Only a month ago, Nate posted “I Contain Multitudes“. He uses the Pixar movie “Inside Out” to discuss the issues of opposition and internal conflict. My discussion below takes a slightly different path, but again uses the same movie as an analogy.
I know I’m a bit late on the uptake, but I just sat down with the family and watched the Pixar movie, “Inside Out”.
It’s definitely a kid’s movie, but like all Pixar movies, has many layers for audience members at varying intellectual or psychological stages.
For those who haven’t seen it, the movie follows the life of Riley, an 11 year old only child who moves from Minnesota to San Francisco. The main idea of the movie is that there are several “characters” in her head – sadness, fear, anger, disgust and joy. They all jostle for space at the console (as above) to respond to various events that occur in her life. The main character is Joy who is broadly dominant and tries to use her “emotion” to respond to most situations – often sidelining the other emotions by pushing them away somehow. Each event creates a memory which is coloured according to the dominant emotion felt during that event (“sad” memories are blue).
There is a lot good about this movie and there are some genuinely emotive moments. Towards the end there is an interesting development in the plot. Riley runs away from her parent’s home after becoming dissatisfied with her new home and surroundings. She ends up returning and when in the arms of her parents “joy” and “sadness” take dual control on Riley’s console and a new “memory” is produced. But unlike the other memories (up till this point which are only one colour), the new memories are multi coloured. Indeed, the memory produced as Riley is hugging her parents is part blue (sad) and part yellow (joy).
This maturation in her development marks the climax of the movie and the end of the “child” Riley and the birth of the new “adolescent” Riley.
I see some similarities in the church here. Like the “child” Riley, the church – for many years – produced a unilateral narrative. It produced a correlated version of itself where under the direction of the First Presidency, information, stories and culture were highly controlled. Looking back, one could argue this type of control echoes that of a cheap romance movie – by the end you feel like you have been led down an emotional road manipulated into feeling exactly what the director wanted you to feel.
As I have gone through my own personal philosophical changes relating to how I see the church, I, like Riley have matured or changed. I have developed the ability to discard an emotionally and intellectually unilateral view and replace it with a complex one. One that sees the beauty in the introspectively intense Alma 5, the love that can be displayed in the Home and Visiting Teaching programs and the genuine happiness seen on the faces of the primary kids. But I also see the complexities in the narratives of the past, the unnecessary political involvement at the General level of the church and our policy and cultural treatment of those who identify as LGBT. The church, like its members, is neither all bad or all good.
Perhaps the way that Riley’s big move was a catalyst for her change, the rise of the internet may well have been a catalyst for some members, and even the Church itself to change. I think it was Elder Holland recently that said that we cannot just tell people to read and pray in response to genuine questions. People now have access to too much information that makes “just” praying kind of pointless. The church has lost the ability to control its own narrative. It now needs different ways to disseminate and explain its history.
Recently, Ally Isom, Director at the LDS Church Public Affairs spoke at the Fair Mormon Conference. Perhaps as a response to much of the hateful content I see on my Facebook feed (from church members), she urged against the dichotomy often referred to in such posts. She listed four concepts to keep in mind when speaking about these issues (Quoted in the Deseret News)
First, words matter. “I urge you to understand the meaning of words for all key players and then choose your words well.”
Second, people matter. She rejected frameworks that simplify issues into polar opposites and assume pernicious motives. Instead of mentally placing a person on an opposite side, see the other’s potential and value.
“Can we not see the people and resist the poles?” she said, adding, “What might happen if those oppositional dualities were framed as complementary or interdependent — each a unique part of a greater whole, each part of the total, ultimate solution?”
Third, Isom said “you matter.” She referred specifically to disciples of Christ, who said contention should be done away, and said their contributions make a difference.
“Authentic discipleship is the surest way to counter the pervasive anger that is overtaking our communities and politics,” she said. “Even more importantly, authentic discipleship is the best way to share the gospel’s truth — to live as disciples, to share our light and, in turn, the Savior’s light. In marketing terms, it is called ‘living our brand.'”
Fourth, Isom said “we matter,” meaning all people should work together as God’s children. People can successfully engage in the arena by working together both to create change and to allow themselves to be changed.
I see this type of commentary as one attempt by the Church to steer away from the singular and overly simplistic narratives too often presented in the past. Perhaps we are living in the day of a blue and yellow church??
Questions:
- How has your perception of the church changed as you have emotionally and intellectually matured?
- If it has changed, explain your journey in terms of the emotions you felt
- Do you see the Church maturing as it explores different narratives, produces websites like mormonsandgays.org and releases the “essays”.
- Is it like a marriage – initially seeing someone as perfect, then still love them later when they (you) do dumb things?
- Does Ms Ison like Pixar movies?
This was really good, and I appreciate it coming from you all the more.
