Are you on the DL about your views at Church? Do you think you are the only one who doesn’t like (or believe) a certain thing that everyone else likes (or believes)? Have you ever been surprised or relieved to discover that other people felt the same way?
Pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but go along with it because they assume, incorrectly, that most others accept it. This is also described as “no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance
I recently met another LDS woman who had read my article about garments that I wrote several years ago for By Common Consent. In the article, I had polled ~250 women about garments, and they shared information about some of the problems they had with fit, design flaws and changes, and psychological issues due to the nature of garment wearing. This woman said that reading that article felt life-changing to her. It was the first time she realized that she wasn’t the only one struggling, that it was actually normal to have problems like she was having. She had assumed that everyone else liked and supported the norm because nobody talked about it. She thought she was the weirdo, or her body was weird, or she just wasn’t faithful enough.
This brings up the idea of unpopular norms, another important concept in psychology.
Unpopular norms are a pervasive and puzzling phenomenon of the social world. They are norms that are established and maintained against the interest of their subjects, but without external coercion. Pluralistic ignorance has been suggested as a potential explanation of unpopular norms.
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/20/3/5.html#:~:text=Unpopular%20norms%20are%20a%20pervasive,potential%20explanation%20of%20unpopular%20norms.
Why would people publicly support an idea that they privately disagree with? Because we imagine (through pluralistic ignorance) that everyone else supports the idea, and group belonging is more important and valuable than the negative effects of this specific belief. But there’s even more to the story:
While peer sanctioning suggests a ready explanation for why people conform to unpopular norms, it is harder to understand why they would enforce a norm they privately oppose. The authors argue that people enforce unpopular norms to show that they have complied out of genuine conviction and not because of social pressure. They use laboratory experiments to demonstrate this “false enforcement” in the context of a wine tasting and an academic text evaluation. Both studies find that participants who conformed to a norm due to social pressure then falsely enforced the norm by publicly criticizing a lone deviant. A third study shows that enforcement of a norm effectively signals the enforcer’s genuine support for the norm. These results demonstrate the potential for a vicious cycle in which perceived pressures to conform to and falsely enforce an unpopular norm reinforce one another.
https://sociology.stanford.edu/publications/false-enforcement-unpopular-norms
So, according to this, there is a cycle that supports unpopular norms and makes them have sticking power:
- Individuals who value group belonging manufacture an independent rationale for their support. They use this explanation to help themselves feel rational for supporting the norm and to hide from themselves and others that they are caving to social pressure. This helps them avoid the pain of self-discovery and to believe themselves to be rational.
- To further demonstrate their fealty to the group, they may also criticize any individuals who dissent or deviate from norms, and this reinforces the unpopular norm. Once you’ve inflicted pain on others by supporting the norm you dislike, you are more likely to continue to do so, “blaming the victim” or dissenter for lacking faith, knowledge or morals for their lack of support or gaslighting them for not “understanding” your invented rational to justify your support of the unpopular norm.
Many years ago, I ran into a fairly new convert at the grocery store. She stopped me and asked, completely out of the blue, “Why don’t (we) Mormons drink tea?” She looked exasperated, like this just didn’t make any sense to her that we wouldn’t drink tea, and she wanted the “real” explanation. At the time, she had caught me off guard, and I gave her what was essentially a pseudo-scientific made-up answer about tannins, something I had heard somewhere (that both black tea & coffee, unlike colas, contain tannins).[1] Later, I looked it up, and I realized that what I had said was neither accurate (meaning, tannins aren’t super harmful [2]) nor was it the Church’s official stance. Basically the Church’s stance was “because we said so.”
What she was looking for was a reasonable explanation of what was wrong with tea that somehow only the Church knew, a reason that justified the sacrifice of not drinking it, that made her on team “prophetic right answer” by joining the Church. The problem is, we don’t really have that kind of answer. Aside from having more caffeine than Diet Coke, tea isn’t inherently bad for you. Tea drinkers are among the longest-lived people on the planet (see: Okinawa). You can knock them for having yellow teeth I guess, but it’s not actually hurting anyone to drink tea. For people living in the intermountain west, giving up tea is also pretty low cost (really low cost in the early settlement days when they might have had to import decent English tea). It’s not exactly an unpopular norm (or not a high stakes one) because tea is an acquired taste. You don’t necessarily love tea the first time you drink it. It might taste like hot flavored water to you, and that’s not a big deal to give up to most. The people who mind giving up tea are primarily converts who don’t understand the (missing) rationale not to drink it, and this is particularly difficult for those who live in cultures where tea-drinking is an integral part of the culture, such as in Asia or England.
There was an episode of the You Are Not So Smart podcast on this topic that I listened to about a week ago. In the podcast, they talked about the Jonestown massacre, and that there were a few dissenters who did not want to drink the Flavor Aid [3], but that the leader was ultimately persuasive because not enough people were willing to raise objections when the majority remained silent. In a recording before the mass suicide, a lone woman is heard arguing that the children didn’t need to die, and that she and others wanted to live. The leader (who knew that he would be jailed or killed for his prior actions if he didn’t commit suicide) deftly turned the conversation toward the bravery required to die for the Lord, that they shouldn’t be afraid of death. He cast her reasonable reservations as an irrational fear or a moment of weakness, to marginalize her influence, and it worked. His pushback to her was subtle and soft spoken, but it was the only signal needed. Immediately, other followers harshly shouted her down, in a show of bravado, which allowed Jones to appear to moderate their rancor. In reality, we know that the mass suicide was orchestrated by him purely for his own benefit (and those highest ranking in the group who had, like him, already murdered people that day).
This is a very extreme example of unpopular norms (mass suicide and killing one’s own children is pretty unpopular), but it shows the pattern of reinforcing unpopular norms very well:
- Unpopular norm is discussed.
- Dissenter attempts to dissuade the group.
