I’ve been contributing weekly posts here at W&T for over three years now. I enjoy the wide variety of views shared by the permabloggers who write the posts and the many readers who post comments. You would think a guy might run out of ideas after 150 posts, but it seems there is always more to talk about when it comes to Mormonism. Anyway, today I’m going to take a look at how individuals define their relationship (or perhaps manage their relationship) with institutions generally and, of course, the Church in particular. While I look at some groupings or categories, this isn’t really one of those What kind of Mormon are you? posts. Instead, the focus is on how you, me, and every other individual relates to or defines their relationship with the LDS Church as an institution — and, by extension, to any other business or system or institution you are voluntarily or necessarily involved with. And I’m going to make up my own labels and acronyms for these categories so we don’t end up repeating discussions you have had before about related ideas or classifications. This isn’t a post about about TBMs or Exmos. This isn’t a post about Iron Rodders or Liahona Mormons. It’s a narrower but hopefully productive discussion.
So here are my three categories and labels, sorting people based on their relationship to the LDS Church as an institution. And let me quickly add there is no ranking or implied judgment pro or con in these groupings. It’s just to help clarify my particular point of interest in this post.
- Fully Invested Mormon (FIM). This is a member who is not just “active” (a Mormon who attends almost every week and probably has a calling) but is a 100% team player. A FIM has internalized LDS institutional goals and priorities as their own goals and priorities. A FIM goes to every meeting, even extra meetings they know are a waste of time. A FIM sacrifices personal time and resources for the good of the ward or the Church. This might be someone who is intent on climbing the LDS career ladder (get to be a Bishop or RS Pres, followed by a stake calling or two, and if you happen to get rich maybe even an Area Authority or a GA) but also describes plenty of average, humble members who tirelessly and cheerfully do the Mormon thing.
- Pragmatic Mormon (PRAM). This is a member who might be fully active or might be partially active or might even be fully inactive in the sense of not attending LDS meetings on Sunday. A PRAM accepts most callings. But a PRAM quite clearly, in his or her own mind, distinguishes between personal goals and priorities and those of the Church as an institution, although there is probably some overlap. (Who doesn’t enjoy a good Mormon potluck? Who doesn’t have an hour to happily help a ward family move furniture into the moving van?) Distinguishing personal from institutional priorities and goals probably reflects an attitude of accepting or believing some, but not all, of the standard list of LDS faith claims. Possibly not even any of the standard LDS faith claims. A PRAM probably doesn’t rock the boat unnecessarily, but will offer the occasional uncorrelated comment in class. This is different from what might be called a “Cafeteria Mormon,” who chooses what they want to believe from the Mormon menu. That misrepresents belief, I think. Most of us do not choose what we believe. We believe it because … well, either you do or you don’t. In some sense you feel compelled to believe what you believe. A PRAM feels free to believe what they personally feel compelled to believe, whereas a FIM feels compelled to believe (or try to believe, or pretend to believe) what the Church tells them to believe. A PRAM is willing to act defensively, to protect themselves or their family from harm that might come from some LDS circumstance or episode or belief. In contrast, a FIM will take one for the team, regardless of impact on self or family, and be proud of it.
- Not Really a Mormon Anymore (NORAMA). This is someone who has pretty much rejected the institutional goals of the Church. They have mentally separated themselves from the Church’s mission, however you might define it. They might attend, likely for family reasons. In terms of the relation of the individual to the institution, NORAMAs are sort of like the 99.8% of the world’s population who are not, have never been, and never will be LDS. But someone who has left the Church, either practically or formally, almost certainly carries some LDS baggage. They quite clearly, in their own mind, put LDS institutional goals at arm’s length. A NORAMA is not necessarily a noisy critic: there are plenty of passive and quiet NORAMAs who have just had enough of Mormonism or who just don’t believe a darn thing about it anymore, and are living their life by different lights, doing their best to ignore their Mormon baggage. These might very well be great people, they’re just not great Mormon people anymore.
Notes and Observations
Let me offer a few comments on these categories and see if there aren’t some insights to be had.
