Patrick Mason warned about two main risks Mormonism faces in his 2016 FAIR talk. To paraphrase, he said the Church needed to avoid the pull of:
1. The “juvenilization” of Mormonism, or reducing it to an EFY-like superficial theological approach, a community built around simplistic memes (Light the World!) and simplified concepts. It made me think of those MormonAd posters of the 1980s or their business equivalent, motivational posters.
2. A fundamentalist takeover of Mormonism like what happened in the 1990s to the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention). Theological fundamentalists took over the churches, seminaries, and governing bodies of the denomination and pushed out liberals and moderates, leaving a distilled group that is more aligned to the religious right than previously, more intolerant of diverse points of view.
“There are occasional signs that moderates and liberals are simply not wanted in the contemporary LDS Church. We have already lost too many who feel, incorrectly in my estimation, that the church is simply a shill for the Republican Party and Family Research Council. But for the most part I’m optimistic that the center will hold, and that Zion will transcend the ongoing culture wars.” Patrick Mason in 2016
My first thought was that these are both trends that have continued since 2016 in large part, although not unopposed. To evaluate whether these trends are indeed taking over, it’s more useful to mute the voices of their proponents and instead to focus on the existence and acceptance of 1) theological depth, and 2) unorthodox views and a wider political range.
I see plenty of evidence of the juvenilization of the religion at Church. The first things that came to mind are:
- Encouraging adults to read and follow the For the Strength of Youth guidelines
- Incorporating Primary songs in Sacrament Meeting
- Dumbing down our curriculum to the Come Follow Me thematic / proof-texting approach vs. the old method of actually reading scriptures in context and discussing them.
- The religion classes required at BYU have gone from scripture-based classes to pablum like “The Eternal Family” which are not even good theology, let alone anything remotely resembling scholarship.
- Downplaying some of the unique theologies that were attractive differentiators in the past such as Heavenly Mother and theosis or “As man is,God once was, as God is, man can become.”
But I also see some areas that are more open and adult or neutral at least:
- Studying at home more means less indoctrination in a classroom setting.
- Using General Conference talks as lesson fodder is probably at least neutral compared to the “Teachings of Living Prophets” manuals that were basically biographies recycled as morality tales, minus historical accuracy. It’s like a chance to rebut or reframe things, by providing Church member input (at least locally) into the views of leaders. Any port in a storm.
There are also trends in Mormonism as in any other organization to broaden through inclusivity of various points of view, then to shrink by differentiating our beliefs, putting a stake in the ground that some cannot agree with. All organizations are in flux until they are no longer relevant.
Within the Church, there is certainly evidence of the Church being a shill of the Republican party (per the quote), but there is also some counter evidence or departure from the party line, implying a different set of principles overriding that pull. Evidence I see of the Church being overtaken by fundamentalist perspectives:
- The sexism that remains in the temple (adding “preside” to the sealing); the sexist differences in sealing cancellations that point to an ongoing belief in polygamy
- The continuing intransigent stance toward LGBT Church members as to their options
- The ongoing fight against the ERA, with the Church erroneously claiming its views haven’t changed on this topic
- The prevalence of scriptural literalism
- The increase in authoritarian activities like worthiness interviews, ecclesiastical endorsements, etc.
Counter-evidence:
- The Church’s pro-immigration stance
- The Church’s welfare program
- Changes to eliminate *much* of the sexism from the temple (despite the grotesque carve out in the sealing wording). Small nods to equalize the importance of women, including *sigh* handing out towels in the baptistry.
- The softening toward LGBT in stating that we believe it is an inherent characteristic, not a choice
- Increasing the profile of women leaders in the Church
- Loosening control through home gospel study (although there’s a chance this was not an intentional outcome).
Personally, I think these remain risks, but I don’t see much movement since 2016 in either one. The Church, to me at least, seems to be keeping pace with it’s “Republican lite” approach, and like all conservatives, they prefer authoritarian approaches and find slogans effective.
The best part is, as usual, you don’t have to agree with me! What do you think?
- Is the Church succumbing to either or both of these trends? What’s your evidence? Is it increasing (since 2016) or decreasing?
- Is one of these a bigger risk than the other?
- Do you see any other risks not identified here that are a greater threat?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
The Church teaches the philosophy of the Republican Party mingled with scriptures.
Why the Lds church programs are so intensity focused on the youth ? After youth programs…mission and marriage.their is no more learning and growth within the institution. A few adults are called as leaders to watch for the youth and the rising generation. The institution focus is never on other adults and their growth. Always on youth and the future of church. The LDS church does not teach its members how to live in the present. The leaders in a typical ward place most their energy in the youth and its programs and really neglect adults.
As Richard Rohr states….Mormons are great at stage 2 and parts of 3 faith journeys. They do not do well with stage 5 and 6. Hence the LDS instituion had already juvilialized the system 40 years ago.
Its easier to give stage 2 answers that are black and white, in place of the gray issues that adults find in life.
Those are terribly perceptive observations by Patrick Mason. As for juvenilization, I noticed a few years ago how Primary songs somehow became part of the Sacrament Meeting repertoire. In a similar fashion, quite often teenagers are now asked to give opening and closing prayers in Sacrament Meeting. I suppose you could even throw in the odd popularity of YA fiction for Mormon readers. It’s like people in the Church have forgotten how to be adults.
As for fundamentalist takeover, I think that ship has sailed. When the Church of Fielding Smith and McConkie finally displaced the earlier and broader thinking of early 20th-century Mormonism, that was it. Pres. Uchtdorf shows how futile it is for a leader to swim against that fundamentalist current. He gave some fine talks, but other LDS leaders, who incessantly quote each other, largely ignore Ucthdorf’s talks. There is really no setting within the LDS structure where discussion or thinking that departs from that conservative line is welcome or even tolerated.
The obsession with all things Disney that has happened in Utah has really made its way into my ward’s Primary and youth curriculum too. I understand wanting to make the gospel more palatable to kids, but I think we do them a disservice when we use gimmicks all the time in trying to teach them doctrine. I think too many adults are still dependent on the gimmicks and don’t know how to wrestle with difficult ideas in our doctrine and history.
“and like all conservatives, they prefer authoritarian approaches and find slogans effective”
Very astute. Sloganeering is about all the GOP has left since it turned into a personality cult for Donald Trump. Serious policy discussions are happening only on the left. The only idea the Republicans have for any situation is tax cuts for the wealthy. Even in the midst of a pandemic they are floating this atrocious idea. But the anti-intellectual idea vacuum on the right predates Trump. If anything, Trump is merely the culmination of a long effort on the right to undermine democracy and turn our country into an authoritarian plutocracy. If you’re looking for answers to any of the serious challenges we’re facing—covid-19, global warming, wealth inequality, health care, rampant student debt, gun violence, etc.—you’re not going to find any solutions in the GOP. They have to create crises to attack (see immigration, for instance).
re: Although there’s a chance this was not an intentional outcome
I’m not sure any changes truly are intentional outcomes as much as they are responses to institutional trends (decreasing membership/activity, criticism, general malaise at church). And the point about theosis is well taken, but as this Salt Lake Tribune article demonstrates, it’s possible that we’re talking more about Heavenly Mother now than at any point in our history (though, of course, “Heavenly Parents” isn’t quite the same.) Other than that, though, I think the analysis is spot on.
One thing that has changed a lot, no doubt due to the left-wing influence, is that there’s a lot less talk about standards or even commandments in conference talks these days. It strikes me that the emphasis is much more on what the Savior can do for you than about what you can do for… well… anybody other than your deceased forebears. There is emphasis on doing service, but not nearly so much on obedience. All the stuff the progressives hate has been significantly de-emphasized over the past decade. The youth don’t hear nearly as much about personal purity, modest dress, masturbation, paying tithes on gross income, etc. Demonization of pornography is on the decline. How and when you wear garments is up to your own interpretation. While most here would think that’s good, you don’t hear much about self-discipline, honesty, or personal integrity either. It’s mostly a bunch of feel good/self-esteem reassurance stuff we get from the pulpit. While I don’t consider this trend to be “dumbing down” (it’s actually the opposite in most ways), I think that if the trend goes any further, we’re going to end up missing the point of the atonement altogether. There is a purpose to life, and self-discipline, self-sacrifice, and strict obedience to God’s commandments are part of that. The eternal standard is impossibly high. You cannot truly appreciate how truly glorious the atonement is if you cannot understand how truly good we’re expected to become. The only way you can truly appreciate how much Jesus has done for you is by struggling to do it yourself. I’m convinced that struggle is integral to our eternal progression. Who needs Jesus if you’re fine as you are? We’ll end up like most people who only need him to perform temporal miracles for them when things are tough, and that’s not His primary role. Plus, He doesn’t take away most of our challenges, so from that perspective He might be seen as pretty disappointing. Not exactly conducive to a thriving church.
I think the juvenilization of the Church and its meetings can largely be attributed to two factors: demographic changes and “casting pearls before swine.”
I heard once (and this was twenty years ago) that less than 15% of Church membership were members prior to David O. McKay. If not true then, I’ve little doubt it is now. As long as the Church keeps gaining more converts than children of record, the more its membership will remain in relative spiritual infancy. Although more converts than children was true in the beginnings of the Church, I think it was probably easier to manage then as well, despite the lack of communication. Deeper doctrines simply are not viable for mainstream LDS worship at this point if we’re to look at overall membership and remain missionary-minded.
