I was browsing through a sports site the other day when up popped an ad inviting me to visit a church. “Find a place where church goes beyond Sunday,” it said. The only thing that tipped it as a Mormon ad was the ComeUntoChrist.org link address, which maybe one in ten thousand non-LDS viewers would connect to the LDS Church and maybe one in a hundred LDS would immediately recognize as an LDS site. That was when I realized what is really going on with this whole renaming thing: the Mormon brand has become so toxic that even the Church is running away from it.
Reloading the page several times, there were three similar Mormon ads that cycled through the ad box. I’m going to quote them below, just so you can see how generically Christian the LDS missionary message has become. Headline in bold print, followed by the blurb text in italics.
- Come and See, Come and Stay. Find a place where church goes beyond Sunday. And people who try to be better together.
- A Community of Caring. Come discover friends and fellow followers of Jesus.
- Worship with Us. Find a place where church goes beyond Sunday. And people who try to be better together.
All Mormon ads linked to ComeUntoChrist.org, which is the revamped Mormon.org. If you type Mormon.org into your search bar, it takes you to ComeUntoChrist.org. The site uses the “Believe, Belong, Become” slogan to organize the content, which is also borrowed from hip Christianity. The only place on the home page that the word “Mormon” appears is at the very bottom, a link titled “Free Book of Mormon,” nestled between “Meet with Missionaries” and “Find a Church.”
The problem, of course, is that just changing the name of a toxic brand does not remove the perceived toxicity. It might fool some of the people for awhile, but not for long. There was a time not too long ago when the term “Mormon” had a positive public perception. It was that short period after 1978, when the Church finally abandoned the priesthood and temple ban, until roughly the 1990s, when gay marriage become a public issue and the Church came out strongly against gay marriage and gay anything else as well. The year 2000, when the Church backed Prop 22 in California and strongly encouraged members to contribute time and money to supporting the proposition, is the definitive break.
So the Right hates Mormons because they are mostly Evangelical or Catholic, and that’s just what they do. And the Left hates Mormons because of the anti-gay crusade. (I exaggerate slightly for effect.) There just aren’t many neutrals in the middle anymore that would say, “Mormons, they’re nice people.” We’re either heretics or bigots, take your choice.
Now that’s a real problem for a missionary-minded church. It must be a tough time to be a missionary. Excising the word “Mormon” is hardly going to solve the problem, though. Investigators aren’t stupid; sooner or later, they’ll figure out it’s us, the Mormons.
To get a sense of the gravity of the problem, of how serious a problem it is when your brand becomes toxic, think about business parallels. Firestone tires. Audi cars. Most recently, the Boeing 737 (this might just sink the company). The business school case on crisis management that saved a brand is the Tylenol scare of 1982, when a few capsules in bottles on store shelves were tampered with, poisoning a few unsuspecting purchasers in Chicago with cyanide. Johnson & Johnson saved the brand by recalling every single bottle of Tylenol on the shelves across the whole country and beefing up the packaging by adding a foil seal to the top of the bottle so a purchaser could see the contents were not tampered with. That safety feature quickly spread to a wide variety of consumer products. J&J saved the Tylenol brand. It’s a rare success story for that kind of scenario.
So let’s talk about the Church and the term “Mormon.” How toxic is it? Is it just the term “Mormon” that is the problem, or is it the whole LDS apparatus that is the problem? Is the brand salvageable or does the growing exodus of Millennials and Gen-Zers herald the permanent decline of the Mormon Church?
I suppose it’s the cynic in me, but I think the most benefit that will come out of this is that the missionaries may end up teaching more first discussions. The title is the least of the church’s problems. All it will take is for an investigator to hear a leader worshiping testimony or any of Elder Oaks’ addresses from the last five years to quickly find out what’s really going on. Didn’t Jesus say something about cleansing the inner vessel first?
As someone out here in “the mission field,” I think the public perception is both better and worse than you describe.
Prior to Mitt Romney’s campaign, if you’d told most people in my hometown that you’re Mormon, they wouldn’t have known what you were talking about. The ward swaps stories about people’s reactions when they attempt to share their faith. As the bishop put it, “Sure, the gospel is simple, but…well….it’s got a lot of backstory….”
During Romney’s campaign, that changed and I heard a lot of very negative stuff, but it was largely inaccurate. It didn’t help that the Warren Jeffs fiasco had happened just far enough in the past for everyone to have forgotten that the FLDS are virtually their own separate religion, not just super-devout Mormons.
But I would say post-Romney, it’s mostly gone back to people not knowing (and, to be honest, not caring) about the Mormon Church. I suppose that could be considered a failure of “branding,” but that sounds like the goal is peddling Amway.
The Book of Mormon musical has helped, too, although a limited number of people have the money and/or interest in seeing it. It’s been my observation that people who have seen it come away with a positive and not-too-terribly-inaccurate impression of Mormonism. Backstory, indeed!
Basically, it’s like that saying: We would worry less what people think of us if we realized how seldom they do.
Personally, I doubt the church is in decline, but, then, I’m considering joining it. I can say for sure that the way my LDS friends have treated me for the last 20+ years did far more as a witness of the gospel than any “branding” could have done.
Excellent article. I think you are spot on, unfortunately. I stopped wanting myself publicly known as Mormon several years ago, and it is getting worse all the time. Now I just consider Mormon to be a label of my “ethnicity” more or less. The Church can do its thing, and I will do mine.
