Recently, my daughter and I had lunch out together discussing how we might better allow ourselves to be “acquired by” Godhood as opposed to striving to “obtain” Godhood. That perspective was still turning over in my mind later that afternoon when I read Hawkgrrrl’s post noting the similarity between early Mormonism and the Millerite movement. Both movements came out of a “Great Awakening” in which the consciousness of a major sub-culture (at least) turns to religious ideas en masse as if they were a tinderbox waiting to ignite. It is less as if God speaks to a prophet than as if a whole environment becomes ripe for prophets and evangelists before people start looking for God. In other words, it is as if God moves to reacquire His children before they seek him, and the flow of the Spirit doesn’t just seem to strike one individual.
In first year physics (maybe high school physics by now) you learn to analyze electric circuits using two simple ideas known as Kirchoff”s Laws. The first law says that the current flowing into a node is going to equal the current flowing out of the node. Otherwise, charge would have to accumulate and sparks, quite literally, would fly. The second Kirchoff Law says that any time a circuit forms a closed loop the energy gains and losses must sum to zero around the loop; the same point in the circuit can’t have two contradictory energies (voltages). From those two principles, you can write and solve enough simple equations to determine how the current is flowing in every part of the circuit, no matter how complex the interconnections.
The feature of Kirchoff’s Laws that I want to highlight here is that the current going through any resistor in the circuit depends not only on the size of that resistor, but on every other resistor in the circuit.
Mormons talk frequently about principles of inspiration like “if any man lack wisdom…”, so the idea of laws governing the process of inspiration isn’t new. But have you ever considered whether those laws of inspiration might have the same property as Kirchoff’s Laws? What if the “current” of the Spirit through each one of us depends on the “resistance” to the Spirit of every one to whom we are connected, not just our own resistance? Then it would seem that finding a region (a community) where there are lots of pathways of low resistance might be more important to the flow of the Spirit than even the presence of one person especially sensitive to the Spirit. This doesn’t minimize that individual, but perhaps explains why such prophets are far more common in some cultures (e.g., ancient Israel, the Nephites, the “burned-out districts” of early America) than in others.
I don’t want to make too much of this analogy. Perhaps we could extend the analogy to the idea that there are different kinds of Spiritual “charges” so that some cultures are more sensitive to some spiritual messages than others. But I’m not going there, because then I’d have to start talking about color charges and quantum chromodynamics and you’d all hate me for boring you to death.
However, I think we would like our churches to be places of low resistance to the Spirit, but that doesn’t always seem to be the case. And our history of “Great Awakenings” shows that the low-resistance zones can even form outside (and in opposition to) the established churches. Consider what has been happening in Africa and Asia within Christianity, or other great religious movements in non-Christian faiths.
Do you think another Great Awakening is possible within your church? Somewhere else? Are you finding places of low resistance to the Spirit in your personal life? Who are the people whose low resistance to the Spirit brings more spiritual current flowing through you?
Wheat & Tares 
I think different faiths, at their core, appeal to people in different ways. For the LDS faith, the core of a testimony is emotions/feelings. Despite talking about things, etc. at the end of the day, unless someone gets that hard-to-describe “feeling”, the LDS Church might not appeal to them.
Other faiths have their own characteristics. Judaism can be seen as a cultural/intellectual faith. Buddhism relies much less on feelings and more on rationalism, combined with a vast sense of interconnectedness with our neighbor and the world around us. Islam has it rituals and characteristic views on women, Allah, etc.
Also, different faiths have different levels of exclusivity. The LDS Church is on one extreme in this regard, suggesting that even people who died before the Church was established have to accept the Church in the next life. Other religions are at the other extreme, such as UU or Hinduism. And some, like Buddhism, even count themselves as meaningless – a tool to be used but discarded once the final result is achieved.
Given this, it makes sense that different faiths appear to different areas at different times. In JS day, there were many accounts of people speaking in tongues, there were visions of God and Christ, there were emotional aspects, etc. As societies change, different religions appeal more. With regards to the LDS Church, Europe transitioned from emotionalism to rationalism perhaps sooner than the rest of the world. The United States is making that transition in many ways (although still a very religious society). The work of a religion like the LDS Church that appeals to emotion is therefore slowing significantly. So where is the Church growing? Areas where emotion is still a large part of society.