When I look at articles in the Ensign and New Era (or whatever it was called then) from even just fifty years ago I’m astounded by some of the things I read. Nearly none of it is inherently bad, but it’s presented in a way that could easily be twisted or misrepresented by the media. Where the media used to largely ignore some of those things, they’re more apt to seize on it now, which is why I think the Church largely chooses to keep it simple and avoid the ridicule of the sacred.
A couple of counterpoints to this would be the repeated teaching that everything that’s been revealed to the prophets is also available to us, though our stewardship may be different. It’s always struck me as an awfully liberal teaching against the claims of critics that we’re not to do any thinking or searching ourselves–things necessary to do in order to receive those revelations. Another, as alluded to in the OP, is the new allowance and/or encouragement of study groups. Just because we need to keep it simple at Church doesn’t mean that those of us who are ready to take it up a notch can’t do it in other settings, and help others along as ready or needed.
I can understand the sentiment that the Church is a shill of the Republican Party, but looking at history, I think it’s fair to say the Republican Party has also changed somewhat to to become more like the Church. Looking at individuals like Reed Smoot, it’s hard to know how much of that was coincidental vs. orchestrated.
As trends go, I think there will be a few in either direction. It’s hard to know what they’ll be.
Great post. Mason’s observation about “juvenile” and “conservative” extremes are incestuously Utah-centric.
The institution has become so gimmicky I can’t use any of the PR, or presentations, to share with family and friends—on the contrary I hope to keep it from them because I am embarrassed by the artificiality, the cheap appeal, the evangelicalism that speaks as if something is being sold.
The juvenile-like approach reminds me of how Monsanto’s “It’s A Small World After All,” was made into a theme ride at Disneyland: a cute children’s song for show promoted by the makers of Agent Orange and Roundup.
The plastic-Prozac smiling faces of Utah-centric culture scares me. It is as if I can hear them incessantly sing, “it’s a small, small world…” (But I know the meaning and origin of the song and they don’t).
Dave B, I’ve always been fascinated at how the blogosphere holds Pres Uchtdorf up as a champion of free thinking and broad mindedness. Is it just something you feel when you listen to him or are their specific talks (or portions of talks) I could read that bear that out? To me he just seems like a warm, gentle, elderly man with a handsome face and a pleasant accent. But the substance of what he taught (with perhaps the exception of his admitting that “mistakes have been made”) seemed no different than any of the others.
Sorry, here’s the article I meant to link to earlier: https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4549096&itype=CMSID
I see both juvenilization and fundamentalization continuing, at least in my ward/stake. One of the contributors to both problems, I think, is the increased insistence on using GC talks as topics for lessons and sacrament talks. It’s created a culture in which people no longer prepare thoughtful, insightful talks or lessons, but rather just regurgitate large portions of someone else’s thoughts and ideas. The source material is bland to begin with, so hearing what sounds like a bad 4th-grade book report on that material is the height of banality and ignorance. In earlier times (such as when I was a youth in the early 90s), getting a speaking assignment meant you were given a short prompt on some topic (often only a one-word abstract concept, such as “faith”) and then being allowed to use your own research and ideas to take it in any direction the spirit moved you–sufficient to fill 10-15 minutes, with about 3 weeks advance notice to prepare. Nowadays, we treat members like children who can’t think for themselves (juvenilization) while at the same time drawing most of our institutional wisdom from Conference talks that double down on pleas to “stay in the boat” and re-kindle sexist and homophobic teachings we had been previously trying to de-emphasize (fundamentalization).
At the risk of insulting many of you, let me point out that if the Church is dumbing down its message, that’s probably because we (the LDS community) are not as educated as we used to be. Who is actually joining the Church these days? Church growth is mostly taking place in Africa and other developing countries. Nothing is happening in Europe. Nothing is happening in developed Asia. Very little is happening in the US. When was the last time you saw a middle class family in the US join the Church? If the message has been watered down its because that reflects the newer LDS population.
I’m not going to go so far as to say that nobody educated joins the Church these days. But what I will say is the 60 minutes on the Internet can blow away all the missionary discussions. So if an investigator is actually curious about LDS Church claims and history, the conversion process is going to be very challenging. We live in a secular world (especially in the West) and a world with access to all kinds of information. That’s why we have to dumb down the message and reform our messaging and imaging. It’s about Christ now more than ever. And that’s probably a good thing.
Great post.
(1) Juvenilization – for me the issue here is not that I am looking for some kind of academic church experience, and more that I think the church is all about indoctrination and training to a certain set of behaviors rather than a spiritual education and training to a way to relate to God. Come Follow Me is a great example. The people who wrote those manuals want to teach certain behaviors, so rather than meeting scriptural texts on their own terms they co-opt them to teach morality lessons that often barely relate to the actual text (and sometimes to me seem opposite of what the text says). This results in a super shallow reading. I follow along Come Follow Me (in that I use the suggested chapters) but I don’t bother reading the manual anymore. It’s pretty useless. There are a lot of great Mormon thinkers and writers out there, but not so much in official church materials. And there are a lot of great talks I’ve learned from locally, and a few old General Conference favorites from years ago, but generally General Conference is incredibly boring — very few speakers offer fresh or interesting perspectives, or are even willing to be vulnerable and real about topics.
(2) Conservatism – I don’t necessarily see the church as a shill for the Republican Party, but it is definitely conservative, somewhat fundamentalist, and very authoritarian, which is very off-putting for younger people and will be increasingly so for a generation that doesn’t respond well to “because I said so.”. And I do view this as a growing problem. While I acknowledge that some progress has been made (more visibility for women in leadership positions, some changes to temple ceremonies, a somewhat kinder gentler view of God, etc.), I think the problem is that the progress the church has made has been outstripped — by an order of magnitude — by the progress a lot of other institutions have made. So although the Church may be doing better on this than it was in the 90’s, to me the gap between the Church and pretty much every other institution / culture I’m involved in has actually widened, significantly, since then. This probably isn’t true in more conservative cultures but it’s true for me. So the wider the divide, the less impressed I am with the progress that’s been made and the more impatient I become with the problems that remain.
So bottom line: has the church gotten worse? Maybe not. It may have even improved in some respects. But has it gotten worse relative to modern US culture & many other Christian religions? Yes, so it sure *seems* worse.
@Martin, you’re comment has certainly given me something to consider, but I feel like we aren’t watching the same version of General Conference …
Elisa: Your analysis that the Church has gotten better but relative to other institutions it’s gotten worse is very insightful. We can’t compare the Church today to the Church 20 years ago. We have to compare society today to 20 years ago. When we do that, we see how far we’ve come in society (think gay rights) but how little we’ve progressed as a Church. Again,nice insight
I think it is and will remain a problem while the leadership remains patriarchal and geriatric. These are folks who are looking back and defending modes of being that only represent half of the population of the church in respect to gender and even fewer in respect to life experience and world view. This won’t work with the contemporary population of the church even in Mormon-centric UT and the West while it doesn’t befit or meet the needs of a world population seeking reliable leadership in a rapidly evolving world.
Thank you for this post.
I lean towards the pessimistic side on these issues, especially when it comes to the way we teach the scriptures. Home study notwithstanding, I believe the church has made a concerted effort, for years, of infantilizing the membership, treating the scriptures as nothing more than a collection of aphorisms, taken out of context, to encourage certain behaviors, obedience to authority being the most common.
But while I’m a pessimist about the future regarding the two trends identified by Patrick Mason, I sincerely hope I am wrong.
Not that it is of significance, but Monsanto’s Disneyland ride was, “Adventure Through Inner Space”. It’s A Small World original sponsor was Pepsi.
Not to derail this thread, but Adventures Through Inner Space” was my favorite ride as a young kid. It may have been what sparked my initial interest in science.
Juvenilization and fundamentalization both encourage something else current in the Churchosphere: cafeteria-ization. I pick & chose what I consume very carefully. Lots of junk food on that line.
Two more observations: the most potent force for change in the Church is highly-educated females, a large % of which (whom?-sorry) leave the institution.
Secondly, as to Rohr stage 5, this would be the LDS adult’s readings of Merton, Bonhoeffer & Augustine.
If there is an alternative to the fundamentalist takeover option, I can’t see it. Here are my reasons:
1. The plan of salvation and heterosexual reproduction are inextricably linked. While society and younger members of the church are more open now to gay marriage, the church can’t be without abandoning the ideas of innate sexuality and an eternal sexual identity. While the church may concede now that homosexuals are born that way, there is no explanation for why God would be so contradictory as to make reproduction essential AND send people to the earth with attractions to relationships in which that is impossible.
2. The juvenilization of Mormonism is the product of an inability to control information. It’s a feature, not a bug. Again, what choice do they have? Everything is out there. Everything shows up on Mormon Stories or MormonLeaks. The only people who don’t know about these sources of information are those obedient souls who consume only church-approved outlets. Those members will also, conveniently, be the most responsive to more fundamentalist teachings and doctrines.
3. Failure to apologize for anything and an unwillingness/inability to de-canonize passages like D&C 132 just become more and more problematic when so much information is now available online. Indeed, the more pablum the members are served, the fewer will actually take the time to read all of D&C 132 and learn that Joseph Smith didn’t follow his own revelations. It’s not just John Dehlin and New Name Noah providing information that undermines the church’s stated mission; some have also had their testimonies shaken by the church essays, clearly illustrating that a) accurate church history and correlated church history diverge, and, b) deep dives into church history and doctrine, even among the faithful, are problematic.