Think about the Army. Just to highlight the institutional point I’m trying to make, let’s look at a different institution. Think about being in the Army. Same three groups. There are some soldiers (and more officers) who are 100% fully invested in the Army and its mission. They want that next promotion. They’ll be the first out of the trench when the lieutenant yells, “Charge!” Second, there are plenty of soldiers who will do their job and perhaps, in a pinch, do their duty in a heroic manner, but they are in the Army for the training and the job and a paycheck. They’ll exit the Army in a year or two or three. If they are in a firefight, they are as concerned with not getting shot as with taking that hill. Then third, there are a few who just check out, who realize they really don’t want to be there, and who either slack off so severely that they face discipline and possibly confinement, or they go AWOL. You could repeat this with lots of different organizations and institutions. Think of George from Friends. He’s at the very low end of the Pragmatic Employee scale. In the corporate or employment context, there are noisy critics as well. We call them whistleblowers.
You might be a Pragmatic Mormon if … I suspect a lot of active members show up every week and never really think about the distinction between a FIM and a PRAM. If you show up most weeks, write a check or two, and accept most callings, you’re “active” and that’s how you think of yourself. It might take a significant discordant event to even make you aware that you aren’t really fully invested in LDS goals and priorities. Maybe there’s a gay or lesbian family member who has a negative LDS experience and it makes you rethink some things. Maybe you do your family history and discover a polygamous ancestor or an excommunicated ancestor, and it makes you rethink some things. Maybe you just read the right book or two and it gets you thinking. I’m guessing that in the average LDS ward, the active cohort of maybe 150 people is one-third FIM, one-third PRAM, and one-third who aren’t fully invested but haven’t really figured that out yet. They are Pragmatic Mormons without realizing it. That might be you, or your brother, or your SIL. You or they might be one significant event away from discovering there’s a line that you or they won’t cross. The Church is full of unawakened PRAMS.
Tell me a story. You can probably think of a story or two you have heard in General Conference that really brings home what it means to be a FIM, to be fully invested. It’s probably a story that rubbed you the wrong way. Say a story about a couple that had a hundred bucks in the bank until the next payday two weeks away, and faced the choice between paying their tithing or buying food to feed them and their three kids. Of course they pay their tithing. FIMS cheer their faith. PRAMS question their priorities. There are dozens of stories like this. They are staples of GA talks. I think they are great diagnostics for distinguishing between FIMS and PRAMS. I wonder how the counsel of local leaders falls when faced with an actual situation brought to them by a member. I suspect it happens, but not too often, that a bishop says to a member, “Okay, now that you have explained your situation and how busy and stressed out you are with job and family, I understand that you probably should not accept this calling I just offered you.” More often, I suspect, they say the Lord will bless you if you take the calling, even if it turns out to be an unreasonable demand to make.
The line between good and evil. There’s a famous quote from Solzhenitsyn, that the line between good and evil passes through every human heart. Here, there are good folks and bad folks, good Mormons and bad Mormons, in all three groups. Really, it is not a ranking. You might think I’m looking a little askance at FIMS, and sure there are some who are just too invested in LDS things, but who among us doesn’t admire the man who accepts a call to be a bishop, with all the time commitments and difficulties that presents? Who doesn’t respect the lady who bakes and brings the sacrament bread every darn week (to almost no fanfare or recognition) and helps out wherever and whenever asked?
Spiritual but not religious. You’ve heard this phrase before. I think it is somewhat related to my point here about how individuals define their relationship to their church or religious institution. Religious types will be FIMs or PRAMs, willing to engage fully or pragmatically with their local congregation or larger church entity. Spiritual types feel a need to distance themselves from organized religion. They’ll either be PRAMs with a lively sense of their own personal views and boundaries, or else they’ll fully disengage and focus on their own spiritual quest. The key point: the distinction is not really about spirituality. There are very religious people who are simultaneously very spiritual. The distinction actually turns on how a person defines their relationship with their church or religious institution.