This is true in other denominations. Take Buddhism, for example. It appeals to a lot of people in America. It grew nearly 200% in a decade from 1991-2000. It has grown even more since then. It is hard to measure exactly, but there are an estimated 3-4 million+ people in the US who consider themselves Buddhist, or around the same number as active LDS. And this is for a group that had 400,000-500,000 people just twenty years ago, who doesn’t run ads on TV, and that doesn’t have missionaries. It just happens to appeal to a lot of Americans.
This is just an example, but I think it goes along with your post. If there is a “Great Awakening” going on in American, in all reality, it is probably Buddhism.
Interesting observations, Mike. One has to be careful of percentage increases among small segments of the population, but I think that the connection with emotional responsiveness may be spot on in regard to a factor that lowers resistance to the spirit in a population. Sometimes I get so busy analyzing love as a reaction of brain processes that I forget to feel it.
I wonder what’s happening in Asia (which has more practicing Christians than Europe now) but is coming from, e.g., Communism in China) rationalist world-views to faith.
I agree that percentage increases on small populations can be misleading. A few comments, however:
1) While Buddhism is “small” in the United States, it does have as many active followers as the LDS Church (and obviously more than the CofC). It is growing A LOT compared to the flatline “growth” of the LDS Church.
In the past, however, it was essentially non-existent among natives and Buddhism was essentially limited to immigrants. The fastest growing demographic for Buddhism in the US is young, educated, engaged people who are US-natives with no ties to Asian countries – all with no proselyting. There must obviously be something about Buddhism that appeals to the current US psyche.
2) Information availability: Like it or not, the LDS Church has things in its relatively recent and longer-term past that are hard to explain in the context of today’s society. In the past, these were hard for the lay investigator to know about as a part of their decision process. That is now gone. It may be a correlation and not causation, but it seems that countries with a high penetration of the internet have lower conversion rates to the LDS faith.
3) Regarding Asia, Christianity is certainly growing there. However, just because communism was forced upon the people for decades doesn’t mean that is their “nature”.
Also, interestingly, while Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds in Asia (and Africa), the more top-down authoritarian churches aren’t doing well. The LDS church growth is fairly stagnant compares to the exponential growth in those areas. And the Catholic church is also quite slow in comparison.
Also regarding top-down vs grass-roots nature: I think this is affecting the growth of the LDS Church in the US. Prior to the 1960’s US society did many things merely because an authority figure told them to. The counter-culture of the 60’s started people questioning “figureheads”. With the rise of the internet, literally anyone can say anything and pretend there are anyone. More than at any other time in history, ideas have to stand or fall on their own merit. The LDS Church, with it’s strict hierarchal model, is not very good at this.
Overall, I think there ARE “Great Awakenings” taking place around the world. I think people are hungry for connection and the divine and a framework. Religions whose nature fits the current society in a given location do well – others don’t.
Seems like I’m the only one commenting – oh well. The sign of a good post is one that gets me to think, and I’ve been pondering this all morning as I’ve done my Saturday stuff 🙂
This post does raise a question: Is the success of a particular denomination in a given location more dependent on the message itself or the people in that location?
If the message is a universal, “ultimate”, message of fullness, it should be fairly independent of locale. It should resonate with people’s souls throughout the entire world.
If, instead, the people are the determining factor with different messages filling the different needs of various people around the world to varying extents, it somewhat weakens the argument that there is one single message.
Also, another thing that came to mind is the phenomenon of viral messages/spreading. Some ideas take off like wildfire on their own. Other times, a company decides to do a “viral marketing” campaign. Occasionally it is successful, but only if no one knows the company is behind it. Otherwise, it’s just seen as manipulative.
I think the message of Christ is beautiful, powerful, and amazing. As per the root of gospel, it is “good news”. It seems that the denominations of Christianity that are “viral” in nature are exploding in Africa and Asia. Religions that seem to be “corporations trying to be viral” are not doing as well.