If the church is changing the message, it’s because it no longer has a largely receptive audience. I’ll argue that a move away from obedience for obedience sake is progress. I would also argue that to hold the line and expect massive growth in parts of the world where the discredited message still gains traction is a foolish strategy (they will have both questions and broadband in Africa eventually, after all). But SLC has seen what’s happened to Community of Christ in terms of members and revenue, and unless they decide they want to make the leap to Fowler stage 5 anyway because it’s the higher calling, I cannot see an alternative but retrenchment. Get ready for President David Bednar.
jaredsbrother, “The plan of salvation and heterosexual reproduction are inextricably linked.” I think you mean the plan of exaltation — and even that is not necessarily linked to heterosexual reproduction. As to the first, Joseph Fielding Smith hypothesized that gender/sex was not eternal and did not exist in the terrestrial or telestial kingdoms. Those kingdoms are a part of the realms of the saved, as the word “salvation” is commonly used in LDS parlance. (But the fact is that the word is used so inconsistently that it also sometimes refers to exaltation in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.) As to heterosexual reproduction in the hereafter in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, that is one theory about “birth” of “spirit children”. There have been other Mormon theories about how “spirits” were or are to be formed from something called “intelligence” and adopted as “children.” Why the spirit birth theory on the model of viviparous birth in mortality gained ascendency, I’m not sure. There doesn’t seem to be anything I’d call revelation to settle that issue for Church doctrine. So, it seems, within the larger scope of Mormon thought, the Church could back up from the notion you describe, but it would have to be willing to back up from and apologize for the Proclamation on the Family to do so. I think there’s no chance of that in my lifetime. I suspect the notion of an inextricable link between salvation and heterosexual reproduction that is embedded in the Proclamation is partly a result of assumptions of the signers of the Proclamation and perhaps even ignorance of alternatives to be found among the ideas of prior leaders of the Church. On the other hand, even if there is an inextricable linkage, that does not prevent the Church from approving same-sex marriages for this life only. It just couldn’t purport that such couples and their children could be “sealed.” What a mess!
Otherwise, I think you’re right and this quibble about the plan of salvation being linked to hetereosexual reproduction hardly matters. What do you think?
Jack Hughes’s comments resonate with me, especially regarding the GC talks and lesson topics. In a way, I wonder if things aren’t watered down so much because of the very things progressives have called out the church for (Martin’s comment mentions some of these): A lot of the juvenile, watered down aspect of the curriculum COULD be leadership trying to dampen some of the more polarizing stuff regarding women, LGBTQ issues, etc.. Of course, the corollary to that is that we don’t get any kind of complexity in the lessons and as much as we’re encouraged to do family study, I can’t imagine that the leadership really wants us digging into actual historical truths and complicating the church’s narrative. So in some sense, for the church, it’s a win/win: avoiding controversy (at least some of the time) and avoiding having the members think too much.
Re: the conservative thing, I think the church is definitely a Republican institution in the sense that it exemplifies at least some conservative “values”. The reasons for that are many and complicated, but the mid-century swerve towards conservatism combined with good old American paranoia about communism, gay people, social programs, etc. was certainly a factor. I also think that the other cultural aspect that makes this more stark is just that society has evolved away from the church. That fact, I think, tends to make one either hold more fast to the church if you buy the whole “the world is collapsing, the wheat’s being separated from the tares” kind of thing, or it tends to make one skeptical of the church and its claims and makes one wonder why the church isn’t ahead of the social curve rather than behind it. In sum, I don’t think the church is moving much. It makes some occasional noises that it might be valuing women or softening its stance on LGBTQ issues, but it does not and has not really done anything of substance. As much as the church touts the whole “continuing revelation” thing, in my experience, that’s just not the case. Some of our doctrines do demonstrable harm to people for, IMHO, no other reason than that it would look weak or look like “caving to progressives” if the doctrines were changed. Hardly the recipe for progress or change. And yes, it’s all about risk, I think. Risk changing things too fast and you lose the old, conservative crowd and change things too slowly and you lose the so-called “rising generation.” It seems to me that the church has already decided to please the older, more conservative tithe payers.
Wondering, thanks for setting me straight on some of the interesting historical and theological details. My resentment of Oaks for putting the church on this path with regard to homosexual members seems to have more foundation now. I feel like your brief description of the role of reproduction in Mormon history and doctrine clearly identifies the existence of inclusive paths forward, which one may assume have not been chosen simply based on bias and revulsion at the idea of homosexual intimacy? It may be unfair and intellectually lazy to allege bias when one has no smoking gun to support the allegation, but I regularly return to conversation with my father, a stake patriarch, who made his feels about gay sex known most immediately. As an elderly white member, I assume he is not alone.
I experienced, as a member from age 8, the liberalization of the RLDS church; beginning in 1958 with W. Wallace Smith becoming prophet-president. By the time the Sunday School material was updated in the mid-60s, liberal viewpoints were infused; without input or votes from the membership.
Liberal proponents had asked for “tolerant, diverse, open-minded” approaches to doctrine. Yet they were intolerant to views/opinions that were “fundamentalist”. It was easy to label conservative views racist, sexist blah-blah-blah.
So we all hoped (I guess) that these changes were from the Lord and would greatly improve the church, right? Well, the world membership for the RLDS CofChrist has remained apprx. 250,000 since the mid-70s. Objection to the new direction leads to excommunication and the literal shutting down of stakes/congregations.
Do you desire the same for the LDS? how different an approach would you have?
jaredsbrother wrote: “The only people who don’t know about these sources of information are those obedient souls who consume only church-approved outlets.”
I think there’s a growing number of active members out there (of which I’d probably include myself) who do consume a number of materials both in and out of the Church and still are able to remain a somewhat orthodox believer without having to do an extraordinary amount of mental gymnastics, or by at least connecting some dots that may have previously gone unnoticed. In some ways, I think this group is more isolated than others, since conservative believers chide us for “moving the wagon wheel to close to the edge” while progressive or non-believing LDS try to tell us we haven’t read enough nor thought about it enough (a criticism I’m tempted to return all too often). I think this may be a movement within the Church growing somewhat in the shadows, precisely because of the fear or annoyance of getting it from both sides. It may be interesting to see what happens if and when it’s forced to outgrow its shadow, and which direction it’s perceived in the eyes of everyone else.
@Mark Gibson, you said: “Liberal proponents had asked for ‘tolerant, diverse, open-minded’ approaches to doctrine. Yet they were intolerant to views/opinions that were ‘fundamentalist’. It was easy to label conservative views racist, sexist blah-blah-blah.”
I certainly don’t want us to simply flip the script so that conservatives are the outsiders and progressives the winners. I think vibrant organizations should welcome both viewpoints and everything in between. But I don’t think principled conservatism should have any place for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. So I’m curious about what specific things you feel were not *actually* racist or sexist but were labeled as such by progressives in a way that shut conservatives out.
You also said: “Well, the world membership for the RLDS CofChrist has remained apprx. 250,000 since the mid-70s.”
I agree that progressive religious organizations don’t fare as well as traditional ones. It’s not surprising that church leadership caters to a more traditional base for that reason (and I’m sure they believe they’re doing the right thing – but I question how open they are to admitting even to themselves that they might be wrong). I don’t know the answer to that. I think a lot of people are thinking about and working on that (how do we create communities based on inclusion instead of division? Division historically has been a stronger glue, but it’s destructive.).
What I do believe, though, is that right is right is right — and we should “choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong” (to quote Pres. Monson). If we really believed God was in charge, we’d do what was right *for individual people* even if it’s hard and scary, and we should not worry so much about what the institution might look like in 50 or 100 years. Come Follow Me manuals notwithstanding, Jesus did not give two hoots about protecting institutions. So I don’t have a ton of patience for actions that protect the institution but harm individual human beings. I understand why our leaders do that, it’s natural and to be expected, but I don’t have a whole lot of respect for it and it is really eroding my loyalty to the church as an institution.
Wondering: “Why the spirit birth theory on the model of viviparous birth in mortality gained ascendency, I’m not sure.” Several years ago, one of my children (middle-school age, if I recall correctly) came home rather shell-shocked because the Sunday School teacher had given a pretty intense lesson about chastity. The upshot was that if you don’t keep the law of chastity here, you won’t be able to have sex in the eternities, and THAT would be the WORST thing about not achieving the Celestial Kingdom. It occurs to me that this idea may have popularized the spirit birth theory, which, of course, is not accompanied by a “spirit BIRTHING theory,” because that is not relevant to the sublime patriarchal heaven we hear so much about.
But, Dot, wasn’t it Orson Pratt who imagined/calculated a 9 second gestation period for a spirit child? [I’d better check for a source, but it’s a fun, even if false, rumor in any event.] That’s kind of an elementary “spirit BIRTHING theory” — and an incredible bit of mansplaining!
Oh, well, Satan’s comments on or related to the subject in Mark Twain’s “Letters from the Earth” are more entertaining.
But seriously, if resurrected beings don’t have blood, there’s a serious problem with the mortal viviparous birth analogy. If something [“spirit”] can be substituted for blood in the whole process, why can’t other elements have substitutes as well?
