- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In a recent article in the Deseret News that updated census information on the fastest growing churches, and/or religions in the United States, the article highlighted the fact that the Church has a hard time relating to or appealing to the working class. I was pondering this issue and wondering why? A big reason for this pondering is the fact that I was raised in a working class home. My father often had to work weekends, including Sunday; working well over 50 hours a week to provide for a large family. When he wasn’t working on Sundays he would sleep more than half the day due to exhaustion. My father is a very staunch member of the church with a strong testimony, yet he probably worked more than 50% of the Sundays in his twenty years of work as a blue collar worker.
I was pondering this further and I thought: “wow the church is really losing the battle for souls.” The article stated that many members of the church are white collar, well educated elites. Obviously there is a social disconnect between working class and the elites. Such a disparity must be driven by Eternal progression and such advancement in this world, so we can be ahead in the next (see D&C 130: 18-19).
I have two proposals:
(1) Relative to my reactivation efforts, such efforts that I am undertaking now mainly consist of individuals who are working class and have to work often on Sundays.
Solution 1:Have working class branches that meet on Thursdays or a day during the week where such people could have at least one meeting to have a gospel class and take the sacrament just like the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve do during the week. To make this succeed make such people able to take charge of their own meetings, perhaps with a High Council rep, or someone in the ward to oversee such activity. (2) When giving a church calling to a working class member, pay them minimum wage. Positions such as nursery leader during the week, when primary was during the week, were paid positions just like CES workers that are full-time are paid.
Problem:Working class people don’t want to go to work on their day-off (if they do get Sundays off). Working class people have busted their rear-ends all week and then are told to “work” in a Church calling. Do we totally forget human nature in the church and that people are people, so then why do we isolated people further by giving them a calling-and quickly see them stop coming to church because we are telling them to work on what could be their only day off? Solution 2 (b) Don’t give people a church calling where it is such a sacrifice for them to be at Church on Sunday.
Overall, it seems that the working class may not feel comfortable at a Church that is full of elitists for other reasons such as the whole pride issue that is documented (see Alma 32:2-3), where the poor were actually cast out of their synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel. I find it quite ironic that it is suggested that a working class males (along with all males in the church) should actually wear a “white” shirt to church. White collar, white shirt?
Perhaps the language of the learned is another issue. There are very articulate individuals in my ward, I even had people in my gospel principles class ask me: “What do you mean by that.” I then have to restate what I said in casual, everyday vernacular that makes sense. Even the “white collar” people and the blue collar people have different ways of speaking, and understanding each other. This could also be another cultural barrier.
Perhaps to show my support for the working class I will wear blue shirts to church from now on. I better go buy some more blue shirts, I only have one.
IMHO a step in the right direction might be to reconsider those “men in black” costumes that the missionaries wear. I don’t know anywhere in the world….ok…maybe Utah or at a funeral…where that is considered proper attire anymore. Especially in a working class environment.
Who thinks this stuff up? Let’s see….we want to attract people to our religion….I know…..lets dress young men up in business suits and send them out on bicycles. Really?
yep. In order to be an obedient faithful orthodox male member, you will need to look like a lawyer, business executive, politician. Yeah? Who comes up with these ideas? God?
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
It seems to me that the Church has made some marketing decisions in its missionary efforts: it has decided to appeal to conservative, educated, white-collar business-type people. It also looks to me like the Church’s upper leadership is getting a little more ethnically diverse while simultaneously getting more occupationally homogenous. The First Pres./Quorum of the 12 has 4 graduates from the Harvard Business School and 3 in the Q12 are lawyers. There are no scientists, theologians, musicians, entertainers, or historians. There are a few educators, one doctor, one engineer, and one pilot. All of them are white, and only one is not American. The Church’s recent efforts to market itself as diverse (with such things as the “I’m a Mormon” campaign) have in my view been undermined by decisions to maintain a remarkably homogenous leadership of white American businessmen and lawyers. And the missionaries (of which I was one) are dressed as miniature businessmen. It’s almost like the Church is trying to stay “on message.” The message is that Mormons are socially and financially successful and prosperous, which is what Max Weber described in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Sprit of Capitalism.The trouble with this is that people who don’t respond well to that specific message or do not fit into that occupational mold do not respond as readily to the missionary effort. So I don’t think that the Church will make an effort to reach out to the working class because that would be “off message.” I think that the Church may be shooting itself in the foot by being a little too narrow in its marketing efforts.
I don’t agree that the church doesn’t appeal to the “working class” or blue collar segment of society. I joined the church while working on the assembly line at a GM plant.