- One who benefits casts doubt on the person questioning the norm.
- Members of the group rally to demonstrate their group loyalty by attacking the dissenter and supporting the norm.
- The unpopular norm prevails.
This sounds a lot like a problem frequently discussed in online Mormon groups, the complaint that a person doesn’t feel they can be authentic or honest about how they feel because they will be ostracized by the group. There are a few deleterious effects of this group behavior:
- Individuals feel they are the lone deviant which can cause personal distress among other negative psychological reactions. They come to believe they are less knowledgeable, less committed, or less “worthy” (in a Church sense). Aside from these internal consequences of anxiety and self-doubt if they stay in the group, these feelings can escalate a person’s ultimate desire to leave the group.
- Some may take actions that are harmful to themselves because they believe the behavior is “normal” and fear being ostracized. They may cling to practices they should have abandoned for health or emotional reasons. (For one example, gay Church members who remain closeted or engage in self-harm rather than be rejected by the group).
- Unwillingness of the group to change a (secretly unpopular) status quo practice.
This phenomenon is linked to Hans Christian Anderson’s story The Emperor’s New Clothes, which also points to the way to break the spell of the unpopular norm. In the story, being able to “see” the Emperor’s clothes is evidence of a person’s superior intellect and discernment. If an adult admitted an inability to see the clothes, it would be admitting they were a fraud (when in reality, the clothes were the fraud). Although all the citizens instinctively understand this and go along with the idea that the King’s clothes are beautiful, it’s a child who innocently exclaims, “He’s naked!” Because a child is safe from repercussions due to the low expectations for children and their developmental role that falls outside of society, the child is able to say what they are all thinking. Sometimes converts (or immigrants or others new to a group) are a great source for pointing out unpopular norms, so long as we don’t fall for our own and others’ justifications of the unpopular norm.
One of the best ways to reveal unpopular norms, as I found in my garment post, is through anonymous polling which allows the real group norms to surface while not calling out any individual for their “wrong” answers. We all enjoy reading polls of our own in-groups to see what these secret “wrong” opinions are and if they match our own unstated views and how prevalent they are. Another avenue for discovering the unpopular norms, though, is the prevalence of online discussion groups. People are more likely to disclose their dislike for unpopular norms in a group where others are doing so. The downside of these groups, though, is that they can create their own unpopular norms. We simply create new social norms that may be adhered to out of a desire to fit in, not necessarily because they are our personal views. It’s a psychological phenomenon that is hard-wired into us. Recognizing it is the only way to defeat it.
- What unpopular norms have you discovered in the Church (or in society at large)? How did you learn that others also disliked it?
- Have you ever punished someone for having a dissenting view when you didn’t really feel that strongly about it or also disagreed with it? Why?
- Have you ever found yourself inventing a rationale to support an unpopular norm?
Discuss.
[1] I think the “tannin” rationale sounded reasonable to me because of the movie Rosemary’s Baby in which she wears a talisman around her neck while she’s pregnant with Lucifer’s child, and the talisman smells bad and contains something called tannis root. Somehow, my brain processed these two similar-sounding things into a general category of “obscure things that are bad for humans.”
[2] “Although largely useful to the body, tannins also have negative effects. They are often anti-nutritional and can hinder digestion and metabolism, unlike polyphenols. Tannins can also help obstruct the blood’s absorption of iron, which may lead to many health problems.” But on the upside: “The positive health benefits of tannin come from its anti- carcinogenic and anti-mutagenic properties, mostly due to its anti-oxidising nature.” https://tea101.teabox.com/tannins-in-tea/#:~:text=The%20good%20and%20the%20bad,lead%20to%20many%20health%20problems.
[3] Not as catchy as “drink the Kool-Aid” but accurate
Wheat & Tares 
Excellent post!
Here are some notes on the related topic of group-think.
An Ensign article by Ron Woods warns against group-think:
How often we’re tempted just to “go along”! A neighbor comes to our door and asks us to sign a petition. We may know little about the proposal, and may even disagree, but we want to be cooperative, and so we sign, sometimes against our better judgment.
George Washington University professor Jerry B. Harvey labels such behavior “the Abilene Paradox” because of an experience in his family. The Harvey family once took a 53-mile drive in an automobile with no air conditioning on a 104-degree Texas day to eat in a particular cafe. The excursion did not turn out well, and in the ensuing argument, it became clear that not one family member had really wanted to go, but that each person thought everyone else did! They all just went along.
A similar phenomenon is identifiable in group behavior when people tacitly agree not to bring up unsettling facts. The process is called “group-think,” and it discourages challenging commonly held group assumptions. Like the Abilene Paradox, groupthink encourages going along. Both of these phenomena are characterized by situations in which any member could take the responsibility to turn the group around, but no one finds the courage to do so.
(end quote)
There are numerous strategies for groups to make decisions that mitigate group-think. Some of these are collective intelligence, consensus-decision making, wisdom of the crowds and the Quaker Business method.
LDS author Jana Riess has observed:
Even a single dissenter can make a difference when he or she breaks up the power of consensus thinking.
What’s more, dissent is valuable even if the dissenters are eventually proven wrong. The process of assimilating and trying to disprove dissent forces us to ask tough questions, so if we come to majority agreement we do so in a more informed and logical way.
The healthiest organizations are not the ones that shut down dissent or pretend that everyone is always in agreement. They’re the ones that allow multiple points of view to inform their decision-making process.
An unpopular norm I’ve seen come up quite often on forums like this is the idea that the church doesn’t allow members to read unauthorized or unofficial sources of information about church history, doctrine, practices, etc. People hate this supposed policy or teaching of the church and despite the fact that there is zero evidence that such a policy or teaching even exists, and those same people who rile against it will zealously defend its existence.
