- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A few weeks ago, I was sitting in church and I had a thought. What if I were to liken the church to an isolated aboriginal tribe?
The inroads of the outside world threaten the cultural identity. They provide foreign and alternative ways of thinking and experiencing the world. They do not include reverence for the old ways, stories, and founding legends/myths. Worse still is that these outside influences are the most alluring to the young, slowly robbing the tribe of its future by stealing its children.
Would not the plight of the tribal leaders be one deserving of sympathy?
How is the situation in the LDS church at this time similar? How is it different?
Timing. A few weeks ago I was reading about aboriginal people, except I wasn’t sitting at church. I was browsing lol cats and you know how the internet goes, pretty soon I was reading all about “uncontacted peoples,” in particular the Sentinelese peopleThe Sentinelese people don’t quite fit your analogy so this is a little off topic. They probably fit BY’s isolated Utah Mormonism better. To this day no one knows anything about the Sentinelese people, they appear to have defaulted to that aspect of human nature that has us fear things we don’t know, they get a little violent whenever people show up, so much so that the world has adopted a “you know what, you guys look busy so we’re going to leave you to it” attitude.
I guess one takeaway is the only way to maintain a perfectly pure cultural identity is to take drastic measures, scare people off or lock up your kids. It helps if geography is on your side. Go all in and create
The VillageThe Amish and Mennonite rumspringa also comes to mind. The rumspringa seems to be a nice compromise, allowing youth to experience something different and giving them an opportunity to make a choice. Of course the cultural upbringing itself can have a large influence on the decision.
Roy wrote:Would not the plight of the tribal leaders be one deserving of sympathy?
For sure but one has to wonder whether the youth should be more free to develop and own their own culture. It’s the “my dad was a doctor, I’m a doctor, you’re going to grow up to be a doctor” problem. Being a doctor isn’t bad but who owns the decision, the parent or their child? At what point is it okay for the child be who they want to be and not what someone else is urging them to be?
It does deserve empathy though. There’s also the argument that as the world becomes smaller and smaller it loses some of its magic because unique cultural identities get swallowed up as people become more interconnected. We’re saddened when a language or culture goes extinct.
Side note. What if we revisit this fear of the unknown concept. As the world becomes more interconnected we may lose cultures and languages but we gain knowledge of each other and reduce some of our fears. Is it worth the trade off?
I’m not saying this is my answer but the division of peoples and the creation of languages after the tower of Babel is presented as a curse. Is the opposite true, is the unification of would cultures and languages a blessing?
Roy wrote:How is the situation in the LDS church at this time similar? How is it different?
One key difference. Most isolated aboriginal tribes don’t have their own flavor of Manifest Destiny, they want to stay isolated. The missionary arm of the church would ask others to forsake the cultures of their fathers. Having a missionary department all but makes it impossible to be isolationist.
It is similar in that there is cultural drift and it really peeves the older generation/doctrinal purists. I don’t know that it can be avoided or I don’t know that we’d want to do the types of things to make sure it does not happen. There’s no more isolated frontier. If you wanted isolationism you’d probably have to have some huge semiannual event where you warned the youth of the dangers of the internet or something.
:angel: Roy wrote:The inroads of the outside world threaten the cultural identity. They provide foreign and alternative ways of thinking and experiencing the world. They do not include reverence for the old ways, stories, and founding legends/myths. Worse still is that these outside influences are the most alluring to the young, slowly robbing the tribe of its future by stealing its children.
There’s an article in the October Ensign: “5 Ways to Help Youth Tackle Tough Social Issues.”
Quote:Our youth need to develop more confidence in the gospel than they have in pop culture, the media, and academic philosophies.
If anyone has the article handy, I would love to know what you think. I’m not seeing the text online yet.Problem is, I don’t think my kids perceive themselves as placing their trust in pop culture. They think they’re extrapolating from the core teachings of the gospel. “I am a child of God,” and all that that entails. So constantly waiving them off and talking about The World and Satan’s lies doesn’t resonate with them.
Plus, they don’t particularly concern themselves with the large group, the culture, the church as a whole. They want to do the right thing in the only arena they can control – their personal conduct.
I do think about the plight of the tribal leaders. They have worked hard and sacrificed much for their children.
Roy wrote:Would not the plight of the tribal leaders be one deserving of sympathy?
It depends on whether you believe that being a part of the tribe is good for society or not.I attended a Community of Christ service recently, and it was filled with old ladies mostly.
Yes, I had sympathy for their dying church.
No, that didn’t make me want to join it.
I also don’t attend pointless work meetings or seminars just so that the meeting organizer can fill happier about how many people were in his meeting.
But to answer what I think your real question is… “Is maintaining your own cultural identity important?” I would say, yes. I no longer believe the church is the one true church, but I’m a Mormon and always will be one, and I believe I can identify as a Mormon and be a part of the tribe regardless of what I believe. Even if I stop attending, or even get excommunicated (very unlikely), I’m the one who gets to decide whether I’m a Mormon or not. I feel no sympathy for any group — the exchange of ideas with the culture and the outside world is inevitable for just about any organization or belief system. And in some cases (as with the lifting of the priesthood ban), the outside influences can correct wrongs that have plagued the organization for years. When I attend a meeting, and it is filled only with old people, that shows me the religion has not met the needs of the youth and younger generations. It’s not a cause for sympathy in my view — it’s evidence the older generation has not listened to, or observed what is happening to their youth. And they have not made their religion practical and relevant to the issues the younger generation face. It means the organization has become insular and unresponsive to the needs of its members – except the older ones.