Re: Elisa’s comment that “right is right is right.”
Elisa–you seem to have emphatic notions about what you consider to be right, and that is fine. The problem, as I see it, is that most people probably have different views than you do about what is right, and they are just as emphatic as you are. Please tell me if my perception is wrong. I will exercise my own right to decide what is right, and my sense of right has usually been in the minority among Church members, so all I can say is, “welcome to the club.”
Amen to your statement about lacking patience for institutions. The goals of institutions, however worthy, including the Church, inevitably change from the original mission, to preservation of the institution.
You do not mention what you consider “principled conservatism” to consist of, but when other
people start telling me WHAT “principled conservatism” is, or should be, then I start getting leery. I have an instinctive mistrust of other people defining things for me. I would say that NO institution should allow racism, homophobia, or sexism, but again–who decides what these things are? Definitions of these terms HAVE CHANGED over the years, and will CONTINUE to change, as our Church and our society try to evolve into something better. Confederate statues in Southern towns was not an issue 50 years ago, as African-Americans sought the right to vote. It is now an issue, that of glorifying a past of slavery. U.S. conservatism has morphed, in my opinion, in the past four years from being in favor to limited government to a mostly ethnic and nationalist movement. So, I have stopped calling myself conservative. You can color me as libertarian and pro-free inquiry.
In areas where the Church is dominant (Utah, Southeast Idaho, parts of Arizona, for example), Mormonism as the prevailing religious culture has merged over the years with the secular politics of the areas, which are deeply conservative. Church leadership defaults toward conservatism, but getting back to Hawkgrrrl’s original post, some trends in the Church seem to be conservative, some do not. I think it is a mistake to try fit the Church into conventional political parameters of conservative and liberal.
In the meantime, I think that the Church’s problems with political conservatism have gradually lessened over the years. The ghosts of ETB are finally disappearing. Many Church members are conservative. A few are liberal. MOST, thank goodness, do not try to insist that their personal political views are the correct interpretation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think that the political views in a U. of Utah YSA Ward will be considerably different than those in a Provo Bench Ward.
As for fundamentalism: the Church has been quietly distancing itself for years from BRM and JFS, in my opinion–and a good thing, too.
Juvenilization is the real problem. It is everywhere, including the Church. I have no solution, except to destroy all electronic devices……
@Taiwan Missionary, I agree that people can disagree about what’s right and most certainly we can disagree about the best means to achieve an end that we might both care about but that we approach very differently. But I am comfortable asserting that ignoring human suffering (like the suffering of LGBT folks, women, racial minorities, the poor) in order to keep an institution running smoothly is wrong. A refusal to apologize for past wrongs is wrong. A refusal to be introspective and allow for change as you discover new information is wrong. (And hey, I’ll try to apply that to myself as well.)
We might disagree about what that looks like in practice and I think that’s a valuable conversation to have but I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where Jesus would be cool with sacrificing people to protect an institution or a small group of white men’s power.
Elisa: Thanks for reply! Agree with you on Christ’s hostility toward entrenched institutions. The ironic thing is that He voluntarily let Himself be sacrificed by religious institutions (as represented by Pharisees, Sadducees, and Sanhedrin) and political institutions (Roman Empire) to bring salvation to the world, and also created an enduring worldwide faith that outlasted those institutions.
Joseph Smith brought new religious truths to the world, and I hope that Mormonism can continue to regenerate itself, because the radicalism of Joseph’s day has been replaced by a cautious Church that tries to do good, but is afraid that abandoning some of the practices sanctioned by previous Church leaders will undercut their status as representatives of God—so the Church often in my opinion gets trapped in “institutionalism.”
Any institution, whether liberal or conservative in nature, runs the same risk.
I asked a member of my bishopric a couple of years ago if he followed any church blogs. He nominated the millenium star, so I follow them to see what he might be seeing, as a conservative member. I have been banned from commenting there.
Their last 4 posts are:
“The upside of covid 19 the end of many leftist narratives” 3 comments. He has some warped ideas of what left leaning members believe.
“The peoblem with progressives in the church” 26 comments, basically, gay marriage, and equality for women are not in line with the proclamation which is Gods word. Author aspires to be an aplologist. Lots of pushback especially on gay marriage, which was interesting.
“Gods truth v Our opinion. I thought this would be a good discussion, but 4 comments. Mine was rejected. Don’t want to discuss truth in a post truth world?
The 2020 election result by someone who got 2016 right” 4 comments.
They seem to be concerned about the left in the church, but have very peculiar idea of what the left understans/wants. They also assume most members are like them. An example of how divided things have become?
Tiwan, I don’t think the problems of being connected to republicanism have reduced. Trump has changed that brand to require loyalty to him, not the constitution, or country. The fact that his followers (particularly members) still follow, no matter how outrageous he behaves, shows a moral problem/vacume. The impeachment became about loyalty to him. Will he demand Republican governors declare him the winner no matter the vote? If he looses but refuses to leave the white house, will republicans remain loyal to him? If Utah votes for him in November, can the Church retain any moral credibility?
I have tried to explain before that republicanism is so much more extreme, and so much more divisive than conservatism in other countries. Conservative parties in most countries support, universal healthcare, gay marriage, abortion on request(which reduces the number of abortions when combined with sex education, and affordable birth control), assisted dying, womens equality, climate science, etc. (Perhaps principled conservatism?) Elections are about emphasis, and degree, and taxation, not fundamentals.
I have accepted that spirit children are created by means other then the earthly version, with this understanding there is no restriction to eternal gay marriage, and equality for women.
I agree the priesthood leaders should do what is Gods will, not what is expedient. Amen to their priesthood?
Membership numbers. Our church has not increased its active membership since it took up homophobia, so no better than RLDS. Before homophobia became policy we were talking about rolling forth to fill the whole earth. Now how to survive.
There are so many consequences to the church being connected to republicanism. Zion is not something we can aspire to, because it is the opposite of republicanism. So much of the good we could do as a church and as individuals, and followers of Christ, are not allowed if republicanism is part of the process. There are countries where people vote for a zion society, and these are happier/healthier more caring, and equitable countries.
The church is becoming increasingly irrelavent, and that will continue to increase if we do not turn away from republicanism, which includes homophobia and sexism.
Imagine what the Gospel of Christ could be without republicanism?
Might the Juvenilization also be related to the conservatism, and correlation as conservatism to? I think so.
I still remember a HP lesson on the symbolism on the Navoo temple, about 30 years ago. Not many memorable(good) since.
It may be that both Juvinilization and Conservatism will have the greatest toll on the “rising generations” .
I think that I held onto the Church into my 50’s because my teen years and young adulthood provided a very rich intellectual church experience for me. It was very difficult and painful for me to pull up the deep roots. The wave of members leaving in their teens and 20’s is substantial and accelerating. It seems to be much easier for that age group to walk away when the Church is no longer working for them.
As mentioned, younger people tend to be less conservative – perhaps more so now than ever. This reduces the Church’s appeal, especially as formerly progressive ideals become more mainstream. Not just less appealing, but more uncomfortable and even repulsive. However, Mormonism will remain a refuge for Conservatives for the foreseeable future.
I wish I could remember which religious scholar said this: “When it comes to theology, Mormons bring Jello to a gunfight.” People that want a richer experience than slogans and watered-down narratives will have to look elsewhere. The Church still provides a meaningful sense of community for many – but that comes at the cost of a diet of milk and no meat.
People decide with their feet. When factoring out babies born to members, there is precious little growth in membership.
If you haven’t seen this you might enjoy it, to lighten thins.
https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=1036347323427552&_rdr
Juvenilization, big time. I don’t know when the last time was that I attended a Sunday School class that made me think, “wow that was really profound and enlightening.” It is almost as if I try to steer the discussion to deeper thought, I get pushback from the rank and file and glances saying, “tsk, tsk, you shouldn’t be thinking too hard.”
On conservatism in the church, there are a couple of angles, 1) religious conservatism and 2) political conservatism. On the first type, which isn’t necessarily related to the second type, the “fundamentalist takeover” has indeed occurred in the church in part because the big challenge in the Mormon belt is finding folks to fill callings, and the fundamentalist Iron Rod types are the most willing to perform them. Once they rise to positions of higher leadership, they seek out like-minded people to fill lower leadership callings.
On the second type of conservatism, the Republican Party is popular in the church, but I wouldn’t say that they are aligned. A lot of members were concerned about Trump before he got elected and remain concerned. I just saw a Utah poll from KSL a couple of days ago showing only 44% of Utah voters in favor of Trump and 41% in favor of Biden. I doubt Utah is going to go blue this election, but an interesting poll nonetheless. Also, a fair number of Mormons voted for Evan McMullin during the 2016 election, instead of Trump. Members seem drawn to the Republican Party for two main reasons: 1) its stance against LGBTQ rights and 2) its stance against legalized abortion. Additionally, Mormons see themselves often as outsiders and “peculiar” folk and gravitate towards doing it themselves and pop philosophies that emphasize such. There is a good amount of entrepreneurial activity in Utah county and a widespread gospel of right-wing business philosophies afoot. With tens of thousands of people who spent two years knocking doors and persuading strangers to accept their way of thinking, Mormonism is a perfect environment for right-wing business philosophies to thrive. Yet so many Mormons seem completely unaware that the success of many Mormon-initiated businesses owes itself to Mormon communalism.