DB, perhaps my befuddlement regarding your post comes from use of the phrase “doesn’t allow,” but the church has discouraged consumption of unauthorized and unofficial sources of information for a very long time. Before the internet, this was a very effective way of keeping controversial information out of the hands and minds of members. They’re still doing it now with the fairly regular admonition to not spend time researching church doctrine and history on the internet EXCEPT on church-owned and approved sites.
This applies to our current condition of wearing a mask to mitigate this so called “pandemic”
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android ________________________________
A lot of this going on with masks right now.
jaredsbrother, Who are “they”? I never hear such admonitions in my ward and stake. Maybe I don’t pay enough attention to SLC, but I’d appreciate some links to current examples of what you mention.
I’ve had the impression that DHO and others had backed off their decades-old thing about “alternate voices” — or at least no longer had people too fearful to pay attention to things like Sunstone Symposium. Maybe my impression has been wrong.
jaredsbrother, ok, let me edit it for you:
An unpopular norm I’ve seen come up quite often on forums like this is the idea that the church discourages members from reading unauthorized or unofficial sources of information about church history, doctrine, practices, etc. People hate this supposed discouragement from the church and despite the fact that there is zero evidence that such discouragement even exists, those same people who rile against it will zealously defend its existence.
Not a church norm, but I think that the American two party system is propped up by pluralistic ignorance. Sure, there are also structural issues that get in the way, but I think pluralistic ignorance gets in the way of any attempts to change those.
I think many Mormons do a lot of self-editing, trying to look like Brother or Sister Above-Average Mormon (because no one wants to be just an average Mormon). And then there are the ten or twenty percent who are either nonconformists and don’t want to play that game or who face enough personal or family trials and challenges that they don’t even bother to try to conform. Every ward has a couple of lovable losers, and they tend to be a lot more friendly and likable than Brother Well-Above-Average Mormon.
I think some Mormon norms (Morms? Monorms?) have relaxed over the last few years, like what you can or should wear on Sunday, which is more casual than it used to be. Other norms have tightened up, like the shrinking acceptable space on the political spectrum and the shrinking acceptable space for doctrinal views. Mormon norms tend to come from the top in the form of commandments and policies, which only change in those few instances when subverted from below by the membership who just won’t play ball from time to time. Eliminating “Mormon” from Mormonspeak recently is a good example of how effective top-down norming is in the Church. TV and video games on Sunday maybe is a good example of ignoring an attempted Mormon norm (the leadership wants everyone to sit around and read scriptures or go home teaching all day).
Wondering, I don’t know that your impression is wrong. I can’t find numerous examples of church leaders saying “Don’t read this.” (Well, except ETB going back to the 60s, but that’s not what I meant.) I think I may be dredging up memories from decades back of the warning against consuming “anti-Mormon” materials, which is now a defunct genre, I believe. As a youth in the church and a missionary, I recall hearing that warning fairly frequently. The crux of the issue for me is that much anti-Mormon literature ended up being accurate information that portrayed the church negatively. I internalized that the Tanners were evil, and then I met Sandra and she was lovely. And, importantly, they were often correct. Gerald was skeptical of Mark Hoffmann the whole time, even while church leaders were apparently not.
Perhaps my impression is based more on an internalized perception than numerous concrete incidents. The Gospel Topics essays were the published when the church could no longer effectively control the narrative about church history and doctrine. Saints sprung from the same situation. Bushman was able to publish RSR with no pushback from SLC. I think RSR reveals as much if not more about the real Joseph Smith as No Man Knows My History, but Bushman’s experience has not been that of Brody.
DB, edits appreciated, but I would argue that there is not zero evidence. The church still urges members to strengthen testimonies by reading the scriptures and studying the inspiring lives of the prophets. The ‘inspiring’ versions of history are those that the church puts out, and they omit negative but accurate episodes because those aren’t faith promoting. Is that a specific admonition to only read sanctioned material? It is not. Am I of a mind to tilt at windmills? Perhaps.
This is a great post. I see norming and group think in a lot of places, but notice it especially in testimony meetings. Some testimonies about common Mormon beliefs, like the truth of the Book of Mormon, are repeated almost word for word. I think there is an entrenched and symbiotic relationship between norming (normed?) behavior and virtue signaling. The OP opens a lot of potential avenues for discussion, but I’m particularly aware of the social costs of deviance in the Mormon Church. I don’t wish to offend others here, but because I believe the Book of Mormon is a product of the 19th century and not an actual, historical ancient record, I would call belief in the Book of Mormon as ancient scripture an unpopular norm. And I’m sure everyone here, whatever they believe about the Book of Mormon, can imagine the social cost of expressing vocally in a church setting a belief that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record. I think pluralistic ignorance is rampant in our church and I’ve always had difficulty navigating socially at church for that reason. Interestingly, when I was in grad school and met several Mormons not at church but in a school setting, one thing I noticed was that we were all quite wary of each other; we all had to go through a period of feeling each other out in terms of where on the belief spectrum each of us was about supposedly fundamental and core Mormon beliefs. It was awkward, but fascinating and educational.
I also agree with Dave B. that there is a lot of self-editing that happens in church social circles. I especially notice this when it comes to politics.. And I do think there is a lot of social theater (which of course is true of anywhere folks gather and socialize) that happens at church around beliefs and norms that are expected of Mormons. I am personally at a point where I don’t feel it’s right for me to stay silent or compromise my beliefs in order to “fit in” or to be part of the “in group”, but I don’t judge others when they do because I recognize that for many people, social ties and community are quite meaningful and important, especially in the context of eternal relationships and church social groups. I only wish that it was easier for a wider variety of folks and beliefs to be accepted in the church that bears Christ’s name.
great post & see this everywhere, inside and outside of the Church. I feel like I see it more inside the Church than other places because I think we have a lot level of tolerance for differentiation, but it’s everywhere. (Secular example – my team at work pretty much hates Trump. We’ve said many times that if anyone on the team likes Trump that’s OK, but we are generally pretty negative about him and if there’s a closeted Trump supporter on our team, they are probably uncomfortable, and I try to keep that in mind but I still can’t help being vocal about hating him …)
huge unpopular norm in the Church = idea that people like attending the temple. I can’t tell you how many people (mostly women because I haven’t had this conversation with many men) I know who do not like attending the temple at all, don’t feel the spirit there, don’t find it spiritually nourishing, find it gives them a lot of anxiety, etc.