Dark days ahead? Between Covid and smoldering political partisanship and the lingering problem of the LDS gay policy, there might be some tough times ahead for some Mormons who didn’t expect to have to redefine their relationship to the Church. Some who were regular attenders every week may balk at returning to a crowded LDS chapel with singing and poor ventilation, even when the bishop or stake president starts bringing pressure to return. Surprise! You’re a PRAM who has suddenly discovered that your personal priorities differ from LDS priorities expressed through your bishop. And so forth. It might get to the point that LDS leadership will need to review and modify the institutional expectations that have guided LDS church life for so long. Going from three hours of meetings to two hours seems like just this sort of step. There may be others. This reminds us that the member-institution relationship can be adjusted from the institutional side as well as from the individual’s side.
Conclusion?
Unlike most posts, I don’t really have a good conclusion to wind up this discussion. Maybe the categories and notes ring a bell for some readers, maybe not. In the above discussion, maybe the deck is stacked in favor of Pragmatic Mormons, and sure that’s where my sympathies lie, but I have really tried to emphasize this is not a ranking or a judgment. In particular, these are not fixed categories of persons: people can and do move from one approach to another once or twice or thrice in a lifetime. In lieu of a conclusion, here are some prompts that might give readers something to comment on or respond to:
- Were you previously fully invested and then mentally shifted to become what I’ve called a Pragmatic Mormon? Was there an event or realization that prompted you to make that mental shift? Transitions between categories seem especially interesting.
- Have you at some point become fully disengaged from the LDS Church, becoming a NORAMA? Was there an event or realization that prompted you to make that change? Did you become spiritual but not religious, or did you shift into another religious denomination or faith community?
- Have you ever met a spiritual but not religious person who was actually serious about their spirituality? How did they approach that way of living? It just seems like a tough thing to pull off without a supportive faith community.
- Share a General Conference story of heroic faith (an exemplar of being fully invested in the Church) that really made you roll your eyes. Or maybe there was no eye roll. Maybe it made you jump up from your chair and shout, “Yes! That’s the kind of Mormon I want to be!”
Wheat & Tares 
Thanks for this thoughtful post.
I’d propose adding a category. GressMo These are the people who see the Church itself and not just individual members as capable of eternal, or at least institutional, progression. They are pushing to make the Church more loving and accepting. I’ll propose GressMo because they are putting in elbow grease. I imagine many GressMos would also accept the label of progressive Mormons, but I think the word progressive has become polarizing. https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2015/08/07/op-ed-what-do-progressive-mormons-want-a-dialogue-about-change/
(FWIW: I call myself a postMo because I don’t believe in the Church. I left in the 1990s after concluding it was harmful than helpful, but this generation of GressMo give me hope, both for humanity and the Church)
I think Iron Rodders and Liahonas is still a great dichotomy, but of course it doesnt really tell us where you are on the active/inactive continuum. I like the PRAMS and FIMS and NORAMAs –also a useful continuum. Another very interesting axis is inside and outside. Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest wrote about this (https://cac.org/the-edge-of-the-inside-2017-09-12/). The most interesting position along this dichotomy is on the edge of inside. This is where the most interesting people are, with the most innovative ideas. They are not on the outside throwing rocks, but neither are they syncophants. And probably not FIMS, but these edge people could have some FIM leanings.
I am for sure out there on the edge –but not necessarily the most interesting of people. I am orthopraxic, but not wholly true believing (yet another axis!). I have served in many leadership positions, but I keep my orthopraxic mask on all the time in church. I am a card-carrying mormon. A full tithe-payer (but not necessarily to the church –I do believe in the law of sacrifice and 10% is a good minimum). I love the community service aspect of our church. And as I said in a previous comment, when I teach, it can be about the meaning of this or that, without having to bear witness to the reality of whatever story it is, however fanciful.
But the edge of inside is sometimes a pretty lonely place. We have picked up a few close church friends over the years, but it seems the most populated categories of members are TBM/FIMS and NORAMAs. Need to find me some PRAMs and edge-dwellers!
An interesting spectrum. I’ve not considered where I might be in relation to other members. Rather, I’m an observant ( I carefully regard religious ritual) member of the Church. Thanks for your post. I enjoy things that make me think.
I believe the vast majority of LDS members are “pragmatic” and experience the church similar to what Buddhist Bishop describes. Most of us put on our orthoprax mask to maintain social currency in the church, but secretly harbor beliefs and opinions that are not orthodox.
