith envisioned a New Jerusalem in America, and set up various religious communities to prepare for the coming kingdom. Persecution by law enforcement and the neighboring people forced these communities to move on a number of occasions. Like Matthias's communities, the early Mormon communities also came under the suspicion of law enforcement. Many of these encounters with law enforcement were due to suspicions that the Mormon communities were endangering society. The Mormon communities became a danger to society because Smith attempted to crush all opposition to his rule. On one occasion, men, whose wives Smith had secretly married, printed a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. The paper was highly critical of Smith, so he had the printing press burned in the street. Matthias reflected Smith's actions when he frequently shouted down, and sometimes physically abused (100, 112) those who disagreed with him. Clearly, while specific doctrines varied, the communities of Joseph Smith Jr. and Matthias were very similar in their founding principles, and the way they operated.
ReplyDeleteOne question remains unanswered. Why on earth would seemingly sane and intelligent humans fall into the trap set by Matthias, or any other cultic leader? Many theories have been produced to try and understand this phenomenon. In my opinion, the Bible gives a clear answer. First, humans are totally depraved as a result of the fall of Adam. This is not to say they are as bad as they could be, but every part of them is touched by sin. As a result, people naturally fall into error. The only way around this is for the Holy Spirit to regenerate a person. Without the effectual grace of God, a human will never come to the Gospel. This alone does not explain why some seemingly normal people are ensnared by cults because there are many non-cultic false religions for a person to join. My research has led me to believe that many cults don't start out all that strange. Heresy, typically, is progressive. I mentioned this in my last post. Elijah Pierson did not start out as a full-blown false prophet. He grew into it. Joseph Smith did not start out teaching that god was a man, and that humans could progress to godhood. He grew into it. Jim Jones did not start out as an authoritarian messianic style prophet. He grew into it. Even when people join a cult after the leader has progressed to a dangerous point, they are rarely fully aware of the actions of the leader. People never set out to join a cult. People join religions that may be a little off, but rarely full-blown cults. What happens is that people are tricked into following a religious leader. Once they are convinced to surrender their will to that leader, they are slowly indoctrinated. This process goes on until their entire world view is molded exactly the way the cult leader wants it. This is how seemingly normal people get trapped by false religious teachers.
ReplyDeleteinteresting point of view which by the way I agree with, however their are additional areas which must be considered as the overall picture can on times be much bigger and important than we original think that it is!
DeleteFor example the idea of one event happening in life or history provides us with no possibility of any connection to similar events as they are singular.
When one or more events happen in life or history, and when these events appear to be similar the possibility of a connection becomes interesting.
Regarding Prophet Matthias and his experiences within the second great wakening period of history and similar events 300 years apart. We have strong evidence as proof positive regarding names, actions, and doctrines of these historical events. The similarity's are simply amazing!
Once these anomalies are investigated the connections are overwhelming resulting in the possibility of a much bigger picture becoming apparent!
The idea of false Prophets is important as leaders can lead many into darkness and confusion, however the idea of spirit intervention regarding these false prophets is often over looked!
If their is a God and good spirits, then we must except the understanding of a Devil / Satan and his evil spirits!
All things in existence have their opposites so it makes sense!
With good and Evil spirits against each other its not hard to understand their desire to influence humanity here upon earth.
Can we except the understanding that Good spirits attempt to influence good people and bad spirits attempt to influence bad people.
So what kind of a spirit did Prophet Matthias have?
He was continually talking about Evil spirits, along with the spirit of truth, so his words are not much help to us!
His actions went against the general excepted Christian form of worship.
He was rejected by Christians and most members of society, he was also rejected by Joseph Smith!
This should teach us a few things!
Matthias and Pierson both said that they were influence by spirits, so what kind of influence did they receive?
May I suggest that it was not a good spirit which was influencing them!
This can be backed up from other examples in History which once considered opens the search mind to the understanding of the battle between the forces of both good and evil spirits.
There are some very fine examples of the point expressed within tis simple blog within the New Book which I have written entitled 'Clash of the Prophets Sojournertruth / Matthias / Joseph Smith.
You can read FREE chapters.
You are personally invited to my web site at
http://www.clashoftheprophets.com/
The e-mail address is clashoftheprophets@gmail.com
scotty: Updated information.
DeleteRegarding my blog as presented in this forum:
My new web-site is: http://www.sojournertruthvictorious.com/
The old web-site no longer exists.
I hope that this helps in some way.