“Liberal proponents had asked for “tolerant, diverse, open-minded” approaches to doctrine. Yet they were intolerant to views/opinions that were “fundamentalist”. It was easy to label conservative views racist, sexist blah-blah-blah.”
Consider the church over the past 100 years. On many fronts, liberal Mormons have influenced great change. The church allows blacks to hold leadership callings and obtain temple recommends. The church has in some ways softened on gays and lesbians. The church has allowed for more flexibility in interpreting the historicity of scriptures. It has migrated from an anti-birth control position to a neutral position. It has softened in its attitudes on women in the work place. The church’s migration isn’t to the satisfaction of today’s liberals, but it isn’t as bad as it used to be.
Also, according to your reasoning, strong liberal opposition to segregationist philosophies in the 1950s and 1960s was intolerance. This is preposterous. Rigid opposition to divisive and black-and-white philosophies is not intolerance. Rigid opposition to sexist and racist philosophies is not intolerance. Strong promotion of gender and racial equality in defiance of sexist and racist cultural norms and mores is not intolerance. Standing for tolerance requires hard rejection of intolerant positions.
Man, it seems to me that we can give the Church a bit of Slack, if all of us want the organisation to be shaped according to our wants, it’ll be long before anyone is satisfied.
I don’t think the Brethren really want us to stay ignorant and spiritually dependant. I mean, the introduction to come follow me pretty much says:”do what you want with this ressource, it’s purpose is to get you started on your spiritual journey in studying the scriptures” there are quite a few ressources available to us, provided we understand English that allow us to dwelve deeper.
And even if you don’t. The Gospel Topics and History Topics section in the gospel library (available in several languages) are not negligible in providing clear information on doctrine and history in a more truthful and clear way than ever. There is room for improvement still… But it is clear that whosoever wants to dive into gospel doctrine can.
Now, when it comes to conservatism, we should remember that our conceptions on subjects like sexual liberty, patriarchy, agency, race and so forth are not universal. If in our Western society they are seemingly winning the social debate, that is not the case everywhere. Many societies have varying opinions and takes on such subject, so why should my particular approach be the one endorsed by a global Church trying to be relevant to most of Society?
And it seems to me that, while not upholding the Western Liberal viewpoints, the Brethren have spent quite some effort on teaching a human approach to these complex subjects. Heck on my mission à married gay man living in Utah, thanked me for the way the Church and its members treated the gay community and didn’t weaponized their God to persecute gay people.
But when the members of the church are being insulted and reduced to a mass of an hypocritical dumb brainwashed people, by Dehlin and his likes – who hold the piece of propaganda that is the CES Letter as a manifesto for truth, who see any idea of piety ridiculed in the mainstream… Sadly retrenchment and conservatism is a natural reaction, and it does not help perspectives of right winged and Liberal members building bridges.
I think that our best way to fight both conservatisation and juvenilisation are to give the Church its right place (the place to make Covenants and to fellowship and the institution to assist us in our spiritual growth ) take on ourselves to do the work the institution can’t (providing content and hosting conversations on deep doctrines, learning how to receive personal revelation, us becoming more christ-like) and to seek the right spirit to know when to contend and correct and to know when to show kindness in our quest to build a Zion people.
Unknown, I don’t think the desire is for the church to choose who are winning the social debate to follow. The church should be leading the way to bring us to how Christ wants it. I do not see the Savior discriminating against any of us.
It would be easier to follow your last paragraph if the church itself did not spend so much energy doing the opposite, and as I have said above a zion society, and a republican society are in opposition. No poor among them v more money for the rich at the expense of the poor.
Geoff-Aus, And how should we lead the way towards Christ without being too tainted by our own views (which so often blind us into thinking we have it right), present the message of Salvation as meaningfully as possible to anyone despite their cultural, financial, social, intellectual background, not compromise doctrines that can feel peculiar and make sure others do likewise?
I totally get the feeling of frustration from leaders who can’t quite get it right, and those who boastfully get it wrong and refuse to change. I don’t know what miracle it would take to reduce the influence of such leaders globally, but I know that for me, limiting their influence on me and focusing on what I have influence over, and I feel that many have a similar approach.
I wonder how, knowing the challenges Hawkgrrrl wrote about, we can be more than spectators in its unfolding.
Evidence of conservative entrapment:
– The MoTab, our ambassador, our treasured symbol and spiritual beacon, sang at Trump’s inauguration despite the moral outrage of several scandals associated with the election, the person, and the politics. We weren’t the first choice, and several other performers declined on moral grounds, but we did backflips to attend, compensating for last-minute and abysmal planning of the event. So did the LDS Piano Guys.
-The recently released General RS President, Julie B. Beck, campaigned and publicly prayed at a Trump/Pence rally in Utah. Although mere weeks separated her from being beholden to the political abstention rules GAs follow, obviously her notoriety was being leveraged. The recent leader of “the world’s largest female organization” prayed for 45 as the Historic Women’s March was being planned and “grab em by the p-“ scandal was at an apex. Why? Entrenched conservative politics.
– GAs routinely use evangelical (And as stated above- fundamentalist) contemporary translations of the Bible in personal scripture study and in conference talks. They also attend right-wing interfaith conferences.
-The church’s unrelenting “religious liberty” stance has aligned strongly with right-wing politics, going as far as advocating for Hobby Lobby’s successful and controversial SCOTUS case.
*i don’t want to thread-Jack this excellent lost (well done, Hawkgrrl!) with politics, here are plenty of posts on the bloggernacle to hash all this stuff out. I’m just pointing out that these are extremely controversial and consistent actions supporting conservative politicians and politics at great expense.
Are fundamentalism and simplification the two greatest threats to the church? No.
The real cancer in the church for the latter days was prophesied by Moroni as a voice crying from the dust to our generations. Their warning was one of destructive materialism and a turning away from charity, from the poor and disadvantaged.
As much as we like to dislocate our shoulders patting ourselves on the back about our welfare program, it pails in comparison to The City Creek Mall and the $100B in the reserve piggy-bank. We hear little to nothing to rebuke materialism, Frequently teach “money isn’t Inherently bad”, and flaunt the corporate culture and career successes of our GAs. The poor have no place in leadership, little respect, and a subjugated place in our congregations as we follow unquestionably the prosperity doctrine. Only one GA spoke about the 12m Syrian refugees (half of which were children) at the peak of the worldwide humanitarian crisis. This was obviously a blind spot for us as we focused on our typical conference fare of obedience rhetoric and scripture parsing.
According to scripture (both New Testament and BOM), calamity will increase as time progresses. Meanwhile we’re living in a massive bubble. Turning away from charity, children, and the poor constitutes the biggest threat to the church and our relationship to God and the Savior. Period.
Oh, my… Are people still upset that the choir went to the inauguration? That wasn’t in support of the duly-elected president in any personal or party sense — the choir sings at any and all inaugurations to which it is invited. And by the way, Barack Obama attended, and Nancy Pelosi, and so forth. It was a bipartisan or really nonpartisan event. I see the inauguration as a legitimate event for all Americans to respect our constitutional processes. I’m glad they sang, and if Joe Biden wins next time and if he invites the choir, I’m sure they’ll sing at his inauguration, too. Equal opportunity, with malice towards none, and all that…
Mortimer
Agree. Let’s not leave out progressive teachings in the Old Testament, though. Reading OT completely looking for teachings about helping the poor, needy, fatherless, widows (did I leave anyone out?) is instructive. These include:
– the mandate for landowners to not harvest the fields’ corners and leave gleanings in their fields so hungry people could eat (Lev 19:9-10)
– Isaiah’s charge against grinding the faces of the poor (3:15)
– Ezekiel defining the the sin of Sodom as the proud, unhungry, idle wealthy not “strengthening the hand of the poor and the needy” (16:49)
– Jeremiah warnings for the “wicked…deceitful…great…waxen rich…waxen fat…shine…prosper” who don’t judge the “cause of the fatherless…the right of the needy” (5:26-29)[this is posed as a nation’s condemnation, not only individuals’]
After reading “fatherless” many times it dawned on me that our modern correlate, teen and unwed mothers, are often maligned by the right.
Michael Austin posted on BCC “Sunday Sermon: Zion Shall Be Redeemed Through Justice, not Judgment“ (2/23/2020). He points out that the Hebrew word “mishpat” is translated as “judgement” in the KJV, but as “justice” in many other translations. He demonstrates that in context, the prophets meant what we now refer to as social justice.
These are some of the teachings that are seldom taught in today’s church(es).
BCC, Michael Austin, OT justice link:
https://bycommonconsent.com/2020/02/23/sunday-sermon-zion-shall-be-redeemed-through-justice-not-judgment/
Elisa: OWP is a good example of the intolerance. Yes, there were people who withdrew their membership. For many, OWP was not opposed but not wholeheartedly accepted; and Liberals were intolerant of that. Articles described “Ostriches with their heads in the sand” ; Men who simply expressed a struggle with the issue had their priesthood removed.
For most conservative RLDS, OWP (as well as other changes) was seen as a theological issue, not a sexism/women’s rights issue. They were not advocating racist/sexist philosophies as John W. seems to believe was occurring. And “rigid opposition” does not promote “reconciliation and healing of the spirit”, which is how the RLDS wanted these issues resolved.