I taught a relief society once where I called this out (gently but basically said, lots of people don’t like attending the temple and that doesn’t make you weird) and it opened the floodgates of people both within and after the lesson to express their feelings.
As such, I am trying to be more open about my beliefs and feelings and preferences that go against the norm. I’m not trying to change people’s minds but I’ve found many people share those feelings and feel relieved to know they aren’t alone.
DB, you may be right that members are reading instructions into statements from church leaders that aren’t completely present in the actual statement. What you hear and what others hear may genuinely differ.
From a 1995 article in the Ensign, so not completely current but still on the Church website:
“And Elder Carlos E. Asay of the Seventy has warned against those who attempt to “sow doubts and to disturb the peace of true believers. … Avoid those who would tear down your faith. Faith-killers are to be shunned. The seeds which they plant in the minds and hearts of men grow like cancer and eat away the Spirit” (Ensign, Nov. 1981, pp. 67–68).”
The discussion around this quote is nuanced, but the quote supports the idea that at least at some point Church leaders discouraged this reading. Of course, discouraging something and banning it are different.
The more current statements are actually quite nuanced.
DB, Dallin Oaks in the Church News about 2010 strongly stressed (ordered) not using non-church resources in church lessons. This point is frequently urged by leaders. I have seen it repeatedly in my life. Seek and you will find. No offense intended but your statement above that there is no such policy is mistaken.
Sometimes I feel all alone with my feelings about the Church, especially on Sundays at church or in church settings. But I know I’m not alone thanks to the Internet, pure and simple. Would I be having this conversation 30 years ago? Mormon Stories alone has been life changing. You don’t have to believe everything you hear on on MS or read on W&T but at least you know you’re not alone.
I’m way beyond feeling alone in my “faith crisis”. In fact, here’s an even stronger sensation: I don’t want to be the last person standing when the ship really starts sinking.
WEC, I thought not using non-Church resources in Church lessons was a different subject than not reading “unauthorized or unofficial sources of information about church history, doctrine, practices, etc.” Did I miss something?
PWS, yes, we Mormons are absolutely the worst at “reading instructions into statements from church leaders that aren’t completely present in the actual statement.” So, so many examples that could be given of this. I read over the article you referenced and am surprised that this is used by members to support the idea that Church leaders discourage reading outside sources considering the very next paragraph in the article:
“Such advice must not be interpreted to mean that the Church is against honest scholarship or has anything to fear or hide. Nor does the Church ban literature, but Latter-day Saints should be wise in choosing what to read.”
I’d say we Mormons (on all sides of the Mormon spectrum) are very guilty of cherry-picking lines from articles and statements by Church leaders to support our views while ignoring the totality of the article or statement.
Wm Ellery Channing, Wondering is correct, using outside sources for church lessons is very different from reading outside sources for one’s own learning and edification. Like PWS wrote, reading instructions into statements that aren’t in the actual statement.
Discouragement from using non-church sources is still alive and well. Here is the counsel from the section “Seek Further Understanding through Divinely Appointed Sources” in the Doctrinal Mastery Core Document that is heavily promoted in Seminary:
“As part of the Lord’s appointed process for obtaining spiritual knowledge, He has established sources through which He reveals truth and guidance to His children. These sources include the light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, parents, and Church leaders. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—the Lord’s prophets upon the earth today—are a vital source of truth. The Lord has chosen and ordained these individuals to speak for Him.
We can also learn truth through other trustworthy sources. However, sincere seekers of truth should be wary of unreliable sources of information. We live in a time when many “call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). Satan is the father of lies and seeks to distort truth and persuade us to turn away from the Lord and His appointed servants. As we turn to the Lord’s divinely appointed sources for answers and direction, we can be blessed to discern between truth and error. Learning to recognize and avoid unreliable sources can protect us from misinformation and from those who seek to destroy faith.”
CTR, I read what you wrote several times and I just don’t see any discouragement from using non-church sources. The statement does provide a short list of sources that we are encouraged to use to obtain spiritual knowledge but then goes to say, “We can also learn truth through other trustworthy sources.” What would those other trustworthy sources be? It doesn’t say so it could refer to any sources outside of “the light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, parents, and Church leaders” which could include sources from inside or outside of the church. (Although I wouldn’t necessarily include parents as a trustworthy source.) The discouragement it does give is in the statements “be wary of unreliable sources of information” and “learning to recognize and avoid unreliable sources can protect us from misinformation”. Honestly, those two statements are good advice no matter what subject one is studying. Yes, this does encourage us to search for spiritual knowledge from the Church, but it does not mention non-church sources at all and only discourages us from using unreliable sources of information. I also discourage everyone away from unreliable sources of information.
CTR, Interestingly, the quotations you provide say nothing about “non-Church resources.” They say a lot about unreliable sources. On a literal reading, that would include a good deal of what is done in Seminary — both many decades ago when I was a Seminary student and fewer decades ago when my children were Seminary students. 🙂
I’m reminded of a friend whose children asked him whether all that stuff they heard at Church was true. He said, “No. We have a great many people trying to learn and teach truth and we all make mistakes.”
I was on a FB group discussing questions about LDS doctrine. There was a question on white shirts and as an active member in good standing, I quipped about how I wore purple shirts to church because they looked nice on me.