Take Africa, for example. The LDS Church has highlighted our growth there. We now have over 180,000 members in Africa. The Catholic church has had a presence in Africa nearly since its inception. It has around 135 million members and its growth is slow (1-2%/year). However, the Pentacostal denominations (which didn’t even start until the 1900’s) have over 150 MILLION members in Africa, and continue to grow.
Just an interesting quote from an outside source:
Mike:
I think you may be on to something with the talk of top-sown authoritarianism; in some way all of these areas may be rebelling against various forms of “kings” rather than against rationalism and in favor of emotionalism per se. I haven’t saved any international data except for CofChrist, which is simply down in the noise level for everyone else (even the LDS) but the PEW Religious Landscape Survey provides good and recent data.
It summarizes its findings on the major religious traditions and, in some cases, their largest subdivisions as percentages of all American adults in Chapter 1, the first table. The five largest traditions were:
Evangelical Protestant churches 26.3%
Catholic 23.9%
Mainline Protestant Churches 18.1%
Unaffiliated 16.1%
Historically Black Protestant Churches: 6.9%
By comparison, Mormons constituted 1.7%, which was about the same as Judaism, and only about 1/4th that of the Historically Black Churches. Buddhism, Orthodox Christian, Jehovah’s Witness, Muslim, and Hindu all cluster at about the 0.4%-0.7% of the population.
My point here is that the changes in any of the top 5 traditions (and their overseas counterparts, whatever they may be) are likely to dwarf in societal impact (NOT necessarily personal salvation) what occurs in churches like ours. The main trend Pew shows is that since the early nineties, the mainline protestants have been losing population share to the unaffiliated.
Pew further notes that the unaffiliated are not necessarily secular. There are almost as many American adults who say religion is important in their lives, but are unaffiliated with any faith as there are members in the Historically Black churches.
Is that trend a movement away from authoritarianism in religion?
FireTag:
I agree with you. I think that people are at least as spiritual as they have ever been, if not more. I just think that they are moving away from authoritarianism in religion as you suggest. I’ve read a number of books (which which I agree) which suggest there is a hard-to-define but palpable undercurrent of increasing consciousness and/or spirituality – for lack of a better way to express it.
It does seem somewhat ironic that the LDS Church is going to opposite way. They regiment everything, even down to how many earrings are appropriate and what color shirt is best to wear on Sundays. There were the talks (2x for emphasis) about the 14 points of following the prophet. It is very counter-current, and I think it is reflected in the growth of the LDS Church.
Our convert rate, as a percentage of membership, has dropped in half over the last couple of decades. While still growing, it is slowing down significantly. And much of that growth is taking place outside the United States and Europe, which are generally the areas which have funded the church.
It will be interesting to see what happens: Will the Church change to reflect society, will the Church hold fast to its traditions and accept a dwindling role, or will something happen in society in general where the authoritarian and hierarchal nature of the Church starts to appeal to people once again. Who knows? My crystal ball isn’t working.
Also, I reject the attitude that some people have: where they say people are “rejecting” religion because they want to “sin”.
Take the LDS Church and Buddhism, for example. I probably know the most about those two for the sake of discussion. They have about the same number of active members in the United States. And one is growing nearly exponentially, while the other is stagnant (again – in the United States).
And for a simple example – take the attitude towards alcohol.
The LDS Church is very much a rules/obedience based culture. We hear “not a drop”. Some people don’t even use cooking wine or rum-flavored candy. But this is based on a revelation from a prophet who drank beer and wine himself. The Word of Wisdom arguably even suggests that we “should” drink beer. In any event, this has been elevated to the point in the LDS culture where someone drinking a beer is well on the way to apostasy. The current interpretation of the WofW is given from the hierarchy. The important thing is obedience to the rules, as opposed to the rules themselves.
Contrast this with Buddhism. One of their basic tenets is “Avoid intoxication”. But the interpretation of that is up to the person. Many Buddhists don’t drink alcohol at all. Some might have a glass of wine with dinner or a beer. Some extend the tenet to include other stimulants like excessive caffeine. They also avoid narcotics. They also take this as a positive – instead of just avoiding intoxication, specifically do things to provide clarity of the mind.