In 2012, I was lucky enough to see the Book of Mormon on Broadway a few months after it won a plethora of Tony Awards. It was the talk of the town and I was lucky to procure a ticket.
What was interesting to me, however, was that as I walked out to catch a cab from JFK to the hotel near Times Square, there were so many cabs with the following: ‘MEET THE MORMONS”. Everywhere. I had landed in New York smack dab in the middle of the LDS Church’s campaign to capitalize on the BOM. The signs were everywhere. On the Times Square Jumbotron, on billboards, on street corners, and of course, on taxicabs.
Fast forward to 2018, and the use of the term “MORMON” is strictly forbidden. I don’t know what the purpose of this post is except to say I find it ironic that we’ve gone from one extreme to another. Where is the happy middle?
I think the question is less “how toxic is it?” and more “how many groups find it toxic?” which is the issue alluded to in your post. It strikes me that Mormonism, for all of its supposed universal appeal (and its Universalism, IMHO), is really built to appeal to a rapidly shrinking demographic: conservative, cis-gendered heterosexual caucasian married couples who have or are planning to have children. (Yes, I know about the church’s growth internationally, and I celebrate it, but there is still much about the church that is fundamentally identified with the American West and that particular culture.) And that assumes that said couple doesn’t have any LGBTQ children. That couple also needs to find in Mormonism something it doesn’t feel it can get from any mainstream Christian church. Ironically, part of Mormonism’s “toxicity” isn’t toxic at all, it’s that it isn’t seen as special or unique as it claims. Most people who believe in a god or an afterlife already believe that they’ll be with their families/loved ones again and because of that, the temple and the priesthood as Mormonism conceives of them simply aren’t that necessary. And the church, at least as I’ve experienced it, is hardly a community of caring in one sense. There are many good people in the church who do a lot of good on the one hand, but on the other, community, IMO, isn’t as important as conformity. For a group of people who ought to be the most relaxed and loving on earth (“we’re the only true church, we have the truth, we know about the afterlife and it’s awesome.”) we’re awfully uptight and judgmental about anything that appears to be out of step with orthodox belief or practice. (Don’t believe me? Try saying in Sunday school that the Book of Mormon is a condemnation of all violence. Or try really discussing the implications of multiple versions of the first vision, not just acknowledging that they exist. Or mention anything positive about welfare that isn’t church welfare.) That is perhaps where part of the toxicity the OP mentions arises from. Yes, we are seen as either heretics or bigots, but that is due in large part because of what we appear to emphasize in terms of expected behaviors of members. So even if folks don’t see us as heretics or bigots per se, we are often seen as being concerned with things that most people don’t quite understand. Is that a failure of branding? Perhaps. It may also be simply a failure of emphasis on what we think is most important. Or that we seem contradictory, as in “we believe in family”, but we really hold up a specific kind of family as the ideal. At this point, I’m not sure the brand is salvageable without a major overhaul and I just don’t think that that’s likely.
Unfortunately, we cannot conclude that our very aged Q15 aren’t actually proud that “Mormon” is identified with all these *stand against the evil in the world* issues. So they would actually be somewhat reluctant to agree with these concerns presented to them by the Marketing Department that point out what you covered in the OP. However, it is highly likely that the name change is solely the hobby horse of Pres Nelson.
Yes, as fbisti says, it does appear that the name change is Russell Nelson’s hobby horse, nagging complaint, bugaboo, etc. So, if the pattern holds and each president gets to focus on changing the one thing that bugs him the most, would not a President Oaks bring even more attention to homosexuality and how it contravenes God’s plan? After all, it seems to have been the bur under his saddle for decades. That might make the Mormon brand more toxic, even if the brand formerly known as Mormon returns to the mainstream.
My theory is that the Church will shrink in the USA and hopes to grow in Africa. That’s the only hope they have.
The Church’s effort at branding goes way beyond “Mormon” vs. ‘The Church of Jesus Christ”. It is my opinion that a few decades ago, Church leadership decided that the Church brand would be best represented by the concept of family. Everything would be about family. And keep in mind this was at a time when Western society in general (post WW II) operated within a similar framework: dad works, mom stays at home with the kids, etc. The family brand that the Church promoted justified temple worship. This lead to the Family Proclamation, prop 8 support, etc. What I find so interesting about the pro-family message from the Church is how little of that same message is found in the Bible or any other words from Christ. You have to believe in LDS scriptures to believe that there are rules for eternal family because those rules are not found anywhere outside of the Church. To some, that makes the Church and Gospel special and unique. To others that makes the Church and it’s version of heaven seem strange. But again, this is part of the branding of the Church. We are the Family church.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
I don’t object to the ads using nice phrases or the Church putting its best foot forward in ads reaching out to non-LDS readers. I’ve seen ads from other denominations or local mega-churches that do the same thing. It’s the hiding who we really are part that is the problem. The leadership probably should have thought harder about the negative PR consequences of conducting a public campaign against gay marriage before committing the Church to that course of action and ruining the good name of the Church. Remember, for you or me sullying the good name of the Church might be an excommunicable offense (that’s right out of Handbook 1).
Susan, yes the about-face on the use of the term “Mormon” within the Church is truly astounding. Even more so because, for all the energy and expense involved, it doesn’t seem to accomplish anything except to confuse people. Which leads to the reasonable conclusion that the purpose of the name change was to confuse people (by hiding the toxic brand name “Mormon”).
