- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As I’ve been reading books on groups with unusual lifestyles, it’s become evident that certain doctrines and practices are put in place to serve practical purposes, rather than exemplifying eternal principles. In the LDS religion, I believe that emphasis on eternal family, large family sizes (although not as emphasized in our day, still something many Mormons seem to believe in), the need for all family members to be “saved” if certain members will receive eternal increase, are aimed at a practical purpose — church membership growth.
In the Oneida group I was reading about — the goal seemed to be less about organizational growth, and more about creating a happy, Utopian society based on community versus individuality. They rejected a lot of applications for outsiders’ membership in their community due to new members’ unsuitability, and new members had to prove themselves in probationary periods before they were admitted — to prove they were devout enough. They certainly weren’t working on an “open admissions” policy like the Mormons who have minimal requirements for admission, other than verbal expressions of belief and commitment, and an absence of visible commandment-breaking.
Also, preservation of a happy society seemed very important, and the Oneida’s attitude toward sexual relations supported that goal. For example, everyone was considered married to everyone else — this made “free love” or, its sanitized name “complex marriage” ethically acceptable [did JS have some knowledge of the Oneida?].
If someone wanted intimate relations with someone, they would ask a go-between to ask the person who was the object of the requester’s desires. This person could refuse or accept the invitation. The book I’m reading indicated these requests were rarely refused. I am not sure why, other than perhaps their membership/orientation procedures — these might have tended to attract the right type of person who values community happiness above other more selfish desires. So, everyone tried to accommodate others.
The culture was that anyone who wanted exclusivity with any other member of the opposite sex was being selfish with their love, as the idea was to maximize love and good feelings among the entire community. Individuals with monogamous desires therefore, were considered selfish and acting outside the group’s norms.
This also led to a variety of interesting effects. First, since everyone was a potential sexual partner, and participation in an encounter was voluntary, people were often especially nice to each other during day to day interactions. Women would be very nice to potential male partnerships, and vice versa. There was a norm, however, that men would not ejaculate during the encounter — something which apparently worked in controlling the population — something the Oneida seemed to value.
On the other hand, there were possible deficits to the approach that the Oneida dealt with in their culture. Older males, who generally grow less attractive with age, would likely find it harder to receive consent from younger females. So, the Oneida leadership implemented a system of spiritual advancement in which a person could elevate their spiritual status by coupling with and developing communal relationships with older men, who generally had greater spiritual status in the community. This was presumably due to their spiritual maturity, and the other non-physical abilities that tend to mature and increase with age.
Also, older men were often the first partner of women when women came of age. In order to make the sexual experience satisfying to older women, who may not be as attractive as younger women, the ban on men’s release during intercourse was lifted when a woman who had entered menopause was involved in the relationship.
All this was done with “decency” apparently — people didn’t talk about their encounters, and they dressed modestly. Men dressed as any other man of his time, and women wore their hair in a bob, and wore dresses that were mid shin length, with trousers underneath. The culture was one of bible study and the pursuit of perfection. Members who revealed lecherous or sexual motivations for joining the community were often asked to leave — and sometimes, forced.
Then, you have the Spartans. Their objective was to create a warlike race. And men with wives were less likely to take risks in battle. So, their system was one where when male children reached a certain age (I think it was eight) their parents gave them up to a partnership with a man, usually a young man, who trained them to be warriors. Men only got married later in life if they managed to survive the various wars and battles in which they engaged. Sexually, the Spartans encouraged homosexuality between the male mentors and the boys they lived with since they didnt’ want men growing attached to women at a young age, yet sexual desired needed satisfaction.
You can see the objectives of each religion were different, and from here, their religious and cultural practices developed in alignment with these objectives.
I tend to view Mormonism in much the same way now. The emphasis on missions, eternal family, chastity, strong family culture (much centered on church service), and its threefold mission, including proclaiming the gospel, and stable families (divorce is a cultural no-no) all supports the idea of membership growth. It’s a practical cultural and doctrinal phenomenon, rather than one rooted necessarily in eternal principles (I am agnostic about that last part of that last sentence). I suspect, BY and JS, who started it all, thought deeply about which doctrines and policies would improve the rate of membership growth.