I got tore up by everyone telling me to talk to my EQP, Bishop, you name it. “The brethren provide us examples and we should follow them.”
I wasn’t speechless but it was better to be speechless than to say what I wanted to say.
DB: Your “zero evidence” claim is overdone. I haven’t heard anyone (well, except the example I’m about to give) claim it’s an explicit church-wide mandate. I had a bishop who specifically told the RS pres to release me for using “unapproved materials” in a lesson. This included using the original Wentworth letter when teaching about the Articles of Faith to put it into context and talking about different versions of the first vision, all of which were in faith promoting lessons that talked about the different accounts, how our feelings about spiritual experiences develop over time, and how similar his feelings were to our own experience yearning for the divine. This just happened to be a few years before the church’s essays were written. It was literally the same thing that was an “approved” source just a few years later.
Was this bishop out of line or rogue? I can’t say, but he was elevated to the Stake Presidency shortly after. It doesn’t seem like anyone was concerned about his hardline stance. I got booted, and he got promoted. I imagine he wouldn’t have batted an eye if I had quoted C.S. Lewis or a Broadway musical. The weird thing is he was into Church history and would approach me about topics like Mountain Meadows Massacre and Rough Stone Rolling. He wasn’t disinterested in these topics. He just believed strongly that they were not allowed in lessons. Sure, he was probably taking it too far. He’s definitely not the only one out there to do so, which means that in a very real, very practical sense, where those leaders are in place, yes, there is a moratorium on using sources they deem “unapproved.” In his case, it was anything that was not specifically quoted in the manual. Pres. Nelson doesn’t seem to have those same rigid requirements from what I can see, given his emphasis on home church and study. YMMV.
One of the teachings where I see this is around questions of creation and cosmology. Others’ experiences here prompted me to recall our most recent GD lesson on the flood a few years ago. It was interesting when the instructor and a couple others delved briefly into the “where did all the water come from?” question that assumes a completely global flood. I’m one who doesn’t believe it was truly global, but I kept my mouth shut. I tell myself that the reason for not saying anything is because I know how contentious these discussions can become and SS is not the place to have such a contentious discussion. (Possible question — how does “avoiding contention which is of the devil” figure into this phenomenon in the Church?)
I guess it is interesting to me how — even for something like evolutionism vs. creationism where I know the Church does not take an official stance — there’s a bias towards creationism that everyone assumes is present and is, therefore, allowed to be talked about in public settings like SS. How the kind of effect in the OP dictates what is “safe” to talk about in SS, and what kind of discussions get relegated to backyard fences and other dark corners.
But, Angela, your example is one of using [then] non-Church sources in Church lessons. Not the same subject as not reading non-Church sources, as your bishop apparently well knew.
I do not mean to suggest that bishop had the right approach. But he does serve to illustrate how the Church is not the same everywhere.
FWIW, At least twice, I’ve been called as a “gospel doctrine” class teacher. The counselors calling me were (1) a religiously liberal, politically libertarian, and (2) one of the most uninformed traditional conservative Mormons I know. I told each of them that I would not stick to the manual, but would use whatever I felt would (a) help the class place the material in context — often a context broader than insular Mormonism and (b) help keep their attention focused and (c) inspire them to righteous living. I insisted that the bishopric members should come to the class and if/when they thought it inappropriate they should tell me after class; then I would continue to teach with the same breadth of sources and concepts until they released me. I did. They came. They never objected. This went on for years both times. Several of the very traditional conservative Mormons in the class repeatedly told me they appreciated it and they kept coming back. (Maybe because the other GD class didn’t have the soft RS room seats? 🙂 )
The Doctrinal Mastery statement–which I would again emphasize is current, official, and required weekly instruction in Seminary–makes a sharp distinction between “divinely appointed sources” (i,e, LDS sources, with an emphasis on the scriptures and church leaders, especially the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) and other sources, many of which are “unreliable.” It leaves open the possibility of other “trustworthy” sources, but only insofar as they are aligned with the Lord’s “appointed servants” and “divinely appointed sources for answers and direction.” There is a lot about the dangers of being mislead by outside sources, some of which may be a front for Satan’s distortions coming from those who “seek to destroy faith.” How do you think these general principles are taught in Seminary, to teenagers? The safe course, obviously, is to stick with official, Church approved sources. To wander beyond that boundary is to court spiritual danger, even if there may be a few other “trustworthy” sources out there. (Perhaps I should also note that I have taught early morning Seminary for many years. I have seen how Doctrinal Mastery is implemented in Inservice lessons and in the classroom.)
Angela, would you explain how my “zero evidence” claim is overdone? Do you have some evidence yourself?
CTR, I feel you’re doing exactly what PWS described and are reading instructions into statements that aren’t actually there. No where in that statement does it say that other trustworthy sources should be aligned with the Lord’s “appointed servants”. It speaks about the dangers of being mislead by unreliable sources but says nothing about being mislead by outside sources. In fact, it makes no statement about where unreliable sources originate from so they could originate from inside or outside the church since no distinction is made. I would say there are more unreliable sources within the church than there are without and the statement, as written, speaks to unreliable sources within the church as much as unreliable sources outside the church. Everyone is free to interpret for themselves any statement from the church as they like, but the wording in this statement is very clear and 1) does not discourage or advocate against seeking information from non-church sources, 2) does state that spiritual information can be obtained from other sources, and 3) only advises against unreliable sources without stating from where those unreliable sources might originate.
DB: The evidence is that if your bishop thinks that’s what it means, that’s what it means in your ward. It’s not up for debate. That’s how decisions are made, how instructions are interpreted, and the Church allows that to be the case without being more clear, that’s the evidence that this is part of Church culture. You say “the wording in this statement is very clear.” No, it’s not. It’s frequently interpreted in the way I shared in my comment, which is why there is evidence that the Church doesn’t care to be more clear on this front. And why should they be? The Church probably thinks it is less likely to be harmed through bishops being too controlling than through bishops not being controlling enough, or at least that appears to be the mindset. Indoctrination is more important than exploration. However, this is a hobby horse topic not directly related to the post (whether unapproved sources are allowed), so let’s return to the topic at hand please.