Bro. Sky, I think they are trying to expand the target market of the missionary message and general LDS appeal. Easier said than done. It takes more than good ad copy to actually attract converts from a broader demographic.
“How toxic is it?”
About a 7.
“Is it just the term “Mormon” that is the problem, or is it the whole LDS apparatus that is the problem?”
The problem was a failed attempt to trademark the name. It created legal precedent for anyone, anywhere, to claim to be Mormon and no legal recourse would exist. People could, and did, use the word “Mormon” on blogs. In the most charitable view “Mormon” could mean any member of dozens of sects of Mormonism, some of which still practice polygamy. Consequently it is not useful as a brand, any more than “kleenex” necessarily refers to Kleenex rather than any brand of nose blowing tissue paper.
“Is the brand salvageable or does the growing exodus of Millennials and Gen-Zers herald the permanent decline of the Mormon Church?”
If by “salvageable” you mean reviving “Mormon” to mean a member of the Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism, no. That ship has sailed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Brands_that_became_generic Mormon is generic.
If you mean that something many people detest could be made less detestable; sure. It could be made exactly the way you want it. I doubt it would attract more members that way. Some would join (maybe) some would leave (probably).
A downturn is happening in essentially all social organizations from Lions Club to Mormon flavored churches. https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/27/service-clubs-have-suffered-declining-membership-in-the-past-30-years/
Whatever is the cure for one of them may well be the cure for all of them. To me the internet, combined with DumbPhones, is the real culprit. People do not need human interactions in person. See the movie Wall-E for an insightful parody of this. When you can watch idiots on Youtube 24 hours a day, who needs church? I will admit to some fondness for the 11foot8 youtube videos https://www.youtube.com/user/yovo68
I believe that some of these millenials, and me too, will eventually find that companionship in your hand is not really all that fulfilling and some will turn, or return, to churches (or the Lion’s Club or whatever).
“… is really built to appeal to a rapidly shrinking demographic: conservative, cis-gendered heterosexual caucasian married couples who have or are planning to have children.”
Amen, brother. That is its market. Other markets exist served by other churches. It would be a tactical mistake to try to enter a market already dominated by other churches. The example of that is “new Coke”. Abandon a proven market, try and fail to enter a new market, nearly go out of business. Now it is “Classic Coke”. I suppose “Classic Mormon” would work.
Thanks Dave B. A major difference between the business cases cited, and the Church, is that the businesses have publicly taken responsibility for their mistakes and have done, or are doing, what they can to restore their credibility. The Church has also made some serious mistakes, with painful human consequences, yet leaders still avoid responsibility for them. The Church’s culture of leader worship, secrecy, no accountability, makes it the purveyors of truth for some members. For other of us, it’s become toxic. While some some institutional repentance is needed, I still think it will be difficult to restore the credibility that’s been lost.
To some extent, I think the heretics or bigots dichotomy may be largely an American/Western issue. This is definitely the case in Utah, though I think that even in non–Mountain West America you’d find a lot of people who don’t quite know yet what to make of Mormons. Outside the US (and likely Europe), there are many of regions where neither Evangelical Christian denominations nor gay rights are big issues culturally. (Catholicism in Latin America and the Philippines is actually our most fertile soil for conversion, typically)
That said, I’m afraid you’re likely right when it comes to younger populations, especially Western ones. I think that these populations generally have a different religious mindset than the majority of members and the vast majority of leaders. The church continues to be a one trick pony that is convinced that that single trick is not only it’s only possible one but that any variations on that are wrong. It keeps trying to give X, when many younger Americans want A, B, and C. And if they seem unsatisfied with X, they must not understand X enough. So X must be pushed harder. Eventually, many of those looking for X AND A, B, and C feel that they don’t belong in the church, and very few who value A, B, and C will find the church appealing at all.
Susan, I’m not real happy with ads on taxis, or ads anywhere of any kind for that matter. I keep thinking of the ads on Vegas taxis advertising strip joints. Is this the company we want to keep? I keep thinking of the money and human resources that were wasted on “Meet the Mormon,” only to have it undone by the current spending on rebranding. The Church needs abolish its advertising until it has some sort of reasonable long-term game plan.
Instead of all this silliness, why doesn’t the Church concentrate on providing service to the world, particularly to those living in developing countries? It would do more for the Church’s image than all the past and current inane advertising. Developing countries are where the Church is having it greatest proselytizing success. Mormons in the developed world are well educated and Church has vast resources and connections. It can make a much bigger difference than it is currently making. Muzzling Prez. Oaks would also help.
If we are going to rebrand, then let’s do it right.
>>I keep thinking of the ads on Vegas taxis advertising strip joints. Is this the company we want to keep?<<
Why not? That's the company Jesus kept.
You “exaggerated for effect?” This made me take the whole article with a grain of salt.
Jesse, good point. Maybe the Church should put ads inside the strip joints. Then you could really reach the sinners.