There is a wide spectrum of pragmatism in this category, but among “active” members, I believe around 80% to 90% fall in this group. The FIMs are those “same 10 members” who rotate through each Ward’s leadership callings.
Asking for a “friend”:
Let’s say there is a 50-something old FIM for the first 50 years of his life. Sure, he had issues with LDS culture (the folks who wouldn’t drink diet Coke or watch TV on Sunday) but he was fully into the doctrine and truth claims. Then came the Gospel Topic Essays. There is one line in the “Race and the Priesthood” essay that shook him: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse…”. He couldn’t believe it. Here on the Church’s own web site we were officially throwing past leaders (especially Brigham Young) under the bus. At least that’s how he read it.
So in 2013 he learned that today’s Church can reject yesterday’s prophets. And then when he saw the Nov. 2015 policy overturned in 2019 just 41 months later, he realized that the rejection timeline had accelerated greatly. It took 125 years to overturn the black priesthood ban but only 41 months to overturn the exclusion policy. His takeaway was that anything can change anytime within the Church. Today’s prophet is tomorrow’s apology (well, not really an apology).
Is it any wonder that he (um, my friend that is) moved from FIN to PRAM to NORAMA so quickly?
I’m having difficulty categorizing myself in one of these three areas. Most people look at me and say I’m FIM. I consider myself to be somewhere between PRAM and NORAMA. I’m a former bishop and now have a visible stake calling, however my wife and kids know the extent of my belief/ disbelief which is that virtually no LDS doctrine is literal and that quite possibly there is no God. Perhaps most telling I don’t pay tithing in the expected way. The label I’d apply to myself is agnostic, active, cultural Mormon. GressMo as proposed by Monya might work for me.
Any talk about blind obedience or black and white thinking makes my eyes roll. However, some things give me hope, like younger generations.
“Some who were regular attenders every week may balk at returning to a crowded LDS chapel with singing and poor ventilation, even when the bishop or stake president starts bringing pressure to return.”
This is me. I’ve long considered myself more of a pragmatic Mormon than a spiritual one. And I don’t think this is a matter of choosing to redefine my relationship with the Church, but more an issue of the Church redefining its relationship with people like me. Currently, my ward is making overtures at getting things “back to normal” (contrary to the current public health guidelines in our state) but it appears that only the hardcore orthodox members are the ones in a hurry to go back to in-person Church meetings. They are the only ones giving talks and lessons anymore, so there is a noticeable lack in diversity of ideas and points of view. They are also the only ones being given callings now, so pragmatic/progressive voices are not being represented in the ward’s leadership. I didn’t change significantly in my beliefs in the last year; it’s the Church that is becoming less and less willing to make space for me and others like me.
I like your framework, Dave. It makes me think of a post that John C. wrote at BCC a few years ago shortly after the Exclusion Policy was put in place. He said that there’s a line for everyone that if the Church crosses, they’ll leave. It might be different for everyone, and they might not even know what it is until the Church does cross it, but it’s there. My memory is that he got some pushback from people who said that no, for them, there was no line. In your framework, I think he was saying that nobody is really a FIM, and everyone’s a potential PRAM. But those who were arguing with him were saying that no, they actually were FIM.
I’m having a hard time coming up with a way to know who’s right. I just think it’s an interesting question. Thanks for the post.
Here’s a link to John C.’s post: https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/23/the-line/
I’m very much a PRAM. Always have been, but in the past few years have become far less interested in keeping up the appearance of being fully committed. I attend with family, pay tithing, have a TR but on the belief spectrum I identify as spiritual not religious. The edge of the inside, as mentioned in an earlier comment, is my place and I like it there. Close enough to be involved where I want to (Christlike service to others) but also in position to back away from things that I don’t want to participate in or support (flavor of the month programs that are just church busy work).
Ziff, I’m inclined to believe that for some people, once their allegiance is established, there is no line that could be crossed that will cause them to question their allegiance. I think Donald Trump has proven this.
I personally consider myself a FIM, but could church leaders take a path that would turn me into a PRAM? Of course. I just don’t think it’s likely. I believe the church’s fundamental truth claims, so despite some policies/choices from church leaders, I’m more likely to remain engaged. But I couldn’t see myself being actively engaged in promoting something I disagreed with.