I hadn’t thought of using Riley’s inner emotional life as a metaphor for a large organisation like the church, but I think it is very apt. We are “the body of Christ” as they say, and there are many diverse parts, and those diverse parts may have divergent opinions about how the body of Christ should be operating. A central authority within the body is important, but it’s also important that that central authority has an inclusive view of itself which includes giving place for those “less comely” parts to play their role and have their autonomy within the whole. We rise and fall together. It’s also important to acknowledge the “less comely” parts of our history. That is also part of the body of Christ.
Those with a simplistic childlike understanding defend that simplistic understanding in childlike ways because growing up and thinking for themselves is a very frightening proposition! But independent voice is now being given to (assumed by) those faith transition and beyond via the internet and can no longer be effectively stifled by church shushing, isolation, exclusion and shunning and the growing prevalence of this self-evident transitional truth threatens the simplistic top down narrative (control) and eliminates the need for a middleman between God and individual members (yourself). Ultimately it will force significant change within the LDS church or the church will shrink significantly but pronounced change probably will not take place until a significant Q15 die off is complete.
This is not to say that gospel truth is only to be found by being outside the LDS church though the transition often results in leaving the church rather one must go through a faith transition or crisis to actually find one’s faith! If you haven’t you are simply borrowing someone’s else’s faith or someone else’s fiction, not your own. But if you are to stay after transition you must find a way to disengage or ignore or otherwise deal with the childish top down LDS poppycock.
Those with a simplistic childlike understanding defend that simplistic understanding in childlike ways because growing up and thinking for themselves is a very frightening proposition! But independent voice is now being given to (assumed by) those faith transition and beyond via the internet and can no longer be effectively stifled by church shushing, isolation, exclusion and shunning and the growing prevalence of this self-evident transitional truth threatens the simplistic top down narrative (control) and eliminates the need for a middleman between God and individual members (yourself). Ultimately it will force significant change within the LDS church or the church will shrink significantly but pronounced change probably will not take place until a significant Q15 die off is complete.
This is not to say that gospel truth is only to be found by being outside the LDS church though the transition often results in leaving the church rather one must go through a faith transition or crisis to actually find one’s faith! If you haven’t you are simply borrowing someone’s else’s faith or someone else’s fiction, not your own. But if you are to stay after transition you must find a way to disengage or ignore or otherwise deal with the childish top down LDS poppycock.
Nice post. I’ll take on questions 1 and 2:
1. Yes, my perception of church has changed. I want to be sure that I don’t insult anyone else’s approach to faith/church etc. here, so I’ll emphasize that this is just my perception and I recognize it as such.
2. As I’ve (hopefully) matured and tried to learn more about people, religion, etc., I find that most of the stuff at church (as opposed to the gospel) just doesn’t interest me. I’m having trouble plugging into things like testimony meeting (which in my ward usually features long stories about health issues, a lot of crying and a few profound moments) and the concept of sin. I feel like the church wants me to be really anxious/worried about the number and variety of sins I’m committing and to “press forward with a steadfastness in Christ,” but I don’t really know what that means. I think the church is really just trying to tell me to be a little bit better each day, to try to be more like Christ, etc., but all of the sloganizing that goes on ends up confusing me rather than enlightening me. I try to be a decent person in my interactions with other people and I’ve been pretty successful at avoiding major sins (murder, cocaine, prostitutes, etc.) and I feel okay about myself. I just can’t seem to manufacture any kind of moral outrage about my own shortcomings. I often wonder whether the church as an institution is invested in making us feel bad about ourselves so that we feel we “need” the church more to help us become better. That kind of thinking/practice just doesn’t appeal to me. In fact, I think it’s a harmful form of social control. So generally, I’m either confused, frustrated or ambivalent at church, but I have enough positive spiritual experiences to keep me going.
And to your point about narrative, oddly, despite my moments of confusion and frustration, I’m also sort of calm about things. As I discovered, as other folks on this blog likely have, that the church commits lies of omission regarding its history, doctrines, etc., I found myself becoming more relaxed and calm about things pertaining to religion. It’s strange to say, perhaps, but once I stopped trying to imbue our church leaders with a moral authority and honesty that they don’t actually possess (though I do love Uchtdorf), life got much easier. I realized I’m responsible for myself (my spiritual journey, salvation, etc.), that my conscience, not the voice of church leaders, is my surest guide and that we (Mormons) really don’t have the corner on the “true religion” market like we claim we do. I’m actually much less stressed than I was, say, twenty years ago, when I was trying to make all of the things I was discovering fit the grand, correlated Mormon narrative.
Still waiting for the rainbow colored church.