My FIL was a tool & die maker plus, a BP.
His cousin was a dairy farmer in Utah & a SP.
The Bishop of my ward was a Policeman.
Many members are teachers. (Grade school & High school)
We have in our Stake with an intercity branch with working class members.
Your perception probably depends on where you live & your personal experiences & observations.
I think it’s unfair to make a generalization like that.
I think the church is trying to make an effort to appeal to all segments of society.
Consider the humanitarian programs & who they try to serve.
Mike from Milton.
It is a broad statement. But it certainly makes it harder. I can think of 1000s of people I personally ment that can’t and don’t relate to anyone wearing a suit. I can think of others that don’t have that problem. It depends on te area and the disparity between the jobs and society. But the number of people who see yet even more work on top of the physically demanding jobs they have is likely in the 10s of millions just inside the USA. I currently live in a place were people who are in business suits are “out of touch” or seen as elitist and thus they generally don’t listen to anyone wearing a suit or buisnessmen, lawyer types and they are just over a millliin people in yhis area that think like that that(probably way more).I didn’t grow up in a area like that though. My middle class white collar father struggled himself to make ends meet. Working 60 hour weeks most weeks for years with another 20-30 every year I lived with him in church callings. I almost never saw my dad on the weekdays. A few hours on the weekends running errands. It made my mom very upset. She often told my dad to go to the bishopric and tell them he didn’t have the time, that he needed time with his family. He expressed fear to my mom in doing so. He was right. He was only reprimanded for asking to “shirk” his priesthood responsibility. He came home depressed. He felt anger from my mom for not being home hardly ever after work doing church work and a ger from the bishopric for asking to spend more time with the family(which ment not holding his callings or at least the usual 2 or 3 they gave him). This went on for most my life. A never ending cycle. Who wants to live like that? Who wants to spend all thier lives working and nothing else? I on the other hand work a blue collar job often lifting 70-100lbs boxes throughout the day in large quantities. Working in average of 60 hour weeks and as high as 80 during the holidays. I am completely exhausted many days. Sit in my chair type a message to my fiancé and pass out in it before I even pushed send. Not all days but many. Now that I am older(38) with arthritis I is hard to wake up in the morning in time to go to my designated church service. I am often late and tired when I get there. It’s hard. I don’t know how much longer I can keep it up. All I do is my best and see where it leads me. I feel bad when I can’t even finish my visiting teaching and reprimanded for doing so but what else can I do? I continually push my body way past the breaking point in trying to meet my responsibilities just like my father. But it is not “enough” for the church. What is a guy to do? What can we do? The spirit tells me to just do my best. Which I do. But that is not enough for the church it seems. It seems we have minimum basics asked of us and when we can’t meet those because of our situation we are rebuked. What is a guy do when he gives all he can every week but it’s still not enough for the brethern? I don’t know. I continue to do my best for as long as my body allows me but it is shrinking now as my body ages. My body can no longer do all that is asked of it from work and church. My fiancé rightfully expects me to be a active father when we’re married but I have no solutions yet. There is a difference between those who have been in the Church for at least a couple of generations and those who convert personally. The LDS Church actually does very well with the middle class when it comes to conversion. It also does very well, generally, in producing white collar workers after two or three generations. That is both good and problematic, but I think the distinction needs to be made in a discussion like this, since not doing so leads to stereotypical conclusions that simply aren’t accurate.
Old-Timer wrote:There is a difference between those who have been in the Church for at least a couple of generations and those who convert personally.
The LDS Church actually does very well with the middle class when it comes to conversion. It also does very well, generally, in producing white collar workers after two or three generations. That is both good and problematic, but I think the distinction needs to be made in a discussion like this, since not doing so leads to stereotypical conclusions that simply aren’t accurate.
What is the point of expecting every male to wear a white shirt?
What is the goal? What is the appeal? WHAT IS THE MESSAGE?
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I now see the uniform dress as similar to the dress code at a corporation. Ours is rather systemized in the culture due to strong empahsis over the years. But it sends a consistent message of reverence, and a brand….I see this as an outgrowth of the corporatism we see in the leadership of our church. Rather than criticize or buck it, I personally don’t buy into it all the time and seek to create a culture in our quorum and our ward where others feel comfortable being themselves. I do enough white shirt wearing to maintain a sense of acceptance in our religion, but I will often wear a blue shirt, a green shirt, and once, even taught a lesson in a flowered shirt and jeans and sneakers to make a point about the need NOT to be judgmental of how people dress.