I also wonder that since the recent move allowing younger women to serve missions hasn’t borne proportional fruit in membership growth, if we will see a resurgence in the belief that having a lot of children, and abstaining from birth control is a good thing.
What do you think?
One item that I have heard (and reflected in my “mission field” area that I live in) is that the increase in missionaries has not hardly budged the rate of baptisms – at least not in North America / Europe. Africa on the other hand is greatly increasing. Thanks for the review SD! SilentDawning wrote:The book I’m reading indicated these requests were rarely refused. I am not sure why, other than perhaps their membership/orientation procedures — these might have tended to attract the right type of person who values community happiness above other more selfish desires. So, everyone tried to accommodate others.
I remember seeing a movie about an Amish mother that was having trouble forgiving her children’s murderer. I remember the pressure she faced from the community to forgive. I believe there is always some degree of conflict when individual situations but up against community expectations. In our own community there has been an expectation that one should never reject a calling. Knowing how often people reject callings makes me believe that we are less tighly knit than the Oneida or the Amish or perhaps that we honor agency/individuality more.
SilentDawning wrote:I suspect, BY and JS, who started it all, thought deeply about which doctrines and policies would improve the rate of membership growth.
I disagree on this part. I observe some of the doctrines evolving as the situation required. I see some doctines and policies that seem to have been unsuccessful expiraments that were later discarded (Polygamy, united order, Deseret alphabet) This leads me to doubt a more focused plan in putting forth doctrines and policies in the early days. I see many of the benefits you mention as side effects.
I have said a few times that I believe that the priesthood program is beneficial in that it engages men (especially young men) into the religious community. Starting at 12, the boys have a key role in the communal worship service. There is a graduation of responsibility culminating in missionary service and temple marriage. Many other Christian churches struggle to get males to participate. The whole church experience for them just seems at odds with what they grew up to believe being manly or macho was all about. I see this as an “underlying practicality” of having an all male ley priesthood/leadership even though I do not believe it was originally intended as such.
Quote:
SilentDawning wrote:I suspect, BY and JS, who started it all, thought deeply about which doctrines and policies would improve the rate of membership growth.
I disagree on this part. I observe some of the doctrines evolving as the situation required. I see some doctines and policies that seem to have been unsuccessful expiraments that were later discarded (Polygamy, united order, Deseret alphabet) This leads me to doubt a more focused plan in putting forth doctrines and policies in the early days. I see many of the benefits you mention as side effects.
The reason I disagree with this is because even though these things were unsuccessful, they had to have some purpose behind them. For example, plural marriage was effective in fueling internal population growth through families with strong Mormon culture (only the upper level priesthood holders were allowed to do it). The United Order I see as a way of making the organization attractive to members who could come and have their needs looked after. The Deseret Alphabet would ensure a cultural barrier to assimilation from outside forces.
I also know, from reading Michael Quinn’s extensions of Power book, that the TR was a response to financial problems the church experienced. They tried to get the membership to pay regular, full tithes with quality for a long time, and most methods failed. It was only when they attached temple worthiness, and salvation, to paying, that they saw the results they wanted.
I give BY and JS credit for designing systems and doctrine and policy that would further organizational interests. It is an effective meld of personal salvation with organizational interests that I think is partly responsible for the longevity of Mormonism when other philosophies (Oneida, and Shakers) failed.
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:
SilentDawning wrote:I suspect, BY and JS, who started it all, thought deeply about which doctrines and policies would improve the rate of membership growth.
I disagree on this part. I observe some of the doctrines evolving as the situation required. I see some doctines and policies that seem to have been unsuccessful expiraments that were later discarded (Polygamy, united order, Deseret alphabet) This leads me to doubt a more focused plan in putting forth doctrines and policies in the early days. I see many of the benefits you mention as side effects.
The reason I disagree with this is because even though these things were unsuccessful, they had to have some purpose behind them. For example, plural marriage was effective in fueling internal population growth through families with strong Mormon culture (only the upper level priesthood holders were allowed to do it). The United Order I see as a way of making the organization attractive to members who could come and have their needs looked after. The Deseret Alphabet would ensure a cultural barrier to assimilation from outside forces….