There are many who would consider themselves to be “Mormon” in the cultural sense. They believe in community service, donating to the poor, and associating with their neighbors. But with the attack on the word “Mormon” by the very church that promoted it for so long, they feel lost.
These members may not return to full, or even any, activity. Before the pandemic, they spent 8 hours or more on a typical Sunday in church and calling-related meetings. The pandemic has taught them they they are happier spending time with their families playing board games or going to the park than they are sitting through a nonproductive meeting.
Here’s an unusual twist / observation on the FIM / PRAM change. When I was a FIM, I was very critical of the membership around me. They weren’t great company, they weren’t living up to their ideals, they weren’t “lengthening their stride,” they weren’t committed enough, aligned enough with the Church’s mission. At some point along the way, I realized that life is bigger than the Church, and then I started to actually like the Church membership a lot more. Not all of them, not all the time, but I valued things like Linger Longers and Church activities and the youth programs in ways I couldn’t when I was too busy trying to be all in. It’s been decades since I’ve been pragmatic rather than trying to out-righteous anyone else, but I think I’ve become more truly empathetic and a better listener in the process.
I’m not sure I was ever truly a FIM vs. a PRAM, but I was closer to FIM at times, and when I was, there was an underlying competitive spirit and judgmentalism toward others that isn’t admirable. I may be more judgmental of FIMs as a result of having seen that in myself, and seeing it as a mark of immaturity and intolerance, something I outgrew.
I’m NORAMA, and have been for a long time. I was raised in a progressive Ward in the Midwest. I’m 75 so that was a long time ago. I decided to go on a mission. There begins my problems. I went through the temple unprepared. My reaction was immediate and devastating. The problems were numerous. At the time, the mission home was located across the street from Temple Square. I walked up to the State Capitol and sat on the lawn for several hours. And finally decided to continue on my mission.
On my mission, I ran headlong into the conservative and predominant faction of the Church. Biblical literalism. Racism. Anti-science. “Mormon Doctrine” was the new bible. BRM and his father-in-law did irreparable damage to the Church during this period. We missionaries also had to deal with the aftermath of “swimming pool” baptism. And ARD’s silly books on proselyting and oversimplified and frequently inaccurate memorized discussions. Before I arrived in France, there was a polygamist coup d’etat in the mission home. The Civil Rights movement was running full swing in America. Membership attendance was below 10%. You get the picture.
But the thing that killed me the worst, was when a white couple was not permitted to have their Black child sealed to them. Yikes.
After my 2-1/2 year mission, I made the mistake of attending BYU. There I learned that Social Security was like the Gadianton Roobers. Who lit that wacho teach at a modern university? I was eventually kick out of class, and my adviser negotiated a deal with my BoM teacher so I could graduate. That was nice since I had been drafted. My religion teacher wasn’t much of a Christian, but my adviser was.
But it’s the couple who couldn’t have their child sealed to them that really ended my active involvement in the Church.
Interesting definitions that I’m not sure I can fit in decisively. I think anyone who reads my regular comments here would be quick to peg me as a FIM, but I see PRAM in me as well. By OP definitions, I definitely believe the claims of the Church and believe in its goals, and very often work to see those goals move forward. I have no interest in climbing the “LDS career ladder” for my own sake but would do so if asked. I do believe nearly all worldly problems can be solved through the Gospel of Jesus Christ with some help from the vehicle the Church provides.
But there are aspects of me that are more pragmatic, in part because I think the Church encourages it to an extent (bear with me, there’s a cyclical aspect to it). In my personal studies of other religions, the beliefs are presented, and you either believe them or you don’t, and most of the time the latter is okay if you just show up and participate. I’ve encountered very few that do the same as the LDS church does. Search, ponder, pray, gain revelation, and repeat. The spectrum of knowledge among members continually amazes me, and I feel I am slowly coming to grip with things that the Spirit is whispering to me that doesn’t currently fit the Church paradigm, at least at first glance, but could very well at some point. I’m well aware where my stewardship lies with regards to those things, but I love the idea that a loving Father in Heaven is still willing to reveal anything to me that he does to the Prophet, if I want it enough and am willing to do what I need to get it. But when you couple that with the organization and order the Church provides, that sounds like an institution that has expertly fused the pragmatic and esoteric and tailored it to the individual, which is something I find fascinating.