Like Nate, I think it’s an interesting idea to take the inner world of the movie and apply it to an organization. In the movie, Joy (yellow) is constantly blocking Sadness (blue) to keep her from talking, touching the memories or really having any part in the life of Riley. It’s certainly similar to some of the rhetoric at church in which we talk about the “Plan of Happiness” and don’t really want to deal with negative feelings – depression, grief, etc. We like to put on a happy face. I used to get asked at work why I was always smiling. I think it’s because as a Mormon, we are socialized to smile. “Turn that frown upside down.” When it comes to dealing with the tougher stuff in life, the church organization isn’t well equipped to handle it: divorce, death, financial setbacks. We just don’t have a lot of patience or empathy for things that aren’t positive. We tend to blame the victim. That’s my experience as a Mormon, anyway, not necessarily as the one receiving the lack of empathy, but truly it is hard to know what to say to people who aren’t happy in the church. It’s as if the church isn’t working, isn’t curing their ills. If it’s working for us, then they must be the problem.
“How has your perception of the church changed as you have emotionally and intellectually matured?” I’ve seen the lack of empathy more as I’ve been through up and down times in my own life.
“Do you see the Church maturing as it explores different narratives?” Yes, I believe this issue is beginning to come to the fore, specifically in some of the conference talks that are dealing with topics like depression, suicide, and mental illness while attempting to remove the stigma and be more welcoming to all and empathetic. I think the lowering of the mission age may be a catalyst for this. There are many who go home early due to issues like anxiety, and the church is starting to realize this has been a blind spot.
I really enjoyed this.
Here is one area where the church is (being forced into) maturing:
Elder M. Russell Ballard
Thank you all for your comments. As I watched the movie, the idea of the church sanitatising its past seemed to make a lot of sense. Like the movie, the church (joy) almost seems relentless in subduing the other narratives (emotions).
Being a young church, it will be interesting to see how it will mature and change over the coming years.
Nice post and I like the comparison to the movie, which I also enjoyed.
This is only my opinion and doesn’t apply to anyone else at all.
1) The church has lost a lot of credibility and trust with me as I have spiritually matured. I’m okay with people making mistakes. I can forgive those in the past who bungled important things and hid our history. What I struggle to handle is the lack of humility shown by the church to change from those practices. We basically continue the same behaviors that got us in this mess: primarily authoritarianism and a lack of egalitarianism (we aren’t treated as equals in this endeavor). If we don’t change those behaviors, we’re bound to repeat the mistakes of the past (as evidenced by the handling of the November policy change).
2) I love the idea of Zion and I still cling to that ideal. We have a spectrum of beliefs, political persuasions, etc. within our communities, ranging from athiest -> agnostic -> deist -> liberal Mormon -> moderate Mormon -> conservative Mormon, with overlap among each group.
We are supposed to become one, for Jesus said that, if we are not one, we are not His. How, given that large spectrum of belief, are we to be one? I see really only two options:
a) Compulsion/authoritarianism
b) Love/persuasion
It seems to me that the church has chosen the first option, with the conservative Mormons on the spectrum enforcing their beliefs via decree and argument from authority. It’s certainly more expedient and efficient at becoming one, but that “one” is a very small population.
There are many for whom the second option is preferable and the resulting fallout from the first option makes it tough for these people to remain in a community that chooses the first option. I fall into that group and am wholly disinterested in engaging in the Culture Wars. Unfortunately, our battle efforts are largely what define us now and it is the preeminent message I hear in my meetings. I was already struggling to hold on despite my lack of belief in much of our flimsy theology, but I just don’t care about “defending the family” and can’t get riled up about our supposed loss of religious freedom. We have so much more to offer and we’re sacrificing it at the altars of our idols.
My children are in the youth programs of the church and my wife and I have decided to reduce our activity. Our kids have zero interest in enduring the boredom of a 3-hour block in order to hear multiple messages enlisting them in the Culture Wars. They just don’t care. My wife and I want them to develop a relationship with God where love and respect rule the day rather than letting the authoritarian church seek to control and moderate that relationship. Are we casualties in the Culture Wars? It feels like we are.
3) I don’t think the church’s behavior has changed much (see my response to #1).
4) There has been an element of growing to love the imperfections of the church, but I also believe a successful marriage must be built on communication and mutual respect. I don’t see either one from the church.
Orangganjil – thanks for your comment and insight into your personal journey. I do believe the stance the church has taken both historically on its narrative and now on the family and SSM has had significant unintended casualties.
All I know is…. I need to get with the program and go see this movie. This is the second article about it, so I am very intrigued. 🙂
Interesting analogy.
Am I the only one who didn’t enjoy the film much when I saw it….
@hedgehog
We finally got around to seeing it. Kinda bummed that it cost US $12 to buy it, though. 😦 Both of us liked the film a lot and found it to be a pretty accurate model of human psychology… not that we are any kind of experts. I liked the scene at the dinner table where the husband is daydreaming about sports, and the final sequence with the dogs and cats. I’m curious why you didn’t enjoy the film. I’d like to hear your thoughts about it. No biggie… just making conversation. 😉