By saying that the OT has “progressive teachings,” is that a tacit acknowledgement that modern conservatism is anti-poor? Being concerned with taking care of the poor shouldn’t have to be exclusively the domain of progressivism. This should be the concern of any political ideology. Unfortunately modern conservatism in the US has become an anti-poor philosophy, hysterically and paranoically resisting proposals and already passed legislation that has tax-payer helping to alleviate poverty in this country.
“if Joe Biden wins next time and if he invites the choir, I’m sure they’ll sing at his inauguration, too.”
It is possible. Yet bear in mind that the choir has sung at five inaugurations, with all of them being for Republican presidents-elect, with the exception of Lyndon B. Johnson, when the state of the Republican-Democrat division was completely different (Democrats still having widespread appeal among segregationists at that point). Given the controversy surrounding the election of Trump (obvious Russian help and likely collusion with the Russians that the Mueller investigation couldn’t prove because of rampant obstruction on the part of the Trump administration) and the fact that he didn’t win a majority of the popular vote, and given the fact that many respectable artists had declined to sing at Trump’s inauguration, it was bad form for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to sing at the inauguration and showed its bias towards the Republican Party, even when it nominated an immoral, criminal figure as its presidential candidate who undemocratically won an election by galvanizing a racist base and because of a loophole in the constitution. It showed that the choir has no moral backbone and that the church lacks a moral backbone to actually stand for something (the title of Gordon B. Hinckley’s highly influential book) when standing for something counts. I announced on Facebook that I would boycott the Mormon tabernacle choir in protest of this blatantly political move and am still boycotting them to this day.
Well, we disagree. I’m glad the choir sang to support our constitutional processes where the outgoing president yields to the incoming president. I’m glad they don’t impose a litmus test, but are willing to sing at any duly-elected president’s inauguration. I hope the choir is invited to sing at the next presidential inauguration, whoever wins.
Mormon-Evangelicals, multi-level marketing schemes, Boy Scouts, Prozac, Republicans, casserole, and shopping malls: Utah is the recipe for fundamentalism and juvenile-zation.
There is too much “Utah-mormonism” in the institution that manages the Church of Jesus Christ. The Utah-bubble breeds a cultural agenda that is offensive when exported.
General comment to W&T administrators: is it possible for each comment to be numbered? When I have just a few minutes to read through them, being able to find where I left off would be convenient.
Irrelevant: Alas, no. We whole-heartedly agree that numbered comments would be a great thing, but our current theme does not allow them.
Thanks for this post. Quite informative.
Angela:
I am assuming that you are one of the Administrators, based on your reply to Irrelevant. If so, could I please ask that the W and T administrators start better enforcing their rules on comments? The 2017 version warns against personal attacks against Church leaders and political leaders; also, cautions against inflammatory comments and repeated hijacking of posts and comment threads to preach one’s personal agenda.
These restraints appear to be absent, of late. I appreciate W and T because of its free-wheeling nature, and because the exposure to different views gets me out of my own echo chamber. It helps me re-examine and refine my own views. But recently, it seems that regardless of the topic, we always seem to return to the inevitable “ right-wing agendas being cooked up by Church members, Republicans, conservatives, and toxic American culture” that are responsible for all our problems. Repeated, constant returns to this theme smack of fanaticism.
There are a lot more subjects to discuss in the world of Mormonism.
As another example, I also have read references on W and T to the “Russ and Wendy Show.” It is possible to disagree with current Church policies without being snide—to me, that phrase is the essence of a personal attack.
I identify as a pro-free inquiry libertarian, which is why the increasingly intemperate comments are alarming. Excessive levels of anger erode free inquiry, because people get so caught up in the righteousness of their own views, that they become intolerant of others.
So please keep the diversity of views, and the lively discussions. But could you all do a better job of enforcing the comments policy? This all is becoming a bit like a circular firing squad.
Lately, Times and Seasons has upped it game, but W and T has declined.
If W and T does not wish to do so, then please revise the policy to better reflect what we are actually seeing posted.
Thanks for considering my request.
ji, Motab has no more business singing at US inaugurations (all for Republican presidents in the past 50 years) than it does for singing at the inauguration of the president of Angola. It is a huge mistake make such a political gesture. It has no business openly supporting the US constitution, a heavily amended document with a gaping loophole in it that allowed for the election of such an unpopular presidential candidate. The constitution is not scripture. The church should be completely apolitical.
And on the comments. W & T has the best comment section on the Mormon blogosphere. The upvote system allows people to know where they’re at with the readership. It is the only place where believers and non-believers can have somewhat civil discussions. Even in politics, I think the discussions are civil. There are moments when we need to argue hard and push things to the limits of civility. W & T mods allow for hard discussions without getting overly sensitive. Times and Seasons has Jonathan Green, who banned my comment once for noting that tithing settlement was a coercive meeting. He is an overly sensitive guy who can’t handle hard disagreement. By Common Consent is full of overly sensitive mods as well. J. Stapley threw a temper tantrum once when I questioned his reasoning on a historical Book of Mormon and pointed out that Mormon apologists are too much under the forces of social pressure in Mormon culture for us to be able to trust the quality of their scholarship and reasoning on the question of historicity.
Thank you Wheat and Tares authors and mods. You’ve truly created the best blog on topics related to Mormonism and have the best comments section. Keep up the good work.
“There are moments when we need to argue hard and push things to the limits of civility.”
Wow!
Code words to justify rudeness and intolerance.
I respond with James 1:19, 1:26, 3:6.
Last word over to you.
”The church should be completely apolitical.”
Granting, for the sake of discussion, that this is true, let’s remember that an inauguration is not a partisan political event. It is a civic event. Church choirs can sing at civic events.
If this were a face to face discussion, we are all still smiling and I think things are perfectly reasonable. Just expressing our different understanding. We don’t want to be banning people we disagree with, or restricting what is said if it is reasonable.
Perhaps you could try fact checking, like twitter?
I am curious where John W and wondering are that they are commenting at 2.30am?
Geoff, I’m in Utah. Late night.
ji, at the very least the inauguration is a celebration of the US political tradition of electing a president. It is a bit ironic that the church has had any relation to celebrating the American experience given the fact that large numbers of them fled the US for Mexican territory in 1847. Furthermore, given the level of controversy surrounding Trump’s election, singing at the event most certainly had political overtones. It is a bit naive to think that it didn’t.
Taiwan Missionary, rudeness is uncivil of course. But I can think of all sorts of online disagreements I’ve had where standing strong on a position can be interpreted as rude, but it technically isn’t. Pointing out logical fallacies is often thought of as rude, but it is simply noting the flaws of an argument not a person. Obtuseness and intellectual dishonesty sometimes need to be pointed out as well.
John,
But honestly, don’t you think the choir would have sung at Ms. Clinton’s inauguration if she had been elected and had invited them? I think the answer is YES, so I honestly did not see any political overtones in the matter. I cannot imagine the choir refusing such an invitation. I don’t think of myself as naive in this matter. I would rather have the choir willing to sing at any duly-elected president’s inauguration rather than them imposing a litmus test and only singing if the “right” candidate wins. Equal opportunity, with malice towards none, and all that.
Taiwan Missionary, the paranthetical phrase in the commenting policies section was accidentally copied from a backlist discussion among the bloggers. I’ve deleted it on the commenting policy page for now, so the only prohibitions on personal attacks are authors and commenters. We are currently discussing if other groups (church leaders, political figures, etc.) need to be added to that policy. We welcome opinions on that.
ji, let’s flip the matter on its head. Hillary Clinton was reviled in Mormon culture. I have every reason to believe that there would have been an outcry by rank-and-file Mormons against the Motab accepting an invitation to sing at her inauguration. But here’s the thing. Hillary Clinton was a moderate Democrat. Far from radical. Imagine if a bizarro Trump had emerged in the Democratic party who repeatedly dog whistled to communists, expressed admiration for socialist dictators, worked his way up through corrupt unions, was openly gay, atheist, and ran in a campaign on reducing the influence of religion in public life. What if this guy then invited the Motab to sing at his inauguration? Not only can I not imagine them accepting the invitation, I can imagine that it would be civil war in the church of they did.
A massive outcry didn’t happen over the Motab singing at Trump’s inauguration simply because the Republican Party is the church’s party and because the church and Trump share a common enemy of American liberals. The Motab appearance was a quiet celebration of a non-Hillary victory masked as a non-partisan civic participation. That it was non-partisan is barely believable.
I guess I missed the “Russ and Wendy Show” comment. Apparently it wasn’t part of this conversation other than what Taiwan Missionary brought up. I agree that it is snide, but I disagree that it is a personal attack. One person’s funny/sarcastic comment is rude to someone else. I personally wouldn’t say something like that, but I don’t think it crossed any lines of our commenting policy. We generally have one of the lightest moderation policies on the bloggernacle, and hope to keep it that way.
Any time we start talking politics, sparks fly, and we all need to be on our toes more and try not to rankle others. (Easier said than done.)
I haven’t read all the comments (I skimmed them) and didn’t see anything terrible. If you want to point out a specifically objectionable comment, (1) point it out when you see it, or (2) you can email any of the admins and we will take a closer look. My email is gospel tangents at gmail dot com
At the moment your president is claiming that postal votes will be fraudulent, and that twitter suggesting when he says that that you do a fact check, is undermining democracy.