Additionally, when I read “A FIM has internalized LDS institutional goals and priorities as their own goals and priorities,” but think of the personal revelation that’s been made available to me and others, I’m more inclined to rephrase it “A FIM has realized most LDS institutional goals and priorities line up with their own newfound goals and priorities.” I feel like the OP is making the case that a FIM is often a FIM simply for the sake of being so or told so, but I feel like PRAMs can often take on the appearance of FIMs because that’s where their pragmatic approach took them. I realize there was a lot of definition and that I’m likely convoluting it all, but there it is.
I also realize if you make one or two wrong moves that don’t agree with the Church, you can easily see yourself excommunicated. I understand that from a sense of order, and how that can be necessary. I think there is a hard area where personal beliefs and doctrine need to stay locked together.
One other aspect of these discussions that I let get to me at times is those who say their Spirituality supersedes their religious practice. At times I feel it’s meant to downplay the feeling many LDS have that their Spirituality nearly seamlessly coincides with their religious practices, which is often how I feel. I understand where others are coming from, but the deeper I get, the more it all blends together to Spirituality as a whole. And yes, my Spirituality could probably do with a just a few less meetings.
I was a FIM (or as close to a FIM as one could be, I agree that a lot of FIMs are probably PRAM’s) until 2018/2019. The exclusion policy, reversal, reaction to Sam Young / MTC sex abuse scandal, $100B news, embracing of Trumpism, Nelson’s Sad Heaven and Oak’s anti-gay heaven all did me in and I’m now somewhere between a PRAM and a NORAMA. A PRAM when it comes to my local congregation (trying to stay engaged, build community, maintain spirituality) and a NORAMA when it comes to “The Church” (have absolutely no interest or trust in what the Q15 say or do and trying to excavate my heretofore buried moral authority out from under the detritus of their paternalistic patriarchal care).
Talk that triggered me – a lot, but one off-the-beaten-path example: in the last general conference, Pres. Lund (YM General President) told a story about his cancer-ravaged son passing the sacrament. His son later died. The story itself was sweet, but what the story also revealed was that Pres. Lund wasn’t home that Sunday with his family and his son and did not help them get ready for Church; he was at Church meetings. I hated that. I assume Pres. Lund worked full-time and so Sundays were among the limited days he had to spend with his family and dying son. It made me sick he spent them at Church meetings instead. He’ll never get that time back.
The problem with being a FIM is it’s a long way down if you lose your grip.
I wrote paragraphs but deleted as it isn’t my story to tell. Needless to say, losing faith in an institution you gave your heart and soul to is devastating and has lasting rippling repercussions. It’s pretty easy to slip from FIM to NORAMA if circumstances are traumatic enough. Coming back from that is a long road the NORAMA may not be interested in taking, even if only going as far as PRAMville. And the FIM often takes people with them on the way out. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Not even faith.
Ethan, it sounds more like you’re “religious but not spiritual,” not “spiritual but not religious.”
Personally, I’m in the process of transitioning into another religious denomination or faith community–Community of Christ. As a YSA, I simply don’t see the point of sticking around in a tradition that doesn’t prioritize my values: caring for the poor and needy, bringing about long-overdue systemic change to public institutions, etc. I admire those of you who can deal with the cognitive dissonance, but I can’t. I would rather go to a church where the beliefs the organization espouses and teaches over the pulpit congrue with my own. It’s valid to want to reform the LDS Church from within, but that isn’t my path.
But being a BYU student definitely complicates things. Over the course of the past year, I’ve tried the “spiritual but not religious approach,” facilitated, of course, by the pandemic. Now it’s ecclesiastical endorsement time, so let’s hope my (on the surface) progressive bishop will understand why I haven’t attended recently.