Having lived my entire life outside the Mormon Belt, I can confirm that in my experience the Mormon name is indeed toxic to the general public. Despite considerable effort over many, the term is still indelibly linked to polygamy (that’s kinda what happens when you stop a controversial practice but don’t disavow it) and, increasingly, homophobia. I think there is still time to shed the latter identity but with President Oaks waiting in the wings, I suspect that window will close quickly. What follows is probably some sort of retrenchment (who knows what that would look like? Perhaps active support for homeschooling to avoid the influence of the world, encouraging members to physically “gather to Zion” where possible, and perhaps even a sustained immigration effort to bring members to the U.S.). The next two decades I believe will prove decisive for the direction of the Church when historians look back at the 21st century Church.
Hmmm, strange…I tried to post a reply earlier, but it didn’t post. I’ve been having trouble with my Internet connection….
tl;dr version:
No, I don’t think the Mormon “brand” is toxic, because….well….because, to be honest, out here in the “mission field,” most people just don’t think about Mormons all that much. As the saying goes, we’d worry less what others think of us if we realized how seldom they do. To the extent that I have heard negative things, most of them have been plainly inaccurate.
I’m not condoning the church lying—and I know it has; Joseph lied to his own wife—but taking out billboards about multi-tiered heaven or baptizing the dead….well, that might distract people from the focus on Christ. I can attest that the first time I heard those things….well….ok….I got the giggles so bad I got kicked out of Temple Square.
The best testimony of the church, to me, is that I lived around Mormons for 20 years and they’re some of the kindest people I’ve ever met.
You’re awfully hard on yourselves though…I mean, toxic? Yes, there is sexism and homophobia and bad leadership and every human problem you can name in the church. But give yourselves some credit. It’s “after all you CAN do,” not “after all that can possibly be done.”
Besides, I grew up Catholic. If any of you want to have a competitive guilt-off, I WILL win 🙂
For what it’s worth:
Dave B.’s opinion post is thoughtful and well-written, and raises legitimate issues. Enjoyed reading it very much. I also particularly appreciate Investi-Jesse’s comments. When we get too upset about things in the Church, his message is a good “calm-downer.” And he is right about Catholic guilt. My wife was raised Catholic, and has been a Mormon for 45 years, and she is still plagued by Catholic guilt. She tells great horror stories about parochial school and “Sister Berthilda the Hun.”
But the issue of branding just bothers me, whether it is approached from the right by the institutional Church and “True Blue” orthodox Mormons, or from the Left by so-called “Prog-Mos.”
I am just now finishing up reading the New Testament, and it has occurred to me how often Christ was deliberately contrarian during His ministry. He went out of His way at times to alienate Pharisees, Sadduccees, Scribes, Priests, and even His own followers. He proclaimed Himself the Christ and as the Savior of the world, but He did not really seem to care about packaging His message. His message was designed to both comfort and make uncomfortable, at the same time.
The BOM Christ who visits the Americas has always struck me as being a kinder, gentler version; perhaps this is a superficial reading; Christ still says strong things in the BOM version of the Sermon on the Mount, but His words seem somehow to be kinder — even after the devastating cataclysms that befell the Nephites, because they rejected the warnings of His prophets.
I realize that the Church needs to set the terms of the message it wants to send, and not let the message be framed by people who wish the Church ill. The legal maxim is that silence implies consent, and if the Church does not pipe up, even in ways that can make me wince, and on issues that I disagree with the Church’s position, then it is boxed in by negative messaging from enemies
But in the end, our reputation will rise or fall on what we do — by their fruits ye shall know them — and even then, Christ was reviled and executed by fickle public opinion, only a week after He rode in triumph into Jerusalem. It is nice to have the praise of the world, but it is very fickle.
In the meantime, I personally prefer Francis of Assisi’s admonition to always preach the Gospel, using words when necessary.
From Brother Sky’s post: “It strikes me that Mormonism, for all of its supposed universal appeal (and its Universalism, IMHO), is really built to appeal to a rapidly shrinking demographic: conservative, cis-gendered heterosexual caucasian married couples who have or are planning to have children.”
In my experience, this seems to be okay for the majority of orthodox TBM’s since they are programmed to believe that “many are called but few are chosen.” To them, those who disagree or do not conform are simply being separated as chaff and will be carried away by the wind. A shrinking Mormon population will only serve to cement these strong, ingrained beliefs that only a few elect will ever make it back to God. Most TBM’s find it very satisfying that they are still on “the good ship Mormon” while others have slipped overboard in to the watery depths. I have honestly heard this verbalized by more than a few members over the years.
I don’t understand hiding who we are on the website. As soon as the missionaries show up the person is going to realize “oh, it’s the Mormons”. If they really want to pull a fast one they need to change the apparel of the missionaries, ditch the name tags, ditch the Book of Mormon in any of the first discussions, and ditch the bikes. The missionaries show up, with facial hair, and just talk of believe, belong and serve. The problem is, sooner or later they are going to have to drag them to one of our churches. That is where the real problems are going to begin because the message at church isn’t going to win them over. Before I went on my mission I had this mind set that our church was true and every other church was false and as soon as I showed up people would feel something they had never felt before and line up to get baptized. I feel the brethren are still stuck in this mindset. In general, we have a very limited understanding of the Bible and Christ and our worship services are atrocious. We rush through the sacrament to get to the talks in our main worship hour and they will be lucky if they hear the name of Christ mentioned in the talks at all except for when the person is ending their talk. If they keep count they will hear prophets and Satan are talked about way more than Christ. If they feel uplifted it will be because of the smiling faces and not the message. Then they will go to our Sunday School class where the same five Trump supporters dominate the conversation with how evil the world is and how righteous they themselves are.