Andy: I suspect it would be better for you to say what you really think about shirt color, but I do understand the futility of this which is the nature of enforcing unpopular norms. Just remember that when they attack you, they are just trampling you in an effort to get to the front of the loyalty parade. You could take the wind out of their sails by starting with “I know that some folks believe it’s a sign of their in-group loyalty to only wear white shirts, but …” I think if you call it out, it’s harder for them to admit that’s what they are doing.
In light of the ongoing discussion, would someone please help us understand how to interpret the section marked “Use Approved Materials” from the 2021 Seminary & Institute Manual, Lesson 140? This is directly from a current Church website. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-6/lesson-140-doctrine-and-covenants-132-1-2-34-66?lang=eng. Thanks to all.
Angela, we may have to completely disagree on this point, especially about it being up for debate. I would say, if your bishop thinks that’s what it means, that’s what he thinks it means in your ward. Bishops have zero authority to tell members what they can or can’t read outside of using materials for church lessons and talks. Sorry to hijack your post, which I think is an excellent topic for discussion, but I hope this discussion about reading sources can serve as a case study for unpopular norms within the church.
Great observations. I’m definitely going to incorporate pluralistic ignorance and unpopular norm into my vocabulary more. These ideas explain so much not just about Mormonism, but society at large.
At church, an unpopular norm has been the prohibition against R-rated movies. I know so many Mormons who refuse to watch them. And then I know many who figure that they’re not supposed to watch them but do anyway, yet they continue to uphold the injunction not to watch them.
Back to the post, an example of pluralistic ignorance that’s not Church related is about how partisan one’s neighborhood is. I just moved to N. Phoenix from Scottsdale right before the election. I felt as though I had left a mixed / leaning blue place and dropped right into the middle of a Trump rally. There were flags everywhere, Trump trains, HUGE Trump Pence banners and only small, vandalized Biden Harris signs. I even saw some very young kids holding up a sign that I initially mistook for a lemonade stand, but no, it was a huge TRUMP banner. I was keeping quiet about my own vote, partly because I have never posted signs in my yard, and partly because I really don’t know what is allowed by our new HOA. When a neighbor (the only person we’ve met) posted a Trump sign in her yard, it was gone in a few days, and I suspected it violated HOA rules to post yard signs as hers was the only one I saw on property (vs. on trucks, the preferred method in this part of town).
Here’s what actual voting stats reveal about my old neighborhood vs. my new one:
– Scottsdale neighborhood: 65/35 in favor of Biden. Broader neighborhood (including adjacent streets): 58/42 in favor of Biden.
– N. Phoenix neighborhood: 58/42 in favor of Trump.
So, yes, it’s true that this area is Trumpier, but it’s not Landslide-ville either. 4 out of 10 neighbors in my new immediate neighborhood voted for Biden. Based on the clamor, I would have expected it to be 80/20 for Trump, and that 20% of the 80% were willing to go to civil war over it. (So much for a silent majority. They literally never shut up about it). Part of this is simply that–extremists and loyalists are the most vocal in any group, but the majority are just not as invested either way and remain silent, allowing us to think the loudest, shrillest voices represent everyone around us.
Plutarch, those are instructions for seminary teachers on what sources may be used to teach the lesson to a seminary class. Similar to instructions to only use approved sources for other church lessons and talks. Those are not instructions for seminary students to use for private reading and study.
Sorry again Angela, back to the post topic.
Regarding using only “Approved Materials”… A bishop in Mesa, Arizona once called me into his office to rebuke me for using non-preapproved scriptural cross-reference in my lessons as a substitute GD teacher. He said that I could only use the scriptures in the listed manual for the given lesson. Otherwise, I was being “unfaithful to the brethren.”
tomirvine999, Not the only such report I’ve heard about the attitudes of Church leaders in Mesa. On the other hand, when I commented at a fireside in Mesa that in my non-AZ stake we had a much more balanced mix than Mesa seemed to, the response was “But I live in Gilbert and it’s worse!” 🙂
Angela, Good example. I wondered in those years before 1985 whether BRM and BKP weren’t just f “the loudest, shrillest voices” among GAs and did not really represent the others. Oh, well.
This post was excellent!!
A couple years ago, I was sitting in a cramped nursing lounge with two other mothers during sacrament meeting. One mother had recently gone through the temple. Maybe it was because we were in a dark, quiet and somewhat smelly nursing room together, but the conversation got really honest. The newly-endowed mother was so relieved to tell us that she thought the temple was weird. It was uncomfortable. She didn’t like some of the covenants that she was blindsided by (this was back when women covenanted to obey their husbands etc.). She didn’t feel the spirit there at all and she didn’t get the point of it. We both emphatically agreed. It was so nice to hear we weren’t alone! All three of us were in agreement about our experiences in the temple.
Next Sunday, the Bishop asked this mother to bear her testimony about the temple during Sacrament meeting. She declared over the pulpit how spiritual and incredible an experience she’d had and how grateful she was to belong to a church that had temples. She even cried during her testimony.
I know she wasn’t being honest, but what else could she do?
This is an anecdotal “evidence” of this happening in the church. But I have to believe it is quite common. If I had not talked with this sister in the nursing lounge, I would have justifiably assumed she had experienced something incredible at the temple. How many times do people “fake it” to seem as if they belong with the in-group? I may not go so far as to verbally support something I disagree with at church, but I rarely (if ever) speak out against things I disagree with. I just quietly fume and worry and wonder what is wrong with me. How many other people are sitting in their chairs with the same thoughts in their heads? I think this is a really important topic and it inspired me to be more open and honest!