I can see him refusing to accept the result of the election, for those reasons alone, but I expect he will continue to add to this theme, that the election was not valid. (Unless he wins of course)
If you live in America I would start to think how you respond, before/if/when that happens. Is there a way to remove a president who refuses to go? Do you continue to support him? If the country is divided now ? Could this lead to a civil war? Am I totally off base?
I really think you are in for a disaster. And how does it affect the church, and members, both those who support him, and those that don’t? What would this do to the church?
What do you think?
Geoff-Aus,
I see only two things that will derail our current president to four more years; Covid 19 resurges and deaths from it accelerate, or the US economy does not continue to improve. From the looks of things, neither appears likely to happen.
I find it instructive whenever commenters here use the Community of Christ (RLDS) as a cautionary tale. Often in the sense of “See what happens when those awful liberals take over.” That’s a flawed argument, I believe, and a complex one for another time.
The related issue, though, is the fear of losing members and money. Size, power, and influence are important issues for institutions, including most churches. A core characteristic with the latter-day saint movement has been spreading the gospel/church throughout the world, apparently until it’s dominant. But, of course, the gospel of Christ and the institutional church are not the same thing.
Are juvenilization and fundamentalism the means to solidify institutional power, influence, and prestige (with wealth as the glue)? If so, how does that compare to the teachings and mission of Jesus, who had definite ideas about religious institutions and political empires? Did Jesus uphold the poor or the wealthy as central to his kingdom on earth as it is in heaven?
In short, what are LDS leaders and members most worried about? Is it declining membership and dwindling bank accounts? Or is it being faithful to the mission of Christ?
John,
I prefer to stay closer to reality, so your bizarro question need not be addressed.
Yes, I think the choir would have sung at Ms. Clinton’s inauguration, if she had won and if she had invited them, and that with very dissension among U.S. Latter-day Saints.
Geoff,
I think you’re off base — I really hope you’re off base. One of the U.S.’s greatnesses is our long-standing practice of losing incumbents yielding to winning successors — that is a really big deal in the history of the world, and was a big deal when it first happened after Washington (or Adams, if you prefer). We honor election results, and we have another election in four years. I believe that President Trump will walk away if he loses the election — maybe not graciously — and if his petulance takes control, I believe the transfer of power will happen without him. I see no risk of civil war. The Senate will read the tallies of the Electors, and the new president will be inaugurated in a civic, non-political, ceremony. All the agency and military heads, and every representative and senator, and the courts, will then ignore the former president, even if he is being a crybaby and refusing to leave the oval office. But still, I think or hope that he will walk away.
I remember writing a few years ago that the process is more important than the outcome, and that I accepted Donald Trump as the duly-elected president, and saying that we’ll have another election in four years. I sustain our American process as precious and wonderful and protecting.
Oops!
“very little dissension”
A couple quick observations from a longtime Bloggernacle contributor and commenter. (1) All blogs struggle with how much “managing” to do with comments. A few are rather heavy-handed, most try to be fairly hands off, but every active blog will have to edit or remove the really nasty comments. Monitoring comments is, let me assure you, an unpleasant task that will never make everyone happy. There is a degree of compromise and tolerance every participant in a public forum needs to exercise.
(2) The W&T commenters as a group actually engage with the topic and create interesting conversations. This is not true of all or even many blogs. You need a fair degree of viewpoint diversity to generate interesting discussions, otherwise the comment section is just an echo chamber. I think W&T tries to allow and foster that diversity by being quite hands-off regarding comment management. The beneficiaries of the hands-off approach are readers, who get to read and add to interesting discussions. We only draw the line on comments where it gets offensive to the average reader (my paraphrase — that’s not the actual W&T standard, just my personal gloss). So I hope all readers continue to enjoy our posts and the resulting conversations in the comments.
My aforementioned label of the prophet and his 2nd wife, which appears to have “unleashed” some consternation, appears as a comment to the recent W&T post “The End of Preach” as I outline my faith crisis. I don’t regret it. If anything, it speaks to my dismay at a collective juvenile idea of revelation. Elsewhere, young people are still getting mission calls to foreign lands with start dates that seem preposterous due to the pandemic. Finally, see the FB post by Pres Nelson from yesterday – I will avoid any vacuum puns but I have so many questions about the nice photo shoot from within his home, starting with masks and social distancing.
Re: the Russ & Wendy Show comment, I don’t really see that as a personal attack. I also don’t remember that specific comment, but it would have been something I take to be poking fun at their style as First Couple since they have changed how the Church president handles his media presence in usually inviting his wife along (I had seen Oaks do this in Singapore, but he wasn’t in the FP, so I wouldn’t call it the norm).
Is my calling them the “First Couple” a personal attack? Anything can be a personal attack depending on your perspective. I prefer letting the upvotes and downvotes indicate what the readers think in terms of offensiveness, and reserving moderation for those who directly insult members of our community, authors and commenters. I agree with Dave B.
Beyond that, public figures bear public scrutiny. We as authors bear public scrutiny within the forum. Commenters bear public scrutiny from other readers (which is why some only lurk). In general, I think our perma team is pretty comfortable with our light moderation stance, and that “personal attacks” are like pornography. I know them when I see them, but we don’t all see everything the same way. I was having lunch with a Provo-dwelling friend who said that his ward was up in arms over the pornographic billboards that had gone up in the area. I was shocked. Pornographic billboards! My friend clarified that they were for Victoria’s Secret. I laughed and said, “That’s underwear, not pornography.” So when it comes to comments, what I may see as underwear, someone else may see as pornography.
Mark, genuinely, from where are you deriving the information on which to base that prognostication? With reopening happening gradually now, we’re looking at months of roughly 20,000 new cases and 1,000 deaths a day. Absent a comprehensive testing and tracing program, spikes will happen and a resurgence in the fall is a distinct possibility. Also, Trump is now polling behind Biden in most swing states and badly so in some of them. The Republicans face the very real possibility of losing the Senate (Susan Collins, Martha McSally and I think others I cannot name name are getting trounced in early polling. Even Lindsay is running neck and neck in SC.) Do you really expect that Trump will be re-elected absent economic and public health disasters, both of which seem to prevail? Maybe I’m just asking because the idea that he might get another 4 years scares the bejesus out of me. Thanks.
Chet: That vacuuming photo looked like he was surprised and delighted at this completely foreign activity. Not a great look, IMO, when engaging with mundane housework.
As someone who lives well away from Utah ,although I have lived and worked there. I find most all the problems in the church have a root in Utah culture, the focus on the unicorn and rainbow view of the world, the inability to deal or rather to confront serious issues. The need to romanticise and dumb down serious and complex issues etc..absolutely no nuiance.
As someone who was responsible for syllabus and curriculum in an elite degree /post degree institution I am dismayed at the dumbing down of our theology in Come, follow me.
(Who on earth is going to get any understanding of our doctrines …the next generation are doing to be devoid of understanding). I can only come to the conclusion that the church did an all over assessment of the level of understanding world wide and set it intellectually level about 8-10 years old.
Even if that is set why not include a section for “further study” which could include some academic discussions and resources , podcasts , videos etc…..yes I am well aware that here is the other issue ..the loss of “control” which I see as another part of a unsavoury part in Western culture that of the authoritarian. We in Australia have had some extremely unpleasant “Bullies” as christian leaders from the “Centre Stake of Zion“. And YES there are wonderful people from Utah but culturally it has a lot of “sickness”
I’m not sure you can separate the” juvenilization“ and authoritarianism….in the culture they seem to go together.
The one benefit of Come follow me coupled with the virus and non church attendance is there is some hope of making the church less bureaucratic….we run our own church at home…great! I have absolutely no idea who our Regional Authorities are…this group with Mission Presidents are then. “apostle envy group” …it’s the Corporate structure that reflects the world and makes our leadership via for “promotion” and we poor members become pawns in their machinations……We seriously need to rethink this!
ji, you don’t want to address my scenario because it completely undermines your point that performing at an inauguration carries no political overtones. In inaugurations of the past, yes. But with someone as controversial as Trump, no. Also, you don’t get to casually dismiss hypothetical scenarios that are inconvenient to your argument when your previous arguments are based on hypotheticals (Motab would have sung at Hilary’s inauguration, would sing at Biden’s if invited, and I would say that an invitation from Hilary or Biden is about as unlikely as a bizarro Trump winning an election). But alas, the beauty of having upvotes and downvotes in the comment section is that it shows which comments have more sway among the readership on the blog. And overall, it appears that your arguments have been quite a bit less convincing than mine with the readers here. You might want to think who exactly on here you are trying to convince. It hasn’t been going over too well.
Geoff-Aus, you comment on Trump and mail-in ballots is inaccurate. He is not opposed to mail-in ballots; he is opposed to mass mailing of ballots to unsubstantiated voters on the registration list. Recently, Los Angeles County sent out 115% more ballots than the population of the county. That is an invitation for mass voter fraud that could destroy the integrity of the election.
jaredsbrother,
Do I you really expect that Trump will be re-elected absent economic and public health disasters?
Yes, without question.
Regarding the constant polling showing Biden winning the election? Those polls mean absolutely nothing, zero. Why? It’s only May and the current economic and health status of the country is a complete disaster. But as things improve (and I truly believe they will) those polls are going to swing.
And let’s not forget that Hilary was the sure winner in poll after poll right up to Election Day.
Four more years of Trump scares me, too. I’m hoping the dems take the senate so he’s a lame duck for at least a couple of them.