Mike Wilkins
In the second half of the novel, Matthias attempts to preach the world against Christianity. He states that “Christian deviltry was a system of preaching and teaching that destroyed the truth.” (95) The Reign of Truth on the other hand preached male dominance, something that Matthias highly supported. However, when gentiles of the town ridiculed and attacked Matthias’s ideals, the Kingdom was forced out of the city and into a rural area in which he names Mt. Zion. Mt. Zion becomes Matthias’ dream land, an utopia which was “safe from the police, complaining neighbors, meddling Christians, his followers’ kinsmen, and the other persecutors of New York City.” (105) “Wives would cheerfully assist the patriarchs, bearing their children, preparing their food, keeping their houses, spotlessly clean, and obeying husbands who were their only source of knowledge and material support.” (96-97) Matthias almost seems like a giant child in his fantasy land, he even considers himself as “Prophet of abundance,” (108) controlling what people can eat, do, think, and wear. He had a wardrobe full of luxurious clothing, and always an abundance of food “flesh meats… along with plenty of poultry and fish… bowls of rice, beans, and potatoes, along with a wide variety of vegetables” (108) Yet, roasted meats, alcohol, pork, and fancy pastries were banned from the Kingdom’s feasts. This is the very reason why I find Matthias highly disliked the Market Revolution. The Market Revolution, disrupted his “play land,” before the revolution families wouldn’t have has access to baking pastries or roasting meats, but by “1830 oven-roasted meant and fancy baked foods were emblems of a families economic standing” (110)
ReplyDeleteThroughout history, charismatic leaders have led followers on pilgrimages to rural areas. A great example of this when the people of the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project [Jonesville] were persuaded to travel to Guyana for a Caribbean missionary post. The trip quickly turning into a bummer when hundreds were murdered. Although Mt. Zion didn’t end in death, the two are still relevant. It proves that persuading people to follow their leaders isn’t a hard task. Some people purely enjoyed Matthias preaches, in fact “his lectures regularly drew fifty to sixty hearers.” (93)
-nicki
As Chiara and Alex have mentioned before the "Reign of Truth" was Matthias' demented interpretation of heaven under his control as 'the father.' Matthias created the "Reign of Truth" due to his inability to conform to the mob mentality of the market revolution and the Second Great Awakening. Through his "Reign of Truth" he disposed of the exact ideals preached by the Second Great Awakening. Matthias instead reversed the progress made by the Second Great Awakening and assigned roles based on gender. Matthias' archaic ideas of gender inequality were masked under what he called "the truth", "work assignments and domestic roles derived not from gentile custom but from Truth...men and boys labored in the fields, and the women and girls worked in the house.." (105) Matthias worked as the ultimate manipulator and eventually created a mob of his own. A mob that obediently listened to his teachings not out of desire but out of fear, "...Matthias on a promenade, with poor Pierson shuffling alongside him "in constant and reverential attendance." (99) The irony in Matthias' thinking is that he needed all he had discarded. He stated that in "the Kingdom of Matthias there would be no market, no money, no buying or selling, no wage system..." (96) but Matthias needed a market, he needed money to pay for his lavish clothes and his "kingdom" at Mt. Zion. He also preached about the devilish qualities in women but even he, "the father",was able to be seduced by a woman (Ann) and fall to her "devilish" charm. The very existence of the "Reign of Truth" is completely hypocritical on Matthias' part because he needs everything he preaches against.
ReplyDeleteFocusing specifically on why “apparently sane, stable adults” were attracted to Matthias and his kingdom, I believe they were enticed simply because they were lost. Agreeing with Chiara, some people just did not fit in with the Market Revolution or the Second Great Awakening, therefore causing problems socially. People looking for hope, new life, and something to cling to saw Matthias and his “utopian community,” and immediately flocked to it. To follow off of what Scotty mentioned regarding cults and such, I agree that
ReplyDeleteAlso, to advocate for Taylor and her point about how Matthias creates his kingdom around himself, page 93 offers evidence by saying: “…dissatisfied with the accommodations on Fourth Street, moved into the house of Sylvester Mills. He took over the best rooms for himself, set aside the downstairs for feasting and preaching,…” By this evidence, it’s clear that he was in it for the luxurious life and even to him, he didn’t glorify his true preaching time, as he set prayer rooms OFF TO THE SIDE.