I also show great acceptance of others who do not dress to conformity — such as making comments “its great to see someone who appears to think like me, that you can wear a blue shirt and look presentable in our church”…I only say it when I’m dressed the same way so it isn’t taken wrong. I take opportunities to educate members about the negative effects of expecting conformity — particularly of new members, who people who look like they’ve been up all night in my role as a teacher.
These are my sources of engagement at church now — to change attitudes, which I hope makes the church better, more diverse etcetera. It takes thinking and judgment to do it in such a way that you maintain influence with others, — rocking the boat, without sinking the ship.
Mike wrote Quote:I don’t agree that the church doesn’t appeal to the “working class” or blue collar segment of society.
I joined the church while working on the assembly line at a GM plant.
Mike I think that is great that it was that way where you lived. I was just looking at the big picture on an article that was published on Sunday, May 13, 2012 in the Deseret News’ Faith section, titled: “Muslims, LDS are fastest-growing religious groups in the U.S.” by Joseph Walker.
The author quotes Dr. Marie Cornwall, a professor of Sociology at BYU, who states, “We’ve never really appealed to the blue-collar industrial demographic. These are the same people that Mitt Romney can’t seem to impress.”
So, yes I overgeneralized it to all working class people. It is more focused on the blue-collar industrial demographic.
cwald, first, I’ve said many times in multiple threads that I don’t support the idea of a white shirt and tie (and suit coat) as “the uniform of the Priesthood”. I think that is Pharisaical and actually in opposition to the principle Elder Holland taught when dealing with the desire to emphasize the sacrament as an ordinance related directly to baptism. I can accept that principle while totally rejecting the misapplication of it to other, non-ordinance-related situations. However, that isn’t the point of the post. The post asks about appealing to different socio-economic classes, and it’s basically indisputable that the LDS Church actually is appealing to “the working class” when it comes to convert baptisms – especially world-wide and not just in the USA. So, the short answer is: Yes, the Church will appeal to the working class- because is already is.
As to the question of white shirts, there is a HUGE difference between encouraging men to wear white shirts and ties to church as part of their worship experience, which the Church does do (even though, again, I don’t support that movement separate from the administration of the sacrament) and encouraging men to wear white shirts and ties outside of “religious” situations, which the Church does not do. I’ve never once, in my entire life, heard someone criticized for working a job that requires something other than tie and suit. Literally, I haven’t heard it once. I know lots of Bishops and Branch Presidents and Stake Presidents and EQ Presidents and HPG Leaders, etc. who are “working class” and who wouldn’t dream of wearing a white shirt and tie outside of their church-related responsibilities – and these are as orthodox members as exist.
White shirts and ties are cultural. I get that. However, that emphasis isn’t designed to drive people out of “the working class”. It’s designed to model visual respect and cultural expression of reverence – to be that culture’s understanding of “Sunday best” – something different than the rest of the week. It’s designed to be a symbol / token of a “holy day” – and shirt and tie (and suit coat) is the modern, Western equivalent of “holy garb” available to lay members who, up until the last few decades, were predominantly agricultural workers, miners or laborers of some other kind. Leaving one’s “work clothes” at home on Sunday and making the Sabbath a sacred day of rest was an important visual aspect of discipleship – and that meant “dressing up” to do so.
It only seems different now because the top leadership dresses like that as a matter of course – but many local leaders don’t, so, even for them, that aspect of “worship” still exists and is important. Fundamentally, I believe it still is about “keeping the Sabbath day holy” (and setting aside a say that is different than the rest of the days) – and the exact nature of how that is manifested in dress is the cultural expression of the principle. For that reason, specifically, the Church leadership opposes the movement to make church dress more casual, imo. It’s not about class in their minds; it’s about devaluing the Sabbath as a distinctly, obviously different and special day.
Yes, the exact specifications of dress are cultural, but the concept itself is not.
that is fine Ray, but my point in bringing up white shirts does relate to OP. If the church is trying to appeal to blue collar working class, why do they send the message that all men should appear as if they are businesses executives, politicians and lawyers in order to worship? Are they somehow more righteous than the middle class blue collar worker? Please don’t tell me it is all about “reverence.” If that is the case than lets start wearing temple robes. And if it all about reverence than it might be best to quit looking like lawyers and executives and politicians because quite frankly, that is not very reverent and appealing to me as a middle class humble school teacher…IMO…it has come to represent pride, greed and corruption for many MANY of us Gen X folks. I’m tired of it quite frankly.
The white shirt was the common man dress in 30-50s. It was the blue collar mans dress.