Temple attendance as an unpopular norm is interesting. What percentage of members actually go? What percentage go regularly after marriage or a mission? In my experience, it is absolutely an experience many don’t enjoy but few dare say so. I hated it (not hyperbolic, TBH), but my parents explained that I just needed to keep going to understand it better. To understand it or to be fully indoctrinated? I’m of the opinion that changes to the temple ceremony over the years are intended to keep it palatable because it simply must remain. If temple attendance is a measure of commitment and belief, and paying a tithe is required to enter the temple, then the temple must be the near pinnacle of faithful practice to keep the money rolling in. Too much damage will ensue if a plurality of members suddenly looked around and found the courage to say, “I thought the temple was creepy, too!”
jaredsbrother & Emily: “my parents explained that I just needed to keep going to understand it better” This is definitely one tactic to keep the unpopular norm hidden. I was talking to a woman in a former ward when we were both milling around at a wedding reception. She confided to me that she didn’t really enjoy the temple, but then she added, to downplay her “unpopular” opinion, “I’m sure I’d like it better if I just went more often.” I said, “Not necessarily. Lots of people don’t love it. It’s more appealing to some than others.” I could just imagine her going over and over and simply discovering that it just wasn’t something she liked, which is more or less how I felt about it.
Wondering: “I wondered in those years before 1985 whether BRM and BKP weren’t just f “the loudest, shrillest voices” among GAs and did not really represent the others.” I totally think this is the case, and it’s related to the idea that those who are tolerant and diplomatic generally get run over by those who are strident, as I discussed in a post called The Problem with Tolerance (in 2009): https://wheatandtares.org/2009/05/10/the-problem-with-tolerance/
A few years ago I finally gathered the courage to tell a group of my closest friends that, while I greatly value the covenants and blessings of temple ordinances, I very much dislike actually going to the temple for an endowment session. To my utter amazement, every single woman agreed. Even the woman who attended the temple monthly. Either my group of friends somehow self-selects for women who secretly dislike temple attendance, or this is actually much more common than any of us would have believed.
Even though it’s starting to change, we still seem to be surprised that there are many women who quietly say that they struggle with motherhood or find their careers rewarding.
I think there are more members of the church who don’t have a problem with evolution than many are ready to believe.
Along with the common belief that men must wear white shirts and ties to meetings comes the belief that they must be clean shaven, particularly if they have a calling such as member of a bishopric.
I see this as an explanation of why members are so willing to accept trump facts (lies), and that real truth is fake news. They have been told for years that there is one source to trust, and everything else is untrustworthy (fake news).
We have been groomed to be trumpers. I wonder/expect the 70/30 split is similar for, and the same people, politically, and religiously.
I have been trying to understand why members could vote for trump. This goes part of the way, but ignoring/not seeing the immorality, both personally, and politically, still has me confused, as does his undermining of the political process being accepted.
A very enlightening post. I love the concepts of pluralistic ignorance and unpopular norms. I have observed these phenomenon previously but didn’t have a name for it.
My list of unpopular norms in the LDS church would include many touched on already by the group (e.g. continuous garment wearing, monthly temple attendance, white shirts and ties), but I think some big ones that I don’t think have been mentioned, but are or were unpopular norms in many wards include: testimony meetings (and especially the extreme form at girls camp ), missionary work/giving out BoM/inviting friends to hear missionary discussions, assigned ministering/home/visiting teaching (how many of us in a leadership position preached how important it was until the day we weren’t in leadership anymore?), 10-h general conferences (do even TBMers really like two straight days of similar sounding talks?), weekly ward council/PEC meetings (when a couple of emails back and forth would cover most real needs), any form of stake led leadership training meeting , early morning seminary (emphasis on the early morning being what is unpopular), stake dances (is this really what kids want to do nowadays for social activities?), Trek (lots of testimonies about how great-but then why so hard to get volunteers?), Scouting/Cub Scouting (before TSM’s death finally let us all off the hook), getting married by age 22 and having >2 kids per family, every young man should serve a mission, and cleaning the ward building. I am sure there are more.
I can’t say I’ve never been a fan of the temple but I really think that I was a fan of the temple only because it had been drummed into me that this was the most special goal to aspire to. It’s a constant. I was bewildered by the whole thing when I first went but it didn’t throw me like it has many young women. I found a lot of it unexpected but was willing to roll with it. My husband is far more devout than I am so it’s fortunate that he’s not a big fan of temple attendance either. I enjoy doing family history but to be honest – rather than strengthening feelings of the importance of doing work for our ancestors it’s made me question it even more.
This has been an interesting post – but airing unpopular or not generally accepted views in the church eventually leads to becoming a pariah and viewed with suspicion.
Di: I think at some point it dawned on me that if I was going to watch a movie over and over, it would have to be a heckuva lot better than that one. Like, I really love Better Off Dead, but even that gets old. I couldn’t watch it every month for the rest of my life.
Well, now that this has morphed into the “name the movies I could watch over and over” thread, I have more to add. The Bourne Identity. The Hunt for Red October. Captain America: Civil War. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The Numbers Station.
I wonder what the percentage of TR-holding members who attend the temple once a year is. Fifty percent? Thirty percent? Attend once a month (like the leadership asks) might be ten percent. So attending the temple is not an unpopular norm. It’s not really a norm at all! Any action that isn’t subject to public observation and social pressure tends to get ignored. Another not-a-norm: doing the Come Follow Me study program every week. Maybe twenty percent compliance? This suggests what is driving LDS norms is more shame-based than morality-based. Which is to say most active Mormons don’t acknowledge a moral basis for these institutional norms. Most Mormons think these are just institutional directives backed by peer pressure. No peer pressure, no compliance, no norm.