Regarding to the gender issue with Matthias, it is mentioned on page 93 that “Every thing that has the smell of woman will be destroyed. Woman is the capsheaf of the abomination of desolation—full of all deviltry.” There is clearly a negative attitude from this sentence towards women. Yet, again, Matthias’ utopia contains contradictions as the kingdom is a utopia for Matthias and Matthias only. On page 128, there is evidence offered of a relationship between Ann Folger and Matthias, and though she “…all but ceased performing her regular household duties,” Matthias accepted it. She was clearly absorbed into Matthias’ kingdom as she also clearly singles him out by saying, “He alone could ‘enter the most Holy of Holy;’ he alone could ‘penetrate to the Sanctum Sanctorum.’” To further back up Matthias’ affection for Folger, Johnson and Wilentz continue by writing, “Matthias called Ann by romantic pet names and let her hang about his neck, whispering and cuddling,” (128). This clearly goes along with what Anisha previously mentioned as she says, “… he needs everything he preaches against,” referring to Matthias’ hypocrisy regarding women and their inferiority.
In the second part of “Kingdom of Mathias”, it is conveyed to the reader that Mathias practices and preaches the “Reign of Truth” (92). This has importance because it reveals the devilish acts of Christianity (Sons Kingdom), which in Mathias’ mind is “a system of preaching and teaching of the destroyed truth” (95). Matthias believes that “Christian preachers lure young and female spirits out of their houses and into churches and prayer meetings” (92). Matthias brought the “Reign of Truth” into his utopian society, Mt. Zion in which they follow a strict doctine. The society was incredibly orderly, which attracted many people who wanted a “proper and harmonious family” (105). People whose lives were corrupt, poor, and misguided were drawn to this ideal society.
ReplyDeleteThe well-ordered house consisted of: “the men and boys labored in the fields, and the women and the girls worked in the house...” (105). The “authoritive father” (105) of the household was Matthias. He gave orders to the men, wives, and children. Matthias made sure to convey the lack of importance females had in a society. This figure of importance was looked up to by the women and treated as a king: “Matthias washed his food down with water from his engraved silver chalice; the others drank from ordinary glass tumblers” (111). He was the leader at the dinner table: “he carved and served the meat and exercised quiet authority over the meal” (111).
Matthias’ house is a symbol of the Second Great Awakening and the Market Revolution. The wealthy food and his lifestyle portrays how only the rich could afford this kind of lifestyle, which embodies the aspects of the Market Revolution. Matthias’ evangelical preaching was only one of the many reforms that took place during the Second Great Awakening.
hi robert
ReplyDeleteOn page 94, Matthias defines the “Spirit of Truth” as being “the male governing spirit, or God,” a spirit that can enter any sort of being or inanimate object on the planet. Knowing this, one can deduce that Matthias’s desire to establish a stable “reign of Truth” was to construct a society (utopia-esque) in which people obeyed natural laws of Matthias’s professed God. To appease God, one had to follow basic ideals of extreme patriarchy, lack of economic involvement, and gentile ignorance. The patriarchy was egregiously evident within the Kingdom of Mathias. An explicit example is found on page 95: “The Spirit of Truth, Matthias explained, was the spirit of male government. God wanted women to have none of it.” Of course, this, in a way, makes the treating of Matthias’s wife, Margaret, acceptable. Also, it was evident Matthias was trying to avoid the market revolution. In his utopian society, Matthias avoided new urban practices, like roasting and calling “supper” dinner, and revived practices from his childhood. He directed his residents on Folger’s estate to create a self-reliant society. They made much of their own food, bypassing city interaction. The final step was that all followers had to dislike Christians due to their corrupt nature. On page 94, Matthias referred to Christians as “meek devils.” (further elaborated)
ReplyDeleteAs stated earlier, life in the rural Kingdom of Matthias was much like his boyhood. Men and boys worked the fields while women did domestic work (in accordance to the Truth 105). Matthias made it clear that the division of labor was a very spiritual process. In essence, everyone was picked to do a certain task for a certain reason. For example, if one was a tailor, he or she made clothes for the children. Also, gender played a huge role in his kingdom, reinforcing patriarchal concepts. Apparently, the “Truth” could only be passed through men, which greatly reduced the importance of women (95). Besides this intrinsic point, women were always expected to serve and cook dinner. Women could not even take a seat at the table until the whole meal was brought out (110). These aspects of Mathias’s society ARE (despite how loosely so) supported by his vision of God; however, other aspects, such as his desire to not eat pork, stick with the term “supper”, and his hate towards gentiles were simply his fear of the market revolution and the Second Great Awakening or, more simply, the urban way in itself.