I do think our emphasis on missions is good for the younger generation. It breeds commitment later in life. It gives a kind of greenhouse experience where you can progress spirituality and quickly. And it can set a foundation for the rest of your life. I’d rather we didn’t have the stigmas associated with staying home, or getting sent home early, but that, I guess is part of what encourages youth to go.
Also, if you analyze this a different way — do you want to stay the same, personally, as you get older? Shouldn’t experience and interaction with the outside world change you for the better? Shouldn’t open-mindedeness lead to experimentation and then discovery of ideas, values, and practices that promote inner change and improvement?
I would think so — unfortunately, our church seems to be a slow learner.
Roy wrote:A few weeks ago, I was sitting in church and I had a thought…What if I were to liken the church to an isolated aboriginal tribe?…
The inroads of the outside world threaten the cultural identity.They provide foreign and alternative ways of thinking and experiencing the world. They do not include reverence for the old ways, stories, and founding legends/myths. Worse still is that these outside influences are the most alluring to the young, slowly robbing the tribe of its future by stealing its children… Would not the plight of the tribal leaders be one deserving of sympathy?…How is the situation in the LDS church at this time similar? How is it different?Yes, it is similar to this example in that LDS Mormonism is not just another religion that preaches its own set of doctrines, it is a also a lifestyle currently geared around maintaining established LDS traditions and a distinct cultural identity separate from the outside world. In fact, the LDS Church reminds me of the Amish in terms of the level of stubborn insistence on continuing to do things the same way we always have no matter how much at odds with the outside world it becomes.
Of course, one obvious difference is that the LDS have already accepted and incorporated elements of the modern culture in most cases and it is only a specific handful of traditions such as the WoW, strict chastity rules, garments/modesty, etc. that directly conflict with the mainstream culture in a noticeable way and some of the other traditions and teachings are already largely compatible with the modern mainstream culture (you don’t really need to choose between the two). No, I don’t feel bad about the fact that it looks like some of these LDS traditions are becoming increasingly difficult to sell nowadays; the way I see it traditions should generally survive or be phased out based on their own merits in terms of the actual value they provide and how well they compete with the alternatives or not rather than simply out of habit, fear of the unknown, nostalgia about the good old days, etc.
If the question is whether we should try to preserve our cultural identity the answer is a resounding “yes”. Not because I think it’s wholly inspired or true, only because it’s good “business”. If I were a leader in the church, I would be conscerned about membership growth, and such growth comes from having a distinct mission and culture from other religions. Basic business strategy says that when entities become too much like everyone else, crisper missions and doctrine and culture chips away at the edges of the membership, eventually leaving the company with nothing special to attract new members, or retain existing ones. In our case, we do have unique doctrine, our mission is somewhat unique with its emphasis on redeeming the dead, and we have some unique cultural values. Plus, we have some unique practices like WoW, temple marriage, garments, the Godhead,and Plan of Salvation etcetera. I think these things help us attract new people because they explain a lot of things other religions don’t.
But our history is a major, major drag on the ticket. And the way we work our best people into the ground, without much appreciation, and a “taking for granted” attitude is a major detractor. I wish I could be enthusiastic about encouraging others to get into our religion again, but these latter deficits prevent it. Unique needs to be garnished with consonance of history with our values, and evidence of interpersonal fruits between leaders and members to work — latter two are missing which hurts us.
I appreciate everyone’s comment that have brought new insights and perspectives to this idea. I suppose mainly I was thinking that this comparison might make me seem less like I was “lied to”. The church leaders ran the church the way that they did for 3 reasons:
1) That is the information, heritage, and culture that they were brought up with.
2) They are unquestioningly loyal to the cause of the church (including church retention and growth efforts) and believe it to be the kingdom of God on the earth.
3) They really do believe that it is in the best interest of everyone to stay tethered to the church come hell or high water. It is their firm conviction that your salvation and eternal happiness hangs in the balance.
Therefore if they had to obscure some unsavory facts to prevent impressionable youth from freaking out and ruining their eternal futures by jumping ship then it was for the greater good of everyone involved in the long run.
It just seems more humanizing – less calculating – when I look at it from the lens of another people or culture. These are not snake oil salesmen, they are community leaders doing what they believe to be right.
I like that summary, Roy – maybe because it matches my own view. 
I think there is a healthy tension between tradition and what we believe to be true and safe from teachings of the past, and culture of our day and the needs to develop and grow in the world we live in. I think it is taught in the allegory of Jacob Chapter 5. Both are good in some ways, the tension is often needed between the two, not one or the other. The middle way is balance.
Out of balance, and to the extreme of one or the other and naturally there will be consequence.