I give BY and JS credit for designing systems and doctrine and policy that would further organizational interests. It is an effective meld of personal salvation with organizational interests that I think is partly responsible for the longevity of Mormonism when other philosophies (Oneida, and Shakers) failed.
I still disagree but I do so as a friend.
I view JS as a big innovator. I’m not sure that he had alterior motives to his innovations other than the joy of seeing his innovations fulfilled (sort of). He did seem to cunstruct ever more exclusive levels within the Mormon hierarchy and loyalty seems to have been a big deal to him. So if I had to argue that JS had an alterior motive to his innovations I might say that he was interested in securing follower loyalty (not the same thing as “improve the rate of membership growth”).
I know less about BY. I view him as a governer and colonizer.
When the polygamy anouncement was made, new convert baptisms slowed to a trickle. I Believe that conversion is the fastest way to grow membership. Polygamy would be an epic failure on this front. Even 100+ years later there are perhaps millions of people that cannot take us seriosly because of polygamy. We have other threads on Polygamy but suffice it to say that I believe a desire to grow the church quickly was low on the motivation chart for its implementation.
Same thing for the United Order. I imagine it as an idealized attempt to restore something that is mentioned in the NT and was associated with a Zion type society. The fact that it might apeal to penniless converts would have been an afterthought IMO.
SilentDawning wrote:I also know, from reading Michael Quinn’s extensions of Power book, that the TR was a response to financial problems the church experienced. They tried to get the membership to pay regular, full tithes with quality for a long time, and most methods failed. It was only when they attached temple worthiness, and salvation, to paying, that they saw the results they wanted.
If you are arguing that the church as an oganization over time has evolved doctines and policies that benefit itself and perpetuate the institution – then i agree. 1st As managers loyal to the church, church leaders would tend to make decisions favorable to the church. 2nd Programs that were not successful or productive for the church would be more likely to be discontinued. So over time, the programs that endure and the new practices put forward will tend to be church centric. On that note – we agree.
Can you imagine the TR ever being disassociated from tithing payment? You could argue that such a move would bring the blessings of the temple to a much greater percentage of our general membership. Not…Gonna….Happen!
I just have an easier time seeing the incremental trend of church centricity over the course of almost 200 years than I do ascribing that particular vision to JS and BY.
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:
SilentDawning wrote:I suspect, BY and JS, who started it all, thought deeply about which doctrines and policies would improve the rate of membership growth.
I disagree on this part.
I observe some of the doctrines evolving as the situation required. I see some doctines and policies that seem to have been unsuccessful expiraments that were later discarded(Polygamy, united order, Deseret alphabet) This leads me to doubt a more focused plan in putting forth doctrines and policies in the early days. I see many of the benefits you mention as side effects.The reason I disagree with this is because
even though these things were unsuccessful, they had to have some purpose behind them.For example, plural marriage was effective in fueling internal population growth through families with strong Mormon culture (only the upper level priesthood holders were allowed to do it). The United Order I see as a way of making the organization attractive to members who could come and have their needs looked after. The Deseret Alphabet would ensure a cultural barrier to assimilation from outside forces…I also know, from reading Michael Quinn’s extensions of Power book, that the TR was a response to financial problems the church experienced. They tried to get the membership to pay regular, full tithes with quality for a long time, and most methods failed. It was only when they attached temple worthiness, and salvation, to paying, that they saw the results they wanted. To me it looks like the Church evolved to be the way it is over time in a largely ad hoc and near-sighted way rather than being the end product that Church leaders ever carefully and specifically aimed for long-term. For example, consider the development of the current Word of Wisdom interpretation. D&C 89 makes it sound like basic health suggestions originally given “not by commandment or constraint” but Brigham Young later elevated its status to a commandment in 1851 for whatever reasons (didn’t want to import coffee, tea, tobacco, etc. to Utah due to the signicant expense?) and later on Heber J. Grant pushed to enforce it as a temple recommend requirement for whatever reasons (caught up in the prohibition hype, etc.?).