Matthias worked hard to purge urban ideals from his Kingdom. The continual use of the word “supper” supports this. During this time period, “dinner” was becoming a highly used word in place of “supper.” Matthias flatly rejected the its use because he believed only “wealthy devils ate dinner,” signaling his deep hatred towards the market revolution; a hate that most likely developed due to his lack of success in the urban market (110). The reasons Matthias disliked the urban religious movement of the time, the Second Great Awakening were obvious: the religious dilemma it caused in his life, ruining his financial career and his family in Ch. 2, and the Christian invasion and closure of his worship place on Fourth Street.
Lastly, it is hard to say whether Matthias’s religion was genuine or not. Either way, Matthias was clever in that he knew how to exploit insecurities within urban peoples because he, himself, had been religiously puzzled and confused. For those who believe he made his kingdom for the riches, I pose the question then why did Matthias spend so many years of his life, ruining his career and family in the process, trying to find his true religion? Could this just be the story of a man in the search for the religion that works for him? However, if his religion were so “true” then why does It seem he used his “divine prophetic” powers to enhance his own status (in wealth and love (Folger’s wife - )?
Matthias inspired a reign of Truth at Mt. Zion, where he captivated many followers who sought to purify their souls from devils, women, and the weak. As he explained on pages 95 and 96, the Spirit of Truth was passed on from the teachings of patriarchs, but Christians tainted the women and children with prayer and schools. Because the fathers lost control of their families to other teachers, “weak spirits learned to disregard Truth and to pray, read, and think for themselves” (pg 96). This not only explains how Matthias had hoped to govern his own Kingdom, but also demonstrates an explicit contradiction to the Great Awakening, in which people were taught to be freethinking. Mt. Zion was founded on the basis of a Father structure, who was clearly the incarnate, Matthias himself, then his subordinates Pierson and Mills, then the rest of his members were workers in the fields (men) and in the house (women). Furthermore, he “insisted that the evening meal be called ‘supper’. Urban merchant classes were beginning to eat ‘dinner,’” (pg 110). And he recognized that most rural countryside folks still called the meal plain “supper.” He led the dining structure similar to that of the countryside, Old English style, which was typical to all but the very wealthy. Matthias however, wanted to reclaim, quietly, his once dignified position and not-so-humbly drank his plain water out of an engraved silver chalice (pg. 111). Because he governed with “prophecy and terror” (pg 105), as he thought the Lord should, he threatened his followers with the words that he would invade their souls with his own and then forbid them to read the bible themselves and to have any means by which they could be religious themselves. He withheld the spirituality of the house in himself, and allowed for no practice except for his own mealtime sermons.
ReplyDeleteI believe that most upright men followed Matthias because, like Alex and Chiara said, they were also suffering the downfalls of the Market revolution and the Great Awakening. Their misfortunes caused them to question their religious fate, which was once in the hands of the Almighty, and his passionate persuasion may have taken a strong hold. The women were persuaded by their men superiors, with the Isabella being a perfect example. Isabella, a loyal supporter of Matthias, had no prior knowledge of religion except that there was a God and Jesus, and she was convinced by her master Pierson of Matthias’ divinity. The rest of the men however, submitted their family to Matthias because it was a sanction in which they could escape the changing world outside his kingdom and a place in which they could raise a family according to the comfortable ways of their own past.
I agree with Chiara in saying that Matthias' "reign of truth" was his idea of the perfect heaven, a heaven with an endless new, pure, green countryside. Each man would have in him the spirit of an Old Testament hero, and they would all live in luxury with their adoring children and wives. The children would learn the Truth from their fathers, and the mothers would simply have kids, keep house, and obey their “husbands who were their only source of knowledge and material support” (pg. 96) Matthias hoped to achieve his vision of the “reign of truth” by “[using] prophecy and terror - not to mention his disciples’ money - to make Mount Zion the first perfectly reformed rural household in the coming kingdom.” The men and boys’ jobs were in the fields, and the women and girls did house chores. Matthias doled out the work assignments and domestic roles according to the Truth - he interpreted the Old Testament hero’s spirit inside each follower and arranged each spirit into a “proper and harmonious family.” For example, Henry Plunkett, an English tailor, did yard work and made clothes for children. All women, however, were kept in the house and performed chores such as cooking, cleaning, and washing and grooming children. (pg. 104) Matthias told each member to work only at the job they had been given, and then left them to their duties without supervision. However, he would know if they did not complete their tasks, since “he had granted each of them a part of his own spirit.” When something in the house went wrong, “Matthias flew into a rage and threatened his household with terrible judgments. Then he went looking for the disobedient follower who had let the devil into Father’s house. These searches involved real terror” (pg. 112)
ReplyDeleteI think so many people were drawn to this “kingdom” because in a twisted, strange way, everyone there was a family. Matthias was the head of the family, someone to look up to and someone who would lead the way, despite his obvious flaws and how into himself he was.