The problem with our church right now is not the wrapper on the outside of the product, it is the product itself. It does not need to be this way, but it will take way more than a name change to fix what’s going on here.
It’s not working either. With the recent murders in Mexico all of the leading headlines in all the main news outlets still use the name Mormon.
Hmmm… might want to have a look at U.S. Reg. Nos. 3,239,919 (“Mormon”), 2,883,572 (“Book of Mormon”), 5,020,309 (“Mormon Channel”), and many others dating back to the very first trademark the Church ever registered containing the word “Mormon”: U.S. Reg. 1,524,555 for “Mormon Handicraft” filed in 1986 and registered in 1989.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
MIchael 2, thanks for the nice comments.
Greg says: “The church continues to be a one trick pony …. It keeps trying to give X, when many younger Americans want A, B, and C.” Yes, this is the demographic time bomb that is ticking away. Someday soon LDS congregations might look a lot like the Catholic congregations I viewed on my mission, with no one under 40 in attendance.
From Investi-Jesse: “The best testimony of the church, to me, is that I lived around Mormons for 20 years and they’re some of the kindest people I’ve ever met.” Yes, this is what the Church really has going for it.
skdadyl, when things are going well, it’s the stone cut from the mountain rolling down to swallow the whole earth. When things aren’t going so well, it’s because many are called but few are chosen. When it’s going well, God is blessing you. When life is tough, God is trying you. There a faith-affirming metaphor or frame for every situation.
Zach says: “The problem with our church right now is not the wrapper on the outside of the product, it is the product itself.” There are good things and good people in the Church, but yes any rebranding campaign has to be accompanied by an internal reforming campaign to make a long term difference.
skdadyl: >>A shrinking Mormon population will only serve to cement these strong, ingrained beliefs that only a few elect will ever make it back to God. <>In general, we have a very limited understanding of the Bible and Christ and our worship services are atrocious. We rush through the sacrament to get to the talks in our main worship hour and they will be lucky if they hear the name of Christ mentioned in the talks at all except for when the person is ending their talk. If they keep count they will hear prophets and Satan are talked about way more than Christ<>“The best testimony of the church, to me, is that I lived around Mormons for 20 years and they’re some of the kindest people I’ve ever met.” Yes, this is what the Church really has going for it.<<
That is pretty huge. And it comes from somewhere. Cynics have suggested that they were just faking it, that I was really just a project they hoped to convert. But for 20 years? With people I knew well? I don't buy that. I found my Mormon friends a little harder to get close to at first, because they wanted to put their best foot forward. So there was always that moment when the walls came down and we started being real with each other. But I just can't accept that people I've known that well for that long have been able to fake friendship with me for decades on the off-chance that I might convert someday, all without ever mentioning me converting or even so much as asking me to come to church with them. If that's a hard-sell, it's a pretty lousy one. Sure, they're happy I'm investigating now, but I'm still not getting the feeling that they have much invested in whether I get baptized or not. They're on their path and I'm on mine and Heavenly Father will take of it.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the name “Mormon” is toxic at all. I agree with fbitsi that this was Nelson’s hobby horse (has been in his talks for decades), and now that he’s in the big red chair, boom. Why does he care so much? For a variety of reasons, most of which I’m guessing at:
1) a misreading of D&C, taking it too literally that the name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ (inferring that accepting a nickname makes baby Jesus cry)
2) Evangelicals HATE Mormons, and they are his political bedfellows. He and Oaks are both very keyed in to the Right. If he has the idea that somehow we are going to win converts among the Evangelicals, well, more power to him, but I won’t hold my breath.
3) Embarrassment over the Book of Mormon musical. Here I’m going out on a limb. The Church before Nelson steered into the skid and winked at the fun-poking of this popular musical by advertising in Playbills (“You’ve seen the musical–now read the Book!”). That was some good PR, and it even yielded results. Actual Mormon responses to the play are very mixed. I don’t love aspects of it for sure. I think it’s juvenile, a bit racist, and gets our theology wrong in several places, but it skewers some cultural aspects very well (the door contact persona missionaries adopt, the light switch approach to avoiding temptation, the egos of some missionaries, and the awe-shucks naivete that is both mockable and yet somehow really admirable at the same time.) Not everyone can take a punch. My guess is Nelson felt this was a black eye instead of an opportunity to show that we are in on the joke.
4) A preference for conformity and a willingness to ditch the diversity we were celebrating in the “I’m a Mormon” campaign. I don’t think he hates diversity, but that campaign was pretty amazing, and we’ve really lost something here.
Anyway, those are my theories. I think #1 is the main reason. From there the reasons I’ve listed get weaker.
Wow, that last post of mine got really screwed up! I put chevrons around the quotes, which must have done it. Here’s what it was supposed to say:
skdadyl: A shrinking Mormon population will only serve to cement these strong, ingrained beliefs that only a few elect will ever make it back to God.
That’s not what Mormons believe though, is it? I thought doctrine was that we all eternally progress, even after death, through infinite degrees of glory—hence, LDS cosmology is sometimes described as universalist.
It’s also very American, this idea that we all just get better and better, moving constantly forward. Certainly an idea that would have held appeal to 19th century white Americans, who saw infinite possibility in Manifest Destiny and the Industrial Revolution. But it doesn’t lend itself well to the fire-and-brimstone, turn-or-burn preaching that Joseph would have been familiar with and apparently did not find appealing.