Important things, relevant to the discussion:
– Truly following Buddhist principles requires as much devotion as LDS principles. People don’t change because they want to “sin”
– A person coming up with their own motivation to avoid alcohol as a self-generated precept is MUCH more powerful than not drinking in order to “check a box” in an interview
– It is much more logically consistent. When Christ drank wine and instituted it in the sacrament, yet we are told “not a drop” by an authority figure as an “eternal principle”, it doesn’t make sense.
– The ultimate goal of both is to make us better people. The LDS Church recognizes building up of the organization as paramount, however. Buddhism recognizes that it is just a vehicle to be jettisoned once it has served its purpose (much like Poelman taught in General ConferenceM before his talk was redacted)
This change has happened in US society. People don’t want to be told what to do by their doctor – they want information and to make the decision themselves. People don’t want to be “sold” a car – they want information and to make the decision themselves. The same with religion – people don’t like being “told” what to do. Perhaps Joseph Smith was on to something when he “taught correct principles and let the people govern themselves”. We are a LONG way from then.
Your comments from #5 on generate thoughts in a lot of directions. I’ll try to touch on a few before I break for some evening activities.
You’ve noted here and elsewhere that Mormonism has a saturation level, in America and elsewhere, which is much less than a miniscule portion of the human population. It’s a hindred times smaller in the CofChrist One has to go up to the level of Catholicism before the argument about specific beliefs being associated with a church being essential to salvation stop requiring “allowances” to avoid also concluding that almost all of mankind is dammed.
In the Restoration these allowances come in the form of different glories, and in the LDS, also include temple work for the dead. Other religions, both Christian and non-Christian, deal with the issue through their own theological fixes to be less exclusive.
Maybe the problem with authoritarian traditions comes when they can no longer say that their own experience is true, but have to also affirm that someone else’s experience is NOT true. Maybe we formulate the issue backwards; maybe it’s more that God saves us so we can develop better beliefs than that we form better beliefs so that God can save us. (Or at least a cyclic process between the two steps.)
As to the greater effectiveness of “viral” missionary actions than planned, I think that applies even in the developed world. I think my denomination, and, perhaps yours as well, suffers from a lot of mid-level church careerists (in attitude if not profession) searching for some mission to justify their positions.
I definitely think that the church is NOT supposed to be institutionally permanent, although evolving into something else (the Kingdom) might perhaps be a better description than “discarded”. More often nowadays I suspect I may have to discard the institutional careerism in orfer to keep the church’s essence in my heart and continue my part in its mission.
Mike:
I’ve seen you discuss these same ideas elsewhere and in reading them, a certain thought came to mind.
First, I absolutely agree with your idea of the doctors, etc. I am in the same boat – I don’t go to a doctor to be told what’s wrong, or what I need (though many do). I don’t go to a car dealership to buy a car – I find what I like and buy it from a private party. I don’t go to any store, really, to be sold something. I may lock myself into a box here, or there, but my decisions are made up through my own research and tastes, not what someone else thinks. My wife is the same in virtually every way – but religion. While my inquisitiveness remains the same, and while I continue to apply the same sorts of standards to my religious experience, my wife’s thinking virtually stops the minute a church leader speaks.
I only add that to point out that there are many whose religious experience is made up and satisfied by the authoritative view I balk at. It seems odd, to me, but it works for her.
Now, to the “certain thought” I had. A decade or so I saw a funny bumper sticker that went, “You laugh at me because I’m different; I laugh at you because you’re all the same.”
Many times we think Mormonism might not be working because it’s growth is stagnating (authoritarianism as the cause, perhaps) while the global population approaches 7 billion (Mormonism accounts for only 0.2% of the total earth’s population).