However, at this point it looks like the WoW largely serves the purpose of being a strict obedience test to help maintain a distinct LDS identity and sub-culture that is separate from the world but I doubt that the original leaders that played a hand in making it what it has become were thinking about this as a primary objective, it looks like they just thought it would be a good idea at the time most likely because of other primary concerns. Similarly, I doubt that most current leaders have even considered changing or abandoning the WoW, not because they have ever consciously tried to weigh the practical benefits for the Church against any possible disadvantages (it limits who will ever join/stay in the Church, etc.) but simply because they have gotten used to it and accepted that this is supposedly the way it should be, the way God wanted it, etc. Also what was fairly practical or reasonable to expect out of people in 1890, 1950, etc. can easily become very inconvenient for both the Church organization and individual members as the mainstream culture, popular opinions, worldwide economy, technology, etc. change over time but the Church continues to resist many changes that have happened long after many traditional LDS expectations are no longer very practical at all simply because that’s the way we have always done it and because God supposedly said so.
If it wasnt’ a proactive, marrying of doctrine with practicality, then I think the accidental harmony of these two things is what made the churches survive. As I said, I’ve been reading about extraordinary groups with extraordinary lifestyles. The Oneida, the Father Devine Movement, The Shakers, and the Gypsy’s. The ones that have survived have a theology/culture that promotes child bearing and expansion. Some have missionary forces, they encourage marrying in the faith, they encourage large families. If their theology supports these aims, then it leads to longevity for the organization.
Sure, there are anomalies — strange doctrine that comes to pass, but there needs to be some kind of core theology that encourages the kind of behavior that perpeturates the community — otherwise, it dies — such as the Shakers, the Oneida, and the Father Devine movement. All of these groups had thriving communities, but their growth was based on applications from existing adults, primarily. The theology focused on the community now, but not growth in the community over the long-term, and that’s why none of these movements have grown. They have all shrunk to the point of near non-existence.
LookingHard wrote:One item that I have heard (and reflected in my “mission field” area that I live in) is that the increase in missionaries has not hardly budged the rate of baptisms – at least not in North America / Europe. Africa on the other hand is greatly increasing.
And that’s more to do with 1978 than present day work!
What does that say about the problem with attracting new converts? Is it a systemic problem with our religion? What is it that prevents North Americans from embracing it, when a decade or more ago, they didn’t seem to have as much of a problem with it? Religious affiliation change has been spiraling downward in the Western, first-world countries for a while now. Staying flat or increasing only slightly in those countries, which is what the LDS Church is experiencing, makes us successful by comparison to most. What I find interesting is that we’ve just come through a deep recession — and in spite of that, seem not to have seen the boost in religious interest that the prosperity cycle would indicate — prosperity, pride, suffering, humility, prosperity repeat… instead, we saw suffering, and apparently, a rejection of religion… I can’t remember where I heard it, maybe I overheard a coworker or something. Anyway, this one person’s point was that prolonged suffering can lead to rejection of religion. The idea is that people may initially seek god’s help but as a hardship endures they begin to lose faith. The hoped for change never comes. Maybe the boost in religious interest comes well after the prosperity portion of the cycle. Many people are still underemployed and wages have been stagnant for a long, long time. SilentDawning wrote:What I find interesting is that we’ve just come through a deep recession — and in spite of that, seem not to have seen the boost in religious interest that the prosperity cycle would indicate — prosperity, pride, suffering, humility, prosperity repeat… instead, we saw suffering, and apparently, a rejection of religion…
One of the things that led to the Protestant reformation was the Black Plague in the Middle Ages. I view this time as a sort of mass faith crisis. People lost their faith/belief in the Catholic church because of the suffering of the plague.
This is the primary reason I think my son is not at all interested in religion. When he was 6, he was pretty TBM for a six year old — i took him on home teaching visits (I know that was not exactly church policy, but we did it). He helped missionaries keep kids occupied at teaching appointments, and he believed in prayer. He started praying God would take away his diabetes at the age of 6, and that never happened. He’s had a tough time with it — seizures during the period when his pancreas was dying, difficulties managing it, and once, during the initial stages, paralysis of his left arm due to a mