DISCLAIMER:

The content expressed on this blog reflects the opinion of the author, and does not represent the opinions of any organization with which the author may be affiliated, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

The Taxonomy of Mormonism

There are many species of Mormon human, or Homo mormonius, which include Mormons, non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, Jack Mormons, Post-Mormons, and Molly Mormons to name a few. In addition, there are various sub-species, which include active members, inactive members, less-active members, and hyper-active members.


Like every religious, social, or cultural genus, there is a great amount of diversity within the Mormon religious and cultural community. There are many members who have grown up in the Church, have attended Mormon religious services and have participated in the church culture for their entire lives. There are many who join the Church later in life and find that the Church represents the answers to life they have been seeking. There are others still who come to the conclusion that they do not believe in the doctrines of the Gospel and/or do not wish to participate in church-related activities. There are other members who become so caught up in the Church that nothing else has any significance in their lives, and they limit their worldview to the finite Mormon universe.


However, with this spectrum of diversity within the Mormon family, certain species unfortunately come into conflict with one another from time to time. In general, the greatest schism exists between those who have chosen to be active and participating members of the Church, and those who have chosen not participate. By the sheer nature of this argument, both groups feel they are in possession of greater truth, and at times may demonstrate feelings of superiority towards the other group.


Though I am not a resident of Utah, I spent most of my childhood in this predominantly Mormon state. During my formative years, I was not an “active Mormon” and thus found myself to be a religious minority. Since I did not share the same faith as many of my Mormon peers, I was often quizzed on my (lack of) faith, scorned, or rebuked for my deficient desire to participate in the religion that many valued so dearly. Together with my non-Mormon friends, we would snicker from the sidelines as we watched our Mormon contemporaries participate in what we thought was fruitless worship.


Later on, I would embrace Mormonism as I learned more and determined that it was a spring of truth that I wanted in my life. Suddenly, the Mormons received me with enthusiasm, claiming a miracle had occurred, while many of the same non-Mormon friends to whom I had been connected suddenly treated me as if I had fallen, and had been brainwashed by religion.


While living in California, a non-Mormon friend told me stories of spending time in Salt Lake City. He was amused by the fact that the community so naturally and willingly polarized itself. Both were visible and obvious, with the Mormons openly showing their pride in their religion, while the non- or inactive Mormons (most often the youth) went to great lengths to appear as “un-Mormon” as possible, even adopting extreme styles of physical appearance. In this way, they were symbolically showing their perceived freedom from the Mormons.


Why is it that these two groups tend to fail in seeking common ground? We will address this question further next week. Until then, I would love to hear what you think about it.

14 comments:

bmillios said...

Why is it that these two groups tend to fail in seeking common ground?

Because they cannot both be correct. If the Mormon church is true, then the non-Mormons (or inactive Mormons) must be wrong.

Most people do not appreciate being told they are wrong. They will stubbornly cling to incorrect beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

tobyo said...

I think Bill hit the nail on the head.

I'll add: Joseph Smith said that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.

This produces a quandary. Do I want to be saved, or do I reserve the right to question what I am asked to sacrifice?

The church teaches so many social behaviors as modern revelation (mixed with conservative dogma), so does one question the teachings, or dive right in with both feet, hoping to be saved?

Like many conservative groups, Mormons are not only set apart by their eating/drinking, clothing, and celebrating, but by their conservative social teaching. For example, teaching against homosexual acts, rules against extreme clothing/hairstyles, teaching against interracial marriages.. wait scratch the last one we don't teach that anymore.

Among the most divisive teachings, I find, is the pressure to spread the truth to the poor unfortunate souls floundering in darkness. This position of superiority is reinforced in missionary work, in home teaching, and in working with less active and hyper-active members.

Anonymous said...

Hey there,
since I assume most of you know each other I will shortly introduce myself before participating in the discussion- I am Austrian , studied Russian philology and I met Nils in Russia in (I think it was ?)2005.
As to the question
>why is it that these two groups tend to fail in seeking common ground?
and in addition to what has already been said I would further add, that (quite generally) individuals on arguing sides (may they be religious, cultural or political etc. groups) have in many cases put in a lot of effort and made sacrifices to find their thruth. After all the hardship of finding your way, it can be difficult to truly involve yourself again with the world of your opponent , understand his/her point of view and in some cases let go of (some aspects) of your own believes (again, may they be cultural or religious or political). Once you have made sacrifices for what you believe is right it becomes a lot harder to admit that someone else could be right too.
Michaela

tobyo said...

Michaela, I hadn't thought about it that way, good point.

Some of my favorite authors are Russian-- but I have only read their works in English.

Steven said...

Bergy-

Lambson here. Good to hear from you again- it's like old times on the mission when the entire morning studies time was taken up discussing one question or one verse. Good times.

Anyway, I love this blog already and plan to folow it religiously (yuk yuk).

So as to your question about common ground, Michaela, the previous commenter, raised a very good point about particularly those Homo mormonuis who were at one point devout Mormons and changed their views and beliefs. There is no common ground anymore. Once you've jumped in the pool, you can either touch or you can't, and the place in between (where you have to kind of bounce up and down) is an uncomfortable place to be, so most people avoid it altogether.

Joseph Smith said it well:

"When you joined this Church . . . you [speaking to Isaac Behunnin] left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve it will be by the instigation of the evil one."

Now I hope not to upset people by implying those who have left the Church or its beliefs are evil. They're not- they simply have chosen to change their views or belief system for one reason or another. Maybe it's a valid reason, maybe it's a petty reason, but for them, it's reason enough. The point is that there is no neutral anymore. You're either for or against. That carries different egrees and intensity, but there is no neutral. Switzerland, so to speak, doesn't exist in this matter (I wonder what the Swiss think about it :)

In a place like Utah, where "Mormon" is not just a religion, it's an identity, those who aren't Mormon feel the need to define themselves unmistakably as such- not Mormon. Hence the percieved extremes of behavior.

Out here in Missouri, I find it much easier as a Mormon among Gentiles, so to speak, than it would be for a "Gentile among Mormons" in Utah.

Tyson Pickett said...

I love this blog already. I can't think of someone more appropriate to head it up than Nils. I just wanted to make a comment that I believe the source of the diversity within the Mormon religion may be caused in part by the way the practices taught by the Church are applied in an individual's life. I think it's a great thing to be able to apply the gospel in one's life the way they deem fit. I've noticed in several aspects of the doctrine a lot of gray area. For example, keeping the sabbath day holy is interpreted in many ways. This can lead to people holding social events at one extreme and others not leaving their houses at all.

Anonymous said...

I think the two groups fail in seeking common ground, because each of the groups refuse to think outside the box. In my expericence I think a problem a lot of people experience is they go through life judging others based on their own experiences and expectations.Doing that creates false ideas about the other groups or individuals you are judging, making it hard to have common ground because it is based on false expectations or ideas. For example, maybe an active mormon thinks, "why can't they see the light, it is so plain?", while a less active thinks the same thing, but the meaning changes because of the perspective. When people finally realize that everybody is moving through life with their own experiences and stop judging people according to their own experiences, then common ground can be established. Because then a person can say this is my experience, and the other person can give theirs and I am sure they would find some common ground.

Janet said...

For those of you who don't know me, I'm Nils' mom. I grew up Episcopalian, converted to Mormonism when I was almost 29, was sealed to Nils' dad and the kids in the temple, and later left the church (my choice...not ex'd). I bring this up because I like to think of myself as being bilingual. :)

I have given this issue a great deal of thought over the years. bmillios and others have touched on very important points.

One of the things that is fairly unique to Mormonism is the frequent affirmation of "the truth." It is expressed in testimonies in F & T meetings, and pretty much at the close of each lesson. Each person bears his/her testimony that the gospel is true, etc. As a convert, I always found this odd. Why was there this need to repeat this over and over...unless...unless there was reason to question the truthfulness? In all honesty, it came across to me, a convert, as defensive posturing, if that makes sense. In other words...of *course* it was true, so why is it that we say this over and over?

What that does, I think, is exactly what bmillios says. And really, it's what any faith *says* when they believe that they hold the truth. It's an "I have the truth, you don't" message, which is a turn-off for those not of the faith. In my opinion, it sets the stage for polarization, which I can't believe is what the LDS Church wants to portray.

Thoughts?

Jacob said...

I'm not Mormon - but grew up VERY Lutheran and I see lots of similarities in this respect. In my lutheran grade and high school, and in church, it was always "us" and "them". It was never "we", unless "we" was implicitly exclusive of "them".

The problem - of course only a problem depending on perspective - is that most religious groups adopt a sort of "absolute truth" doctrine, which professes that said religion contains "all" truth, and that by extension, any beliefs outside of that given church's orthodoxy are incorrect, corrupted, perhaps even the "devil's influence", instead of what in my opinion could very realistically or even necessarily be described as a difference of interpretation.

Many churches do not allow for such alternative interpretations however, and sometimes with good reason. The problem is, however, that it creates the types of divisions you mention Nils, and it labels "us" and "them". To find common ground is to accept that partial truth is good enough, OR, it is to accept that their divergent beliefs may in fact somehow be true: this is wholly unacceptable to most religions however, because as I mentioned - they believe that they hold the "complete" truth, and therefore any alternative interpretations MUST by definition be false, and since errors are the result of sin and sin the result of the devil's influence, these poor deviant "unbelievers" are the devil's pawns in a war to draw you away from God.

How did I do?

Nils Bergeson said...

I am very happy to have received so many comments this week. It is almost as if you all were preparing for tomorrow's post, which I hope you will enjoy.

bmillios - One thing I wish to address in the future is how "The Church" is defined, and what people are referring to when they call it true, false, or anything else. I would be interested in knowing how you and others would specifically define "The Church."

tobyo - On the same note, it would be interesting to know how one goes about separating official church doctrine received via revelation and anything else that gets thrown into the Mormon basket. Obviously some things can be considered important for everybody, and other things are just a common cultural reaction to interpretation of doctrines. Would you agree with this?
P.S. I am going to post a picture with you in it tomorrow. I hope you won't sue me.

Mihaela - It is great to hear from you and we are very happy to have your participate. Not only do you add a much needed non-Mormon perspective, you give us the international perspective which, in my opinion, makes everything better. I really like your point as to how people have invested so much in their beliefs. I think part of human nature is turning our interests and beliefs into narrow positions which may close off possibilities for others to enjoy the same benefits that we do.

Lambson - It is great to have you here participating. Since I am very familiar with you and many of your Mormon perspectives, as well as your blog savvy-ness, I know you will be a great asset to the ongoing discussion.
You bring up a very important point about neutrality and its place, or lack thereof, in the Mormon world. I love Switzerland, and for those of you who are not familiar with my social and political beliefs, I consider myself to be a staunch moderate. I think that middle point in the pendulum which dictates the view of humanity is the greatest measure of what is best for a given group, and those feelings spill over into my religious beliefs as well. Hopefully this next post will continue this discussion, and I look forward to hearing your take on it.

Tyson - Welcome to you as well! I am glad to have another good friend participating. I like your approach to personal perspective in contextualizing the Gospel to each life. There is a strong element of centralization and community-based standard in the Church, yet at the same time there is a very important individual aspect as well. We'll definitely talk about this more in the future.

anonymous - Thank you for participating. Just so everybody is aware, we welcome anonymous comments on the website. Since it is still new, many if not all of the participants are people who know me and some even know each other. We'll see how it evolves in the future, but we are happy to have anybody who is interested participate.
That said, you paint a great picture of what both sides are seeing. In the next couple of weeks, I want to try and do the same, showing examples of how or why a church member is reacting the way they do to those who have left, and vice-versa. We'll see how it works out, but continue to contribute your thoughts! Thank you especially for expressing some of your thoughts as to the solutions to the situation.

Janet (aka Mom) - I am very happy to have your bilingual thoughts on the site. You bring up a great point as to the encouragement to repeat testimonies over and over again, almost as if there is something they are trying to convince the members. I think in part this is an accurate assessment. It is normal for any church member to be unsure about the Gospel, and you could say that the only way to really know of its truth is to be in the thick of it, including verbally expressing their faith. Of course, I can see it from the other point of view too, that perhaps it is trying to compensate for something. I guess it is up to each individual to determine for themselves.
Anyway, polarization is the theme of tomorrow's article, I look forward to hearing your thoughts and those of others in response to your question.

Jacob - I really, really like your comments. I mean it. You explain it so great in the way that the culture of religion so often separates people into "us" and "them" as you point out, rather than "we." During my own religious studies this morning, I was reading about the Mormon concept of "Zion" or "Sion." Many people interpret this to be a geographical location, but I don't think this is the case. Zion is where people are of "one heart and one mind." They are unified, yet accepting of their collective diversity. You just gave me a great idea for a future point. Stick around, it will be great to have your perspective.

Thanks again to everybody! I enjoy being able to comment on each of your comments individually, and hopefully will be able to continue to do so (unless you grow in number too much...I guess only time will tell).

Have a great weekend, and enjoy tomorrow's post!

Emily and Nils said...

Hmmm... Interesting discussion all around. Janet brought up an interesting perspective to Fast and Testimony meeting. I have sat in many a fast and testimony meetings feeling nothing close to the Spirit, but other times, knowing without a doubt that there is a God... and that he loves me. But I learn that no matter where I am! The question about sharing it in public... as if to stand on a podium and announce to everyone what we believe... why do we do that?

Ya know, I think a lot of this is really for us, for the person up there speaking. Others may indirectly benefit, but there's something about saying out loud in front of everyone what it is I really believe. It forces me to solidify to myself and represent to others who I am, why I do what I do... why I'm "here".

But by "testifying" to others what I believe isn't necessarily to convince them that THEY should also believe, but to share with them something about me. Egocentric, yes... but it opens the door to relate to each other. Often we're too afraid to talk about religion because other people (and yes, we have too) have already defined the "us" and "them" that Jake mentioned. But when you're open you're ready to share, and to listen... not to convert. Conversion only comes from within a person, and nothing external can force that to happen. That's the whole reason for agency... Each of us taking ownership of what we believe. There is the whole world around us, people, life... that helps encourage us to question, and to learn. But it's still ultimately up to us what we decide how to live and what to believe.

I liked what Michaela said too... she is also talking about opening... opening up to listening to others, not just to determine if it is true or false, but to learn what others are all about. The variety of religions prove that things aren't as "self-evident" as we would like them to be. As Toby mentioned... so much of what we believe is tied to our salvation. And the after-life is taken very seriously. It's hard to separate perceived cultural religion, and religious principles.

It's kinda like the bridge in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusades" (yes... I'm using a movie, but so what.) You remember the bridge, the one that Indy has to cross but can't see. The principle being taught in that case is faith. Take that leap of faith and there is something supporting you. (You could probably draw several other principles of this "invisible bridge") But what I'd like to use this for is to represent the existance of an invisible bridge between all of these polarized groups... a bridge of common principles, common ethics. It's just that we refuse to see it... refuse to reach across and relate to those who are different. Why? Because we're afraid it might mean that we are wrong... that what we've believed all of our lives is not as true as we thought. But that makes an assumption that each of these groups must be mutually exclusive. But truth isn't something you can monopolize, is it?

-Emily

Jacob said...

I see that this is quite late in the game to post this - but I think that the whole sub-thread of public declarations of faith is interesting. You know, the bible includes a story (forgive my bible-rustiness and lack of citation here) comparing the worship routines of a poor man and a teacher of the law. The teacher of the law could be seen at the front of the church, proclaiming loudly his faith and whatnot, while the poor man sat in the back of the church praying silently. The moral was, don't be boastful, and don't go to church to be seen and to be heard. (unless you're the preacher)

There is a similar sort of declaration given in Lutheran church services, namely one of the creeds (Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed etc), during which churchgoers stand and recite this passage out loud affirming the faith. Interesting.