My question is this: does Mormonism (at its roots) really want religious dominance? Zion, after all, by most accounts, is a rather exclusive group. Not exclusive in that you need material wealth or anything to join, but rather most people aren’t willing to let go of their idolatry to get there (idolatry of the Church(tm), idolatry of materialism, idolatry of the false priests of the main stream media, idolatry of the Prophet, idolatry of tithing, idolatry of the temple, etc.). We’re generally too caught up in Babylon to really achieve anything Zion oriented. Not only that, but I’m not sure most people in the church really care about Christ enough to really focus on Him enough to change anything (if only because we’re too focused on the organization, the efficiencies, the leadership, etc., to really undo our darkened minds).
So, returning to the OP, I think there could be something to states of lesser resistance. B.F. Skinner once postulated that he could raise any child to be anything he wanted. That might not be the prevailing psychological view today, but if we raise our kids to accept and deal with a watered down spirituality, are they going to have an easier time breaking out of that mold when their older? Or, if we give them an environment where spiritual moments are to be accepted, where they’re encouraged to seek the divine (and not the institution), will that produce a community wide thing where all act in concert?
I don’t know, but perhaps this is the same idea (loosely defined) that endeavors like the School of the Prophets were founded upon.
I like this definition of Zion:
J:
At the beginning of the OP I spoke about its motivating idea being the notion of “being acquired by Godhood” rather than obtaining Godhood. I think this is the idea in which we need to view Zion as well: we build Zion only in terms of being the tools (or perhaps, better, the arms and legs) operating at the close direction of God. Implicit in that is that we respond to God’s direction as closely as our arms respond to our brain. We all sort of have to develop the ability we presume prophets have — to see the mind of God operating in our own opportunities, and not be limited to a prefabricated and unvarying set of instructions which don’t change even if we make progress.
J / FireTag:
I like the concepts in #11/12 – of being tools in God’s hands. That being said, we are all different tools. And as J mentioned, “My question is this: does Mormonism (at its roots) really want religious dominance?” While Mormonism may NOT want religious dominance (ie. Zion is exclusive), the fundamental teaching are that Mormonism is ESSENTIAL to reach the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom.
These two concepts are at odds in my mind. If Mormonism is never to be more than 0.1-0.2% of the world’s population, does this imply that by design God does NOT expect most of His children to return to Him. If the multitude of denominations are tools, however, how do we reconcile this with the LDS teachings that this is the “One True Church”, that other churches are “abominations”, that we have exclusive priesthood authority, etc.?
Mike S.:
I’ll note that it is possible to believe that the occurrence and work of the Restoration is essential to the establishment of Zion and developing people of Christ-like quality who can inhabit the celestial kingdom, and still not believe that living in Zion or the celestial kingdom is exclusive to members of a “one and only true church”. When Christ listed the greatest commandments, membership in the church obviously didn’t make the top two.
Just as a true church can contain abominable members, an abominable church can contain true souls who never understand Christ until the afterlife. Perhaps their faithfulness while living in their earthly setting constitutes a more valiant testimony than does that of those who had all of the faith-building advantages to start.
It’s the relationship with Christ, not the church, that ultimately is defining, even when you don’t connect Christ with Jesus.
However, there are passages in the BofM and D&C that warn that society can reject the gospel. Things still work out, but the process is a LOT more painful.
FireTag,
It’s always cool to see how the ideas you share in our discussions evolve. I thought I knew what I would be reading when I went on to this blog, but I see you had a surprise.
The idea of low resistance is an interesting one. I hadn’t thought about the community part of it. But, it does make sense that when one is sensitive to the Spirit, that makes it easier for others to be too.
I’ve been thinking more about the original post and really like it. Perhaps because my bachelors is in Electrical Engineering – who knows? But the more I thought about it, I really like the idea of people collectively being ready for more revelation / spirituality / etc. I also think there may be a “feedback” mechanism built into it.
I think this can be seen in the LDS Church. In the early days of the Church, people expected visions and revelations. As a result, the early prophets had revelations which were accepted and canonized by the church body as a whole.
Over time, this has dried up to a large extent. The only revelation from a prophet that has been added to our canonized scripture in my lifetime was regarding blacks and the priesthood, and that was over 30 years ago. And prior to that, you have to go back over a century to the ending of polygamy.