The church can get slightly off balance, and course correct as it has for over 150 years. The best organizations do that to sustain themselves over time.
Cultural identities can change over time also. We identify with what we want to keep, not with everything in the past.
There are many extremes in your hypothetical allegory in the OP, Roy. I think I get your message, but don’t care as much on sympathy for the elders, or the vibrance of youth, as simply having the tribe support and teach truth. Truth is relevant.
Our church embraces many good things and tries to maintain a heritage of pride and also an image the world can accept, so we can be relevant to people.
I think the tension is there, and causes us to have the discussion. And God watches us discuss.
SilentDawning wrote:If the question is whether we should try to preserve our cultural identity
the answer is a resounding “yes”. Not because I think it’s wholly inspired or true, only because it’s good “business”.If I were a leader in the church, I would be conscerned about membership growth, and such growth comes from having a distinct mission and culture from other religions.Basic business strategy says that when entities become too much like everyone else, crisper missions and doctrine and culture chips away at the edges of the membership, eventually leaving the company with nothing special to attract new members, or retain existing ones…In our case, we do have unique doctrine…and we have some unique cultural values. Plus, we have some unique practices like WoW, temple marriage, garments, the Godhead,and Plan of Salvation etcetera. I think these things help us attract new people because they explain a lot of things other religions don’t…But our history is a major, major drag on the ticket. Personally I think the WoW could actually be the single biggest deal-breaker that has limited the Church’s growth so far even more than lack of testimony. Historical issues on the internet get a lot of attention on DAMU and ex-Mormon websites and are a more recent challenge for the Church but the WoW was already excluding and alienating large numbers of members and investigators for decades before the internet was around. Here in Utah I can’t count the number of people that were raised Mormon that no longer want to have anything to do with the Church and it looks like the WoW is one of the most common reasons why.
And on my mission even when people were actually interested in joining the Church it was typically no small hassle to try to get them to give up coffee, drinking, and/or smoking and even if they were baptized many of them ended up returning to their old habits fairly quickly anyway. Also, I don’t believe the Church is actually directly competing with other churches in most cases at this point as much as a simple lack of interest in organized religion in general so if people associate church with being told what to do, judgmental attitudes, not being free to make their own choices, etc. then it won’t necessarily help sell them on the idea of it. That’s why to me it looks like it is mostly about upholding tradition at all costs rather than a case of current leaders ever seriously trying to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining strict rules like this.
Heber13 wrote:There are many extremes in your hypothetical allegory in the OP, Roy. I think I get your message, but don’t care as much on sympathy for the elders, or the vibrance of youth, as simply having the tribe support and teach truth. Truth is relevant. Our church embraces many good things and tries to maintain a heritage of pride and also an image the world can accept, so we can be relevant to people.
Thank you for pointing that out. I have worked with many native tribes and see the effort that goes in to perpetuating that old stories, traditions, and languages.
One big difference with the LDS church is that these old stories and traditions (of the tribes) are not taught as literal truth. When Spilyay the trickster coyote battles a devouring monster to birth the world we have now, it is not understood as being a literal truth. That, I believe is a big part of why people feel so deceived when they discover the messiness. They were taught that what they had was unchanging truth.
Roy wrote:It just seems more humanizing – less calculating – when I look at it from the lens of another people or culture. These are not snake oil salesmen, they are community leaders doing what they believe to be right.
My own MIL sends copies of ensign articles and conference bingo – etc. It feels somewhat manipulative. Why not just have a regular relationship with us rather than making the church the centerpiece of our communication. I am trying to extend the same charity towards her as I talk about in this post. She is simply a matriarch trying to do what she feels to be right. For some reason it is harder though. It is more personal and has deeper emotions tied into it.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Personally I think the WoW could actually be the single biggest deal-breaker that has limited the Church’s growth so far even more than lack of testimony.
I think I would agree but also put tithing as second. But I think the gap between that and other issues is shrinking. Issues such as the treatment of gays and women along with historical issues are closing the gap.Roy wrote:One big difference with the LDS church is that these old stories and traditions (of the tribes) are not taught as literal truth. When Spilyay the trickster coyote battles a devouring monster to birth the world we have now, it is not understood as being a literal truth. That, I believe is a big part of why people feel so deceived when they discover the messiness. They were taught that what they had was unchanging truth.
I feel it runs deeper than a story being taught as literal truth. We are conditioned to believe that there are unchanging truths because we believe that god is perfect and therefore unchanging. What we believe about the stories often reflects the way we view god.
I think I missed the point of the OP but our concept of god has evolved over the course of human history. Mormonism is a product of an ever evolving concept of the nature of god and I feel that Mormonism will continue to evolve if it is to remain relevant. The elders may not like it but such is the nature of all living things. The youth of today are the elders of tomorrow and the elders of today are forgotten in time.
Quote:It just seems more humanizing – less calculating – when I look at it from the lens of another people or culture. These are not snake oil salesmen, they are community leaders doing what they believe to be right.
Beliefs that evolved in one climate might not fair well in a different environment. Beliefs adapt or they become extinct. It’s not so much deceit as its the natural order of things, change and how people react to it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.