That is not the case anymore. Perhaps someone in SLC needs to wake up and realize that we do not live in “the good old days?” And that the perception the church is exuding is that they put more value on lawyers and business executives and politicians, than the average blue collar worker.
I understand the sentiment of the OP. If it is wrong and unfair, than the church has only itself to blame that people see it that way.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
So, cwald, you’re saying that the way the leadership dresses and how it encourages wearing of “Sunday best” represents something different to you and other people than it does to lots of other members. Right? You’re saying the symbolism doesn’t resonate for you and others. Right? I get that (and I respect that), but I hope you also see that it’s not the actual clothing but how you interpret that clothing based on attitudes of specific people wearing it – and, I’d be willing to bet, NOT based on attitudes of lots of other people wearing the exact same type of clothing. You see greed and other negative messages, when, I’d be willing to bet, those messages are nowhere in the collective intents – even subconsciously – of the vast majority of the members who dress for church each Sunday. You’re seeing what you believe – not believing what you see. Again, I respect that – but I can’t ascribe negative motivations to those whom I believe simply are doing and teaching something they believe really is about respect and attitude of worship – even though I see the extension of it as Pharisaical and hedging about the law.
I don’t like the pride I see manifested too often, and I also dislike greatly the mentality that looks down on someone who walks into a Sacrament Meeting in jeans and a t-shirt or shorts and a tank top – but, to me, the answer isn’t to drop all expectations of dress when it comes to Sunday worship. I really do like the principle of setting aside the trappings of our non-Sabbath lives and approaching worship in a completely different manner – of putting on something that means “it’s time to worship” for us. I really don’t like the idea of someone rolling out of bed and casually putting back on the sweaty clothes they wore on Saturday and worshiping in that manner. I know that’s an extreme example, but I generally prefer moderation as an alternative – and, to me, dress slacks and a collared shirt (polo or button-up – tie or not) is a reasonable balance in our American culture. It’s the focus on white shirts for all males in all situations (and the inclusion of suit coats) and the extrapolation of that specific cultural standard onto other cultures that bother me the most – not the existence of a standard in and of itself that might rub some people the wrong way while being highly meaningful to others.
I don’t know if I’ve ever read what exactly you would substitute as a general communal standard – or if you would do away with the entire concept completely. I’m interested sincerely in your take on that, since, frankly, I’d like to read more constructive suggestions from someone I admire as much as you.
cwald wrote:
Please don’t tell me it is all about “reverence.” If that is the case than lets start wearing temple robes. And if it all about reverence than it might be best to quit looking like lawyers and executives and politicians because quite frankly, that is not very reverent and appealing to me as a middle class humble school teacher…IMO…it has come to represent pride, greed and corruption for many MANY of us Gen X folks. I’m tired of it quite frankly.Interesting cognition Cwald. I fully realize the “Sunday Best” code as do a lot of people I know. But you make a fairly accurate summary with generation x and y people about “the suit” symbolism as it is seen through their eyes. It no longer means the symbol of reverence to many of them (including me). But I wear it nonetheless in church to represent my sunday best. A good example was a poor friend I had in my ward. He came to church in brown corduroy pants and simple button shirts. The ward pitched in to buy him suit because they couldn’t stand to see him unwillingly dress” disrespectful” to god, or to them I suppose as well(strong gossip around him and his dress around the ward because of his poorness). I was both happy for the love of the members in the ward to “help” him but also unhappy because of the disdained shown to him in the very same act and with the gossip. I was a close friend of his. He was equally conflicted. But truly was a TBM and had a true lack of pride. I admired him coming to church in what he could, despite the gossip surrounding him and his family. He wore the suit with joy and sadness. I will never forget that.
You may or may not have noticed a huge push away from suits in the generation X and Y who have become entrepreneur in their early age, especially in the California tech sector in response to that view of suits. It is a growing sentiment and they now wear casual or semi casual outfits. I’m not sure where the church fits in with the movement against suits but I know the people that see people with suits as a age old trend or a “threat” against common folk. This view has shifted some of the younger upstarts with those generation and their code of dress that they wear and require at very white collar business now becoming “nonwhite collar”.
I have personally always liked robes (like those worn by Catholic priests, Baptist choirs, and Jedi knights.) I think that they have a much more religious/spiritual tone to them than business suits, and I think it’d be cool if Mormons wore robes to Church. Now that I’ve mentioned robes, the temple robes are not full robes, so they don’t do it for me.
I personally have never been able to see anything especially spiritual or divine about wearing a white shirt with a dark business suit and a conservative tie.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.