Matthias greatly criticized and attributed his economic failures to the Market Revolution. Both the Market Revolution and the Second Great Awakening were hindrances to his way of life. The reign of Truth was equivalent to a utopian ideal in which everyone is happy and enjoys what he or she is doing. Even the wives would enjoy assisting the men (or in factual terms, serving them), as Chiara quoted, “Wives would cheerfully assist the patriarchs, bearing their children, preparing their food, keeping their houses, spotlessly clean, and obeying husbands who were their only source of knowledge and material support.” (96-97) Matthias hoped that they would not endure the Market Revolution or Second Great Awakening and end up facing the same challenges he had earlier in his life. He planned for the utopian community to avoid these impediments and planned for everything to work out. Seeing that he was “Safe from the police, complaining neighbors, meddling Christians, his followers’ kinsmen, and the other persecutors of New York City,” Matthias was able to use, as Chiara quoted, “prophecy and terror,” hence being able to create Mount Zion. (105) In this Kingdom household, much like any other well-organized house, “the men and boys labored in the fields, and the women and girls worked in the house, all under the command of an authoritative father.” (105) In terms of work assignments, the boys/men worked the fields and the girls/women stayed inside and did dishes, cleaning, sweeping, both gender roles much like the early American colonists. Mount Zion reflected Matthias’s beliefs such as sexism and a patriarchal household, like that of Elijah’s earlier life. Matthias controlled these women who also served him. It was also understood from Mount Zion that he despised the Market Revolution and avoided at all costs to exercise any ideas of the Market Revolution such as buying, selling, system with wages, etc… The reign of Truth wasn’t a normal utopian, ideal society. As Alex put, it was a perverse interpretation of an idealistic society. Sure it was ideal; no wages or money to worry about, a set of rules or roles of the men and women, but sorry, a society in which one dominant figure who calls himself God, has complete control over women and what they do, and who does not allow individualism cannot be considered a true ideal society.
ReplyDelete-Dean
add a space after the "(further elaborated)", Mr. B.
ReplyDeleteIn the second half of this book, we really see into Matthews and what he has come to be. I agree with Kelsey in that unlike Pierson, he was unable to cope with the evolving world in the New Market System and Second Great Awakening. He has trouble with money, and certainly had trouble with religion as he believed he was a prophet. Although his Kingdom showed some interesting view points about the role of women, for example saying “ They who teach women are of he wicked….All women not obedient, had better become so as soon as possible, and let the wicked spirit depart, and become vessels of truth,”(93). He believed that women were slaves to men, to cook, clean, and provide "extracurricular" services for men. I also agree with Zach in that his Kingdom was not so much about helping the needy and to shelter his "apostles", but as a way to implement his own beliefs into action. In my opinion, Matthews was almost a genius. He used people like Pierson with their wealth and funds to build up his town and live off them. Not bad for a guy with nothing. Some might say that the idea of self preservation and power were not in his mind, however I think differently. Many people would say the same about Charles Manson and his family in their "utopian society", or "family" (173). The Kingdom of Matthias is very similar to the Charles Manson family. Both were started in revolutionary ideas, new systems with the Market System, and then the "Peace" era. Both were begun by men of rough pasts. Matthews obviously had issues previously in the story “walked nervously through the streets (Of Manhattan), past prostitutes and drunkards. Robert Matthews, the precocious journeyman carpenter, viewed the same scenes with the righteous fervor of a devout Anti-Burgher, which quickly got him into trouble”(58). Manson, went to many correctional facilities and spent most of his life in prison, or in a school very much like prison. And both men used their "followers" for their own pleasures. Matthews used them for survival while Manson for murders. The two are very similar but Utopian societies cannot succeed long term, as children and new followers will eventually desert, and stop joining. It is an impossible situation for large numbers, and large amounts of time.
ReplyDeleteJared Armstrong
Word Count: 390