“I really love Better Off Dead, but even that gets old. I couldn’t watch it every month for the rest of my life.”
You are preaching false doctrine, repent!
How about the norm of having great love and admiration for the current president of the Church? Not a General Conference goes by that General Authorities don’t turn and gush over the prophet and that tends to make its way down to the membership. I certainly loved President Hinckley (I’m sure some didn’t, but haven’t met anyone personally who didn’t), but I don’t feel the same way about President Nelson, though I suspect I would be taken to task in my ward for saying so (except that I don’t hear quite as many glowing remarks about him in the rank and file as some of his predecessors).
This has been enlightening. There are many times I have figured I was just the odd person in the room, but maybe that is not the case. To piggyback off of 10ac’s post I hated testimony night at girl’s camp. There may have been some true testimonies in there, but it felt like a big peer pressure moment to participate. Plus my young teenage self felt even more out of place for not crying (everyone else was). It was uncomfortable and odd. I dread sending my young daughter to camp due to this experience. Trek is another one for many more reasons.
@Dave B, I agree that the act of attending the temple monthly is probably not-a-norm, but pretending that one really loves the temple is. And so feeling guilty about not enjoying attendance and therefore not attending is common.
@Not a Cougar I agree. I always wonder when people post about how excited they are for General Conference – really? Like do they really truly feel that way or do they think they are supposed to feel that way? I’m sure some really do enjoy it and I’m not accusing any particular person of being disingenuous but I think it’s a real emperor’s new clothes situation. And I also agree that Pres Hinckley was infinity times more likable than Nelson. It’s hard for me to know if that’s just because I’m in such a different place “testimony”-wise but I’ve heard enough people say it that I think it’s probably true.
Elisa, agreed on watching General Conference. The unwritten norms seems to be that you watch every session live and that the seemingly infinite number of ways to consume it afterward are solely for further study and contemplation. That said, I know incredibly few people who actually do that (they just don’t talk about the fact that lawns need to be mowed, kids have activities scheduled, and sports are best consumed live). If we had more dynamic speakers, it would help a bit, but the tradeoff is you get a more Paul Dunns telling faith promoting stories of dubious origin.
Dave B: Re: your observation that these unpopular norms are secretly not norms at all, just pretend norms, that’s spot on. However, that’s the nature of so many norms. For example, when I was an exec with Amex, we would occasionally have legal documents that made the rounds among all execs in a specific business, and everyone had to read and sign. Once when I was the last signatory, I happened to be working from the same office as legal counsel, so I walked the papers to her desk personally and handed them over with my notes, stopping to point out the handful of concerns I had with various sections. She slowly smiled and said, “You know, I think you’re the only person who has ever actually read one of these. We send them around for signatures, and nobody else ever provides any notes.” Sure enough, I asked my colleagues about it in our next meeting, and everyone sheepishly confessed that they just signed it and had no idea what it said. They said they figured someone else would catch anything that was wrong. Everyone thought so.
Another thing I might add with unpopular norms is that there is often a superior norm undergirding these unpopular norms that dictates that they are to be upheld and that only a limited amount of complaining or defiance of the norms is to be tolerated. Complain too loudly and you get pushback even from the people who at first complained with you. I remember back when I was in college, I participated in the Model Arab League mock debate in a national competition held in Washington DC. I participated in the mock International Court of Justice where we made mock arguments around mock cases . It was a long mock session. However, on the final day we had been making good progress in meeting the time limit until just about 6:30pm when it some students left and student advisers put us on hold. Apparently one of the students had not submitted their argument (which they were supposed to submit before the conference) and they were allotted extra time to prepare. This lack of preparation on the part of the student made us wait. I remember complaining with the other students in the room about how we were going to leave by 8:00pm. We weren’t going to allow the students who needed to present the extra time. Well, come 8:00pm, I get up and leave, because I’m tired out, want to eat and made arrangements to meet up with other students at that time. I was the only one to leave. I missed casting my mock vote for something or other. The next day, the other participants in the mock court of justice didn’t even give me the time of day. The very people who said that they would leave by 8:00 along with me looked at me as if I were some sort of weak traitor. They had waited and had “shown respect” for the student who had dropped the ball and made us all wait. Never mind the fact that that student hadn’t shown respect to the rest of us by being late with her work. I couldn’t understand why everyone at a mock conference had to be so uptight. The late student had to be allotted 20 minutes to present and the person making the counterargument had to be allotted 20 minutes as well. They insisted on sticking to the time allotments. Look, if they’re late, why not just cut it down to 10 minutes each? It didn’t make any sense. But alas, unpopular norms often prevail over common sense.
Two different thoughts here-
Wife is not ready to discover my faith crisis but I’m dropping hints to my brothers who have both already jumped ship…
If (a tree falls) an email is sent for EQ “volunteers”, does anyone read it?
Chet: Good luck with all of it. I’ve been there.
There has been a disconnect between actual mission experiences compared to missionary reports. Ordinarily this wouldn’t bother me, except for the fact that I think the leadership has been slow to bring missionary work into the 20th century (let alone the 21st). A failure to face reality has deterred efforts to modernize proselytizing efforts.
At this point, the Church would do well to improve its image. Why not have missionaries do more humanitarian work? It would also assist members and their neighbors in developing countries.
Norms don’t need to be explicitly stated or forbidden. Suggestion from those in authority is powerful. Sometimes it’s like a “who will rid me of this meddlesome priest” thing.
Teachings from “the brethren” vary. I’ve been intrigued by which ones persist, which never get traction.
Personally, I have found it to be enormously freeing, stimulating (and yes, periodically unsettling) to have “stepped aside” and deliberately attempted (in every way) to interact with the World without the lens of Mormonism. I’m amazed at how much of my life (over decades) has been influenced by, driven by (and made miserable by) cultural group think; along the Wasatch Front.