But even if eternal progression is officially doctrine, that doesn’t mean the rank-and-file won’t believe something else. Official Catholic doctrine is that we cannot know who will go to heaven. Even being Catholic is no guarantee. It’s up to God. The Catholic sacraments may help you get there, but it’s a confessable sin to make judgments about who’s going to heaven or not. But we all love to feel better than someone else, don’t we? That’s a pretty universal human shortcoming.
Zach: In general, we have a very limited understanding of the Bible and Christ and our worship services are atrocious. We rush through the sacrament to get to the talks in our main worship hour and they will be lucky if they hear the name of Christ mentioned in the talks at all except for when the person is ending their talk. If they keep count they will hear prophets and Satan are talked about way more than Christ
That has not yet been my experience. And that’s making me nervous, because now I have to switch wards and what if I just happened to stumble upon one really awesome ward, but most of them aren’t like that? I remember meeting a woman in Utah who had converted someplace on the East Coast and then moved to Utah to be in the heart of Zion. And she HATED it. She felt like she’d lost this wonderful church, that the members were judgmental and nosy and overly focused on little behaviors and on keeping up with the Joneses. She wasn’t a close friend of mine, so I didn’t know a lot of details, but she was really grieving the loss of something that meant a lot to her. Such is the downside of not only Bishop Roulette, but Ward Roulette.
Granted, the correlated written material doesn’t seem to delve into Biblical scholarship, and the talks “prompted by the Spirit” can sort of meander until the speaker gets going. But the meeting format of Mormon services really works for me. The more Evangelical tendency for worship services to put congregants into a trance-like state where they’re swaying and raising their arms has never been my thing. I just feel silly doing that stuff, and it vaguely creeps me out because it puts people in such a suggestible state. Some of that is probably my Catholic background. Catholics don’t typically do all that arm-raising and swooning to bad music.
The ward I just left has really awesome conversations! Especially in Relief Society. Those weeks, we’d usually wind up staying nearly another hour because we were immersed in such a good discussion. Very rarely did Joseph Smith (or, for that matter, Russell Nelson) actually come up in those conversations, which surprised me.
I suspect outside of the Mormon Corridor, a lot of wards are doing what works for them and their members, regardless of what the authorities in Salt Lake might have to say about it. Perhaps the advantage of Bishop and Ward Roulette?
Dave B: “The best testimony of the church, to me, is that I lived around Mormons for 20 years and they’re some of the kindest people I’ve ever met.” Yes, this is what the Church really has going for it.
That is pretty huge. And it comes from somewhere. Cynics have suggested that they were just faking it, that I was really just a project they hoped to convert. But for 20 years? With people I knew well? I don’t buy that. I found my Mormon friends a little harder to get close to at first, because they wanted to put their best foot forward. So there was always that moment when the walls came down and we started being real with each other. But I just can’t accept that people I’ve known that well for that long have been able to fake friendship with me for decades on the off-chance that I might convert someday, all without ever mentioning me converting or even so much as asking me to come to church with them. If that’s a hard-sell, it’s a pretty lousy one. Sure, they’re happy I’m investigating now, but I’m still not getting the feeling that they have much invested in whether I get baptized or not. They’re on their path and I’m on mine and Heavenly Father will take of it.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Angela, I think at the superficial level the “Pres. Nelson’s hobbyhorse” explanation works. Certainly the Mormon bubble of the COB is full of obedient workers who respond to any directive to jump with “how high?” Although once upon a time the Twelve were an independent quorum (they have keys!) and a countervailing force to this or that unworkable or simply silly proposal that an activist President might put forward, these days the Twelve pretty much follow the same “how high?” script. They’d follow him over a cliff if that’s where he wanted to go. And that’s not really a compliment, is it? It’s a failure of church government and does not bode well for the LDS future.
But when the consequences of that course of action (the Mormon name thing) are so blatant and so convenient, I think those consequences have to be factored in to the explanation. Apart from the clumsy circumlocutions that many Mormons now engage in when the term “Mormon” would naturally have been used in conversation, a big consequence is (as noted in the opening post) that the Church’s real identity is now routinely hidden in most first encounters. And that benefits the Church directly in that it makes it easier for LDS advertising and LDS missionaries to get from the first encounter to the second encounter. [It increases the odds they’ll figure out we’re nice people before they figure out we believe crazy things.] I doubt that the Nelson/Oaks duo would reply “Oh, I had never thought of that!” when this is pointed out to them. It had to be part of the plan. It’s just another chapter in Mormon Dissimulation 101.
Dave B., The dynamic duo has previously demonstrated such extraordinary blind-to-consequences commitment to their hobby horses, that I wonder whether Hanlon’s Razor doesn’t cut against your otherwise quite reasonable analysis of the current I’m-not-a-Mormon campaign.
Rockwell noted on a post about Trump that he thinks “that many Mormons support Trump, and many are just holding their noses until this whole episode ends.” I wonder sometimes how many may be holding their noses until the dynamic duo rides their hobby horses off into the sunset. I think there’s no way to know, but it seems there are a good number who prefer to remove themselves from the vicinity of the corral rather than hold their noses. Some just do so mentally..
Investi-Jesse: That’s not what Mormons believe though, is it? I thought doctrine was that we all eternally progress, even after death, through infinite degrees of glory—hence, LDS cosmology is sometimes described as universalist.