Like any organization, there are always various new programs and areas of emphasis in the Church, many of which may be inspired and others which may be good (or bad) ideas. But as far as new Revelation (with a capital ‘R’) – ie. “Thus saith the Lord…”, canonized, etc., it’s been a long, long time.
We talk about the potential for this when we call our Prophet a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, but are we willing to accept it? Are we, as a Church, ready for true revelation like from prophets of old? Given the paucity of “official” canonized revelation in the recent history of the Church, I suppose that we aren’t.
Is there something we, as members, can do to change this? Is this revelation something that is only needed to establish things, and minor tweaks are used after that? I don’t know.
Mike:
Good thoughts. I, too, like the idea that where more is expected, more comes. Where less is expected, less comes. It’s my experience that many people are afraid of revelation at the local level and in their own lives, and I think part of that is responsible for the false doctrine that the Prophet is responsible for all, that he talks with the Lord on a daily basis, etc. I think we placate ourselves with these ideas because, at the end of the day, we’re at least mildly scared of the idea. Maybe we’re afraid of turning into the Lafferty brothers, or maybe we just want someone else to shoulder the responsibility, but in the end I think it comes down to either fear or ignorance.
Ask, seek, knock.
As for your comments on Revelation, I’d even argue that neither the 1978 priesthood thing, nor the 1890 Manifesto were actual revelations. LeGrand Richards basically said as much of the 1978 decision in an interview with one of the local newspapers, and Woodruff’s own words call the Manifesto in these terms:
Susan Staker’s biography of Woodruff (especially the Introduction), paints an especially intriguing picture of Woodruff as he goes through the experience.
As to a further discussion on Revelation, I might turn the conversation here (“Silent Revelations”), as I think it presents a decent discussion on our misconceptions regarding revelation, inspiration and the gray area between the two.
Mike S.:
I really haven’t had to think much about the issue of the lack of revelation to the church, because in the CofChrist we add to the canon of the D&C pretty regularly. (Everyone can decide for themselves, of course, about the quality and validity of the revelations presented.) So I have to think about this more in terms of personal revelation and communal (i.e., local) issues rather than eternal-for-everyone insights.
But if I take the circuit model seriously, than the things one can tweak are one’s own “resistance” to the Spirit — obviously — and the set of connections to others. I guess it’s possible in some of the more developed LDS areas to have one’s connections almost exclusively within the Mormon community. If everything comes through the Prophet, then, there can be a lot of resistors between the individual and the Spirit, so some of them, at least, better be open to the flow.
In the Community of Christ, that kind of isolation within the faith community isn’t really possible except among Independence Temple staff even if it was desirable. For most of us, the channels for all spirits, for good or ill, are going to be open, so I suppose it’s a matter of what spirits we listen to and heed.
J:
I do think that we are often afraid to hear God, because even if our ideas don;t change as a result of the experience, our sense of urgency has to do so. After the burning bush, there’s no going back to herding sheep among the Midianites without consequences in your own internal sense of the Spirit. And the truth of where God leads can get one in a lot of earthly trouble.
J:
While, ideally, we should have revelation on a personal basis, on a practical basis, this is absolutely subject to the hierarchy in the LDS church. If someone felt that wine was fine for them to drink because both Christ and Joseph Smith drank wine and that it was probably better for them than their anxiety pill, their bishop might disagree when it came time for a temple recommend interview. If I was a bishop and felt that 2-hour church was right for my congregation, I would be reprimanded by someone above me.
Much like the apathy that existed in communist USSR, it only takes so long smacking people down in the hierarchy below for people to adopt the attitude of not doing anything unless it comes down “from above”. Additionally, we hammer into the kids “Follow the prophet, don’t go astray, follow the prophet, he knows the way”.
So, while not ideal, it is natural that in the LDS Church, the people look above for revelation.
FireTag:
I’m actually somewhat envious of the CofC where you continually add to your canon. I envy having a prophet who declares the word of God on an official and canonized basis. I envy having the church as a whole petition God to know his will as you’ve described in prior posts. I think this certainly reduces the “resistance” in the system, where things are massively arranged in parallel, as opposed to the strict series system we have in the hierarchal LDS church.