As I’ve pondered this framework, I think what distinguishes a FIM, vs a PRAM, vs. NORAMA is identity. Those whose identity, their sense of who they are and their place in the world, is primarily linked to their standing in the institutional church are FIMs. Those whose identity includes the church, but also derive a sense of self worth from other sources (e.g. career, family relationships , humanitarian service, politics, sports, etc.) are PRAMs. Those whose identity is no longer or is weakly tied to the church are NORAMAs.
On a side note, I think Angela’s story is best summarized with a slight modification to the final line of Monty Pythons’s “Camelot” song…. Ahem….
FIM’s like to push out those PRAM’s a lot……
@Ziff, I honestly couldn’t stomach the comment thread on that post. Yikes.
I’ve been in all the categories at different times. These days I feel like a NORAMA but most anyone that knows me IRL probably assumes I’m a PRAM or maybe even a FIM. I still attend some meetings with my family and accept callings when they don’t sacrifice my integrity (I will not teach things I don’t believe).
I do attend for practical reasons, mainly because DW goes and she likes me to be there. Despite my attendance and apparent active status, I consider myself NORAMA because I really only go to be with my immediate family. I have zero investment in the church as an institution and I have huge concerns about what the church teaches my kids. For example I feel compelled to unteach my children some of the things they hear at church with regards to homophobia and sexuality. I wish the church did not pressure boys to go on missions and I don’t think that a mission will be good for some of my kids, if they choose to go. It shouldn’t be a one size fits all situation.
Another comment about what it’s like to be NORAMA in a seven-generation Mormon family is that extended family get together can be awkward. Half the people there have no life outside of church. When you take away church, we have nothing in common anymore, nothing to talk about.
And the OP mentions the “baggage” that NORAMA s carry around, which might explain why so many NORAMs like me spend time commenting on Mormon blogs like W&T and elsewhere on the internet.
Warning: Tangent ahead.
Elisa, Ziff, Indeed the comment string on John C’s 2015 post at BCC included some problematic stuff. This one particularly caught my attention: “Premise 2: We have received a promise, canonized in the Official Declaration, that the majority of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency will never lead us astray.” It is simply false. The “lead astray” language is part of an excerpt from a speech by Pres. Woodruff. It says nothing about the “majority of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.” It speaks only of the President of the Church. Those excerpts were never canonized. Merely printing excerpts of comments in the D&C doesn’t canonize them; they are akin to editors’ footnotes. I’m always surprised when a someone as articulate as that commenter comes up such an obvious misreading. I should get over it. After all, I’ve heard the same misreading propounded and testified to in a Church class.
Reading Woodruff’s comment for what he actually said in context of preceding Church teachings, raises the question whether it meant the opposite of what appears on its face. While it appears to be little more than insistence that Official Declaration 1 was not “leading astray” (whatever that means), it seems the prior teaching of JS and BY was that polygamy was essential to exaltation. If so, then it seems Woodruff was saying either (a) JS and BY led the Church astray, or (b) don’t believe Official Declaration 1, or maybe (c) you unmarried or monogamous folks are not gonna get exalted ’cause we aren’t gonna seal polygamous marriages anymore. Maybe the problem with Woodruff’s speech lies in the scope of what was intended by “lead astray.” I wonder if the won’t-lead-astray FIMs would agree that BY wasn’t leading the Church or its members astray by teaching his Cain and priesthood ban doctrine or his Adam-God doctrine. Maybe those won’t-lead-astray FIMs are really PRAMs.
Oh, well. Maybe my premise about prior Presidents teaching that polygamy is essential to exaltation is wrong. I’m no historian.
@Wondering that was one line of comments I couldn’t stomach. Also, it’s so circular. The prophet said he’ll never lead us astray therefore the prophet will never lead us astray. How is that even credible? Seems absurd. Seems like that actually was an example of a prophet leading people astray. Not to mention the other examples where that’s happened. Such as the POX they were all discussing!
Also couldn’t stomach the defenses of the POX. Just couldn’t.
I wonder if the percent of FIM’s is significantly a lot lower than we assume. When I was in primary and the kids were singing “Follow the Prophet”, I looked behind me at the clock and saw the Primary Presidency with their arms straight out, doing the zombie walk…
I feel like many who look like FIMs are just PRAMs trying to help. Example, Right after RMN became the head, I shared with the same primary a story of when I was a missionary leaving the MTC in the airport in the mid 90s, everyone is shaking your hand and you don’t really pay attention after a while. But someone shook my hand and something made me look up and it was RMN who I recognized.