Since you are investigating the church, it would be interesting to ask the missionaries what they currently teach regarding the LDS doctrine of “immortality” versus “eternal life.” Also, the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage and how that impacts an individual’s degree of glory. I’m not sure if you have read Doctrine and Covenants Section 76 but it contains the church’s theology on the subject. As far as eternal progression through infinite degrees of glory…..well, there are multiple statements from leaders both in support of and opposed to that doctrine. I was able to locate this official statement, though. If anyone can provide a more recent one, please let me know as I would like to read it.
Secretary to the First Presidency in a 1952 letter; and again in 1965:
The brethren direct me to say that the Church has never announced a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held the view that it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has never announced a definite doctrine on this point.
skdadyl, Section 76 is seriously incomplete on the subject without Section 137 which some see as inconsistent with 76 — Alvin being in the celestial rather than terrestrial kingdom. Perhaps Section 138 is also a gloss on Section 76. But, yes, while I cannot find the Church having announced a definite doctrine on the question of progression from one glory to another, Bruce R. McConkie presumed authority to do so and many have swallowed his pronouncements as if they were Church doctrine. The result is that many Mormons believe that such progression is not possible, while others think it is, and others are quite content with uncertainty and ambiguity. I wonder if it is ever wise to talk about what “Mormons believe” rather than what “some Mormons believe.”
Wondering: I totally agree! In the absence of official statements and doctrine, it is easy for “some” members to postulate and promote their own interpretations of scripture. But doing that occurs in all religions and not just the Mormon Church. I grew up in the McConkie Era and it has honestly been difficult for me to undo some of the thought processes I have developed as a result of his “presumed authority”…..i.e. Mormon Doctrine, First Edition!
“1) a misreading of D&C, taking it too literally that the name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ (inferring that accepting a nickname makes baby Jesus cry)”
I think this is a big part of it and my feeling it is was made stronger after the dismantling of the YM President calling in the last conference. In every communication from the the church concerning this change they have included the D&C scripture that tells us the bishop is the President of the Aaronic Priesthood and inferred this somehow demands that we get rid of YM presidents. But of course that scripture was given when Deacons and Teachers and Priests were adult men. If we can somehow reconcile that the scriptures about the Aaronic Priesthood that used to refer to men will now mean teenagers then surely we can reconcile the notion that the bishop being the president of the AP doesn’t demand that we ditch someone who helped the bishop fulfill that role. In both cases, using the word Mormon and having a YM president, a verse of scripture, interpreted in a very specific and narrow way, was used to justify a cascade of significant changes, not for the better good, not for more efficiency or better outcomes (I can’t imagine anyone who thinks that one overworked bishop will be more effective by himself than two dedicated and committed men doing the same job) but merely from allegiance to that narrow interpretation.
On mis- or overly-narrow reading of scripture, I am reminded of a report on review of the scriptures cited in RMN’s 2003 Ensign article on no such thing as God’s unconditional love. That reviewer found that only one of the scriptures cited supported RMN’s position, and that one unconvincingly. The perceived issue was that, except for that one scripture, RMN’s article consistently took if-then logic to mean only-if-then — a possible, but wholly unnecessary reading. The reviewer noted that the one exception (in the D&C) was contradicted (in its only-if reading) by another verse of the same section within 10 verses thereafter. I wonder if the article was by assignment after the Q12 caved on that particular hobby horse of BRM and, after his death, his son JFM — or if RMN is constitutionally incapable of seeing any understanding other than his own as consistent with scripture.
skdadyl: Since you are investigating the church, it would be interesting to ask the missionaries what they currently teach regarding the LDS doctrine of “immortality” versus “eternal life.” Also, the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage and how that impacts an individual’s degree of glory.
I’m not doing the discussions with the missionaries. I’m sure I could ask them, but I usually try to keep it light with the sisters. All we have to do is hang out, even at the beach or at the fair, and since I’m not a member, they get credit for a discussion. They should get credit; we talk about spiritual stuff. But I’ve also committed to studying for at least a year before I decide about baptism, so I’m not a great investment of their time. Not that they’ve ever made me feel that way! I’m sure they would pound the pavement to find me an answer. But they work like dogs already. I’m also not out to strain their testimonies with picayune questions.
I’m studying with two friends of mine, and I actually heard the eternal progression thing from them. They each explained it a little bit differently, but both said basically the same thing:
Since my husband is supportive but not at all religious (i.e., he is not going to convert; I’m fine with that), their take was that if I get baptized, I go spirit paradise and he goes to spirit prison. If he gets a posthumous proxy baptism on earth, spirit missionaries will visit him in spirit prison and, if he accepts it, he can move over to spirit paradise.*** If this kindly soul on earth also sees fit to posthumously seal us, we’ll even get to live together awaiting the resurrection and then move on together from there.
If by the resurrection we’re not already happily sealed, then we each get slotted into whatever starting positions we earned, but we can continue to progress from there if we strive to—albeit not together. If I wind up in the Celestial Kingdom without him, I can only progress so far without hooking up with another family, either by becoming a sister wife or through the law of adoption.
In my head, Mormon heaven looks a game of Parcheesi.