That all being said, there is merit in the arguments made above my Emily and others in support of such public affirmations.

An unfortunate side effect of these types of exhortations however, is that if an individual in attendance feels unsure about one particular aspect, sentence, whatever... or perhaps the person isn't entirely aware of what they're saying, that person will still feel compelled to recite the lines, in an effort to not stand out.

Thoughts? (I know, I'm late)

Emily Bergeson said...

So interesting... I have to comment on what Jake brought up. First, I'd like to describe how an LDS testimony meeting typically goes (ones I have experienced anyway) to provide an opportunity for comparisons. I have attended some other religious services but am not familiar with the style Jake referred to... so I'll try to stick to commenting only on what I know.

Testimony meetings are once a month. In most cases it's on the first Sunday of the month when all the members are invited to fast. Fasting (no food or drink for two consecutive meals) is optional and up to the individual based on health and other factors. It's a personal time to reflect, pray, and ask for help for one's self or for someone else. (This can be done whether you're physically fasting or spiritually fasting... meaning, you can still participate even if you need to eat.) During the Sunday services, this day is set aside for members to express their thoughts and feelings, mostly regarding their faith in God/Christ/Living prophets, etc. This might also include lessons learned, experiences, or a culmination of a long personal journey. It's a time to share with each other and thank God publicly. Having experienced this myself many times, it's amazing the feeling of saying something for all to hear, and not being ashamed.

A note needs to be inserted here regarding something Janet brought up. While I'm addressing the formal fast and testimony meeting, there are other opportunities members are invited to give their testimony. For example, members are often called to give lessons, give talks, teach a class, etc. and often at the conclusion of each of these, the member will also add their own personal testimony. For me, I see it as the person putting their stamp on it... like "yes, I agree with what I've just told you." But as in all things, the value of it is equal to how meaningful it's given. Sometimes it's meaningful, and sometimes it's simply out of habit. We have to constantly work to mean everything we say... and that is a process in and of itself. These opportunities give us practice.

Now addressing the question as to whether people feel pressured, or if this kind of thing can easily become a competition... like all good things this too is up to the individual's interpretation and can sometimes be misunderstood or mis-used. But the integrity of hearing someone's honest testimony is valuable to those yearning for something. I have frequently been touched by the testimony shared by others, and have felt my own increase. But of course, this doesn't happen all the time. I have found myself being critical of the testimonies of others. Recalling that time when I was judging the testimonies of others(yes, I'm quite ashamed), I learned an important lesson. I realized that each person is on a different part of their "belief journey". They may be discovering they don't believe in the same things anymore, they may be discovering that their faith is becoming stronger... they may have just experienced something that changed them so completely... it all varies. And for each of us, as we listen, we are also analyzing ourselves.... "What that person just said... Do I believe that too? Can I say that I agree?" It's a chance to evaluate what we truly believe. For those who change faiths or turn away from old beliefs ... it's a personal journey they're on. It's an important part of this life to make these decisions personally. As we listen we get an opportunity to do self-analysis... or as we do the sharing, we get to "try it on". Does what we're saying really fit with how we're feeling/believing?

It does take a balance, but it is important to express things to each other, even at the risk of making mistakes. We don't recite creeds (though I'd be interested to learn more...), so whatever someone says in their testimony we're trusting them to be things they indeed believe since there is no official script. Of course, "scripts" do get developed whether we like it or
not. But again, this depends on where we are on our "belief journey"...

Some of our church leaders have recently spoken on this topic in which they had to remind members the purpose of bearing testimonies. If you're interested, let me know.

Man, Nils... I never intend to be this long-winded... sorry :)

Nils Bergeson said...

Sorry for anybody who got e-mailed that last comment that was anonymously made. I deleted it, but I apologize if it got to your inboxes somehow (thanks Emily for drawing it to my attention).

It doesn't happen often, but every once in a while someone comes along and decides to show their lack of intelligence and civility. Thanks to all of you who make useful contributions!