Now, as a PRAM who refuses to sing Follow the Prophet, I still shared the story because it was a cool story, something I never forgot, and just because I’m cynical doesn’t mean I have rub that off on everyone else. I still taught that exact same class that just because a church leader tells you to do something, Moroni 10 teaches you that you have every right question it and ask God.
Thanks for the great comments, everyone. Too many good comments to respond to them all.
Buddhist Bishop: “But the edge of inside is sometimes a pretty lonely place.” While it’s easy to talk about these groups in the abstract, it may be tougher to peg this or that ward member. And every PRAM tends to be pragmatic about this belief or that practice in their own way. So most PRAMS are fairly guarded in their conversations with other ward members. Hence, the “pretty lonely place” dilemma.
JLM: “The FIMs are those “same 10 members” who rotate through each Ward’s leadership callings.” Yes, I thought about the same 10 members thing, but didn’t put it in the post. I’m fairly sure my division into thirds varies considerably from ward to ward. The percentage of true FIMs in the average ward might be well short of one-third.
Angela C, your revealing comments on FIM psychology make FIMs sound a lot like Pharisees, or at least the caricature of Pharisees that we kick around today. So if one is going to be a FIM, fight the urge to be judgmental and try to be a compassionate and caring FIM.
rogerdhansen, that’s quite a story. I always enjoy your comments.
Elisa: “The exclusion policy, reversal, reaction to Sam Young / MTC sex abuse scandal, $100B news, embracing of Trumpism, Nelson’s Sad Heaven and Oak’s anti-gay heaven all did me in and I’m now somewhere between a PRAM and a NORAMA.” Yes, there has been a lot of Mormon messiness flying around the last couple of years. The rise of Covid has sort of outshined and overshadowed a lot of that recent stuff. Easy to forget.
Dylan, best of luck with your transition to CoC. Two generations back, few LDS gave RLDS even a second thought. Increasingly, Community of Christ (the renamed RLDS) is a serious option for disaffected or alienated LDS, and I’ve read many stories of those who are making that choice.
Rockwell, the undercover NORAMA: “These days I feel like a NORAMA but most anyone that knows me IRL probably assumes I’m a PRAM or maybe even a FIM.” Maybe this is why the Church relies so heavily on TR status and tithing as indicators. It’s really odd how tough it is to figure out how invested some fellow ward members are, and even how invested you yourself are sometimes.
Wondering: My own twist on the phrase that leaders will never lead us astray is that they don’t lead us astray, our own willingness to follow authority unquestioningly leads us astray. We let ourselves be led astray. And until we stop doing that and start having our own moral compass, blaming them for “leading astray” is not solving the real problem: our own fealty to human fallible authority. So in that sense, it is true that they can never lead us astray. Only we can do that.
When I was interviewed by Jana Riess for a book she’s working on about people who leave the church when they are older, I classified myself as an FIM up until I was in my early 50’s (but possibly not quite as invested as the OP describes). I tiptoed through PRAM for about three years. I now consider myself a NORAMA. W&T is about as engaged in Mormonism as I get, though I still find it fascinating and can’t really get it completely out of my system, and don’t really want to right now.
I attended the Presbyterian church for about a year. I am friends with the pastor and it was very refreshing and freeing. After a year of theology classes with the pastor, I determined that a lot of the things that gave me pause in Mormonism, were there in Protestantism as well. It was just a variation of the roster of men that claim/claimed that God spoke to them. So I stopped attending.
For me, the nature of God and God’s relationship to humans is really unknowable. If spirituality is the same thing as wanting to be a good person and treat others well and t0 actively try to make the world a better place – then I am spiritual.
@BeenThere, very interesting a and interested in this book. I hear us talk about young people leaving the church in droves, but I have a ton of friends leaving in their thirties and forties (and fifties and sixties) and I don’t hear as much about that. I’ve been in wards that hyper-focused on the youth to the detriment of many adults who quietly left and took their kids with them.