I admit, it does sound bananas, but so does poetry. I don’t take afterlife beliefs terribly literally. I’m fine with it if there’s no afterlife at all, and if there is one, I should probably just be grateful for whatever’s there. It seems kind of greedy to want more than this life, and kind of crass to want to follow God for the promise of eternal reward. But afterlife beliefs can tell us a lot about a religious community’s values.
So, what say you? Were my friends right? I just read D&C 67. I didn’t understand it though.
***When I explained all this to my husband, he asked why he would be any more inclined to talk to the spirit missionaries than he is to talk to them now.
I said, “Well, because if you accept the posthumous baptism, then you could join me.”
“But how will I know you’re there?”
“I’ll send a message for you with the spirit missionaries.”
“How will I know it’s really from you?”
“Oh, I don’t know…we’ll think up a password NOW, and then I’ll put the password in the message for you, so you’ll know it’s from me! How’s that?”
When I told my Mormon friends this, they burst out laughing, but refused to tell me what was so funny. They were so tight-lipped about it, I figured out it had to pertain to the temple somehow, until one of them finally spilled the beans. Or at least enough beans for me to get the joke. I’d always wondered where that obnoxious guy came up with a handle like “NewNameNoah”….now I know….
Wondering: I wonder if it is ever wise to talk about what “Mormons believe” rather than what “some Mormons believe.”
Probably not. Except that promoting or teaching things that are not “What Mormons Believe” can actually get you kicked out.
And THAT does give me pause.
It doesn’t help that I love material by a bunch of people who have been excommunicated. “Oh, this stuff about Heavenly Mother is fascinating! Look, it’s by…Margaret—oh, dammit…”
Oh, So “What Mormons Believe” is a code phrase for whatever your local Bishop and Stake President (or interfering GAs) think is “what-Mormons-are-supposed to-believe” even thought there are other Mormons, including GAs or former GAs who believe(d) or said something to the contrary. Gosh! At my age I don’t have a lot more time to get the Mormon-speak language down.
Wondering: Oh, So “What Mormons Believe” is a code phrase for whatever your local Bishop and Stake President (or interfering GAs) think is “what-Mormons-are-supposed to-believe” even thought there are other Mormons, including GAs or former GAs who believe(d) or said something to the contrary.
Yeah….I’ve been gathering that…and I sort of have a love-hate relationship with the idea…
I posted my current thoughts in this thread, because it’s something I’ve been really wrestling with. This concerns me far more than any afterlife peculiarities. At the moment, it’s my make-or-break question:
https://wheatandtares.org/2019/10/26/oaks-and-reids-in-the-marketplace-of-ideas/#comment-213057
When I sit at Zen all of this goes away.
Investi-Jesse, re “obedience,” counsel, commandments, exceptions, etc., I found this post interesting: https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2019/11/general-counsel-and-outliers/#comment-547209
There are members of the Church with a very wide variety of beliefs about many things who all value their baptism, their participation in the community, and the sacrament. There is also a wide variety in the ability or willingness to feel honest or authentic with or without expressing publicly their disagreements with popular Mormon beliefs in the particular ward or stake in which they find themselves. There is an extraordinarily wide range of local Mormon cultures and acceptance of those who do not do or do not believe all of the things that particular dominant local Mormon culture happens to behave as their pet things are “what Mormons believe.” That local culture varies sometimes also by how often and in what way those whose beliefs do not match the local culture insist on expressing them. The differences are not simply a matter of local leadership-roulette; no bishop can immediately or over time be the single force in the local culture. There is similarly a wide variety of ways in which those who do not fit the stereotype of the dominant local Mormon culture make their peace with it and the Church. I hope you find one that works for you.
Thanks for the comments and continuing discussion, everyone.
The question “What is Mormon doctrine?” deserves its own post, maybe its own book. But here is a semi-official statement at the Mormon Newsroom from a few years back that at least states the Church’s more or less official position:
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine
Investi-Jesse: So, what say you? Were my friends right?
I like your approach, Jesse, and I encourage you to continue your spiritual journey/quest. Wheat and Tares is a great place to find honest opinions about difficult Mormon questions and doctrine. I personally enjoy and appreciate what I read on here and it has helped me in my own journey.
I do love p’s comment, though: When I sit at Zen all of this goes away.
That made me smile! 🙂
Comment for Investi-Jesse: My unauthorized contribution to these questions and ideas:
About living together: Righteous people can do whatever they want in the next life. If you are not “sealed” it is not clear what exact difference that makes; there’s no indication that angels with flaming swords will prevent you from visiting, or living with, anyone you wish assuming of course that whoever you choose has similar ideas. It does seem that sealing has something to do with the success of eternal procreation. Without it you can probably go through the motions but presumably it won’t produce anything.
Then there’s the principle of justification or something like that. The Celestial glory partner, promised to have anything he or she wants, might well choose the less rewarded partner and drag that person up to the Celestial kingdom. As all will have free agency it might happen that the other person does not WANT to be in the Celestial Kingdom and you, the Celestial being, can go anywhere you want. General Authorities seem to have mixed opinions on whether this is possible and it is those mixed opinions that create freedom to explore the topic.
My belief is that *my* heaven will in appearance probably differ quite a bit from yours. Mine is likely to be heavy on the plants, animals and birds; probably mountainous with lakes and waterfalls. D&C 88 has a lot to say about it and is one of my favorites. My take-away on all that is to keep my options open; aim high knowing I can visit any of the kingdoms, but if I aim low, I have limited my options.