John,
So, any other president’s inauguration is a civic event, but Trump’s is a political event? The choir can sing at any other president’s inauguration, but not Trump’s? Have you ever heard of Trump Derangement Syndrome? I’m not a Trump fan, but he is the duly-elected president in our constitutional system — and I acknowledge him as our president because of my respect for our system. We’ll have another election soon (just five months away), and guess what? I’ll sustain whomever wins because regardless, we’ll have another election four years later and our process is working. I support the process whether I like the outcome or not, as the process is more important than the outcome — that has always been the American way. You point out that my approach angers you and many others here, but I think it is honorable. Maybe I’m a tare amidst wheat.
Ges65, Trump said that if we had a countrywide mail-in system that a “Republican would never win in this country again.” He already said the soft part out loud. When voting is more convenient, more people will do it, especially minorities and the poor, giving Democrats an advantage. Five states already have mail-in voting, including Utah. Voter fraud is an infinitesimally small problem with these states. Anyone who values democracy values making voting more convenient, accessible, and widespread. The GOP has tried to place more roadblocks to voting because they know they’re actually a minority party in power largely because of loopholes and technicalities. They want to try to keep “those people” from showing up to vote.
ji, past performances of the Motab at presidential inaugurations were celebrations of the US (political, as I wrote before, why not celebrate Angola? This is an international church not beholden to one country) and come to think of it were validations of political rewards given to Utah and the Mormon church for voting for the president elect. The choir never should have sung at any inauguration.
But Trump’s was particularly bad. The fact of the matter was that, as I demonstrated in the bizarro scenario that you still continue to dodge, a president-elect’s election can be so controversial and campaign so corrupt that his or her inauguration ceases to be non-partisan. Performance at it, carries partisan overtones. How exactly is it fair that a president can lose by nearly 3 million votes and still “win” an election? How is this democratic? How is this a representation of the will of the people? This is clearly a case of a glaring loophole in the constitution that needs to be closed. Our country is worse off because this is allowed to happen.
As for Trump Derangement Syndrome, I’m only aware of this phenomenon among ardent Trump supporters who continue to support him in spite of him bragging about sexual assault, committing crimes, and trying to undermine democracy by coercing a foreign government to maneuver against his political opponent, and then having the gall to continue to lecture us about morality and democratic values. If you can’t tell that the process is broken by allowing pathologically lying criminals to win elections on minority votes then there is something wrong with you.
I looked through a Deseret Book catalog that arrived in the mail this week. Every model they show is fair skinned, has light hair. I don’t even see anyone with darker skin portrayed on the cover of any of the products they sell. One “Heritage Doll”, Jane Manning, is black.
Using models and selling products that reflect members of the church who are not white would be a small, simple step toward being relevant.
I too fear Trump may be re-elected. I’m meh about Biden as a president (I find him personally likable when he’s not challenging people in the audience of a town hall to a fist fight), but he’s just another old white man, far less of a leader than several of the women who dropped out of the race, and several more who never entered it. But I will brave whatever I must to vote for someone who will surround himself (yet again “him”self) with people of integrity who feel beholden to the American people, not just to their own personal interests.
Historically, mail in voting has not favored either party. It’s telling / odd that Trump is so opposed given that many conservatives don’t have a problem with mail in voting, and as a party it has never helped/hurt them more than the other party. I get the theoretical objections that are being raised, but they have not actually born fruit in past mail-in voting states. This one feels like conspiracy theory thinking to me, another of Trump’s hobbies that makes him unfit to lead the country.
Re: tRump inaugural. They couldn’t get A-list talent so they had to go downmarket for entertainment.
“I’ll sustain whomever wins because regardless, we’ll have another election four years later and our process is working.”
ji, You didn’t address this to me, but I’ll weigh in nonetheless. I am not angered by your approach based on respect for our system. I’ve agreed with you for much of the Trump presidency, perhaps only out of a lack of better options.
But the ‘system’ has always depended on the educated, civic-minded participation of a knowledgeable electorate–you know, the “republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin supposedly spoke of. Trump may be a blemish on the historical record–our Caligula–or he may be the canary clearly telling us the process is not working. If someone as morally bankrupt as Trump can get elected, we have to at least consider the question. The separation of powers was designed to deal with someone like Trump, but it depends on the other powers doing their jobs. If they don’t, and arguably they are not, the process is not working.
Angela, I’m being totally serious when I ask this: isn’t it ageist and racist to refer to Biden as “just another old white man”? Is it fair to denigrate someone based on their age and race?
Fred, and Angela, It may be ageist and sexist but does that matter if its true. It will help if he chooses a good under 60, female running mate, and gives her more responsibility during his presidency, and then supports her for pres in 4 years time.
Are you Americans aware that most other first world democracies have independent electoral authorities, who register the voters, run the elections and also set the electoral boundaries. So if there a big housing development goes in an electorate, its boundaries will be adjusted, so all electorates have similar populations, and boundaries are not gerrymandered, they also count the votes. They can also run other elections, such as for unions. We have the option of postal voting, the papers are sent out by the electoral commision. All our elections are on Saturday.
In Australia voting is compulsory, and made convenient by the eltoral commision.
John and ji, The MTC is a tainted brand (confirmed by Trump inaugeration). I would be very surpriased if they were asked by a democrat. It would be very much an act of conciliation.
Will how the Trump, and Biden respond to the racial problem also factor into the election result?
I am amazed there is not more concern by Americans about the number of virus deaths 105,557 is this part of the lack of community spirit/love for fellows/me first, that Americans are so proud of? Is this concern only allowed by lefties?
Fred: We’ve had 45 POTUS since this country began. All 45 have been men. All but one have been white (and he was biracial). While not all have been old (and we require a minimum of 35 years of age), our most recent picks have been trending older and older. When we have the top nominee besting what I see as better qualified (but less funded / less supported) women, then I see we have a problem with representation; our legislators make decisions and policies that impact women every day. The American Revolution started because Colonists were being taxed by Britain but had no representative voice in the government. Women comprise 51% of the nation’s population, and yet have never held the highest office, although women have been governors, senators and held other qualifying positions. When I worked at American Express, we had targets to ensure we considered a diverse slate of candidates for any open position. While I recognize that you believe your question is a serious one, the results thus far show me that it is a false equivalence.
Geoff, You are probably right that a near-future President-elect Biden might not invite the choir to sing at his inauguration. But if he did, I tend to think the choir would graciously accept the invitation.
Whoever is elected should consider the Harlem Gospel Choir for their inauguration. Their weekend rendition of Amazing Grace for the black community’s Covid deaths was one of the most moving things I’ve seen.
The Harlem Gospel Choir was singing for ALL lives lost to COVID-19.
During the 2015 General Conference, President Uchtdorf gave a talk on being genuine; which included some narrative on “Potemkin Villages”. This address which describes the use of “villages with beautiful facades” but nothing of great substance behind them, has come back into my mind during the events and experiences of the last 5 months. Without a doubt, the LDS Church builds beautiful buildings, with remarkable grounds and stunning colorful flowers; all of which are quite pleasing to the eye. However, during these difficult months – I’ve perceived and felt an emptiness, lack of depth, no remarkable (spiritual or otherwise) assistance from this church; to a world and nation in great need. Oh yes, there are always (well worn) beautiful words and phrases…..but really nothing of much consequence. At a time when “the Church” could have done so much – personally, I think they’ve failed horribly – and I think they know it. (To their credit they did shut down the chapels and the temples after a time – and encouraged people to study and worship at home.) But, really…..talk is cheap.
As I watch all of my neighbors and friends (and their families) walking, laughing and playing together on Sundays now….and as we share conversation….I’ve been struck – and probably comforted to a degree – to learn how many of them have found the Church to now be quite inconsequential in their lives and that they really wish that they could find some way to not return to the “typical Mormon Sunday”. Ironically, most of these discussions include a declaration of a “close feeling to God”; but not as a result of anything the Church (or it’s leaders have done). In fact, the “organization of the Church” is rapidly being forgotten; and has been found to be more of a burden than a help. I would imagine that the longer the pandemic continues….and the longer people experience life outside of the “church norm”, the more Church leaders are going to be forced into a new reality; which might be vastly different than what they expect.
The LDS Church really is quite a beautiful Potemkin Village; but when things get rough…..there’s really not much behind the facade.
Lefthandloefer. All this!! Hear, hear!
Exactly my feelings. The leaders could have made a big difference during the last months. But they haven”t. Their absence was remarkable and unfortunately not surprising.
A wind of change is coming both outside and inside the church. I hope the “brethren” will seek real revelation to grasp this turning point in human history and use it to bring about the changes in church so desperately needed. If not, church will become redundant…especially for the upcoming generations…simply redundant.
Spoke to my bishop after 2.5 months and he shared his studies of the end times…He has already made it clear that family is the first line of defense for food, finances, health, childcare, Priesthood blessings etc. although others in leadership have proffered the proverbial “let us know if you need anything.” What I really need is to be left alone so I can catch up on my non-correlated reading list.
I was recently asked to provide service for a stake calling I received on Feb. 23rd – no training received yet obviously so I am going to tactfully redirect the question asked of me.
I was also asked to provide on update on my “ministering people” – one is happily inactive; one has a transgender child – I think that ship set sail long ago in terms of Church support but I offer my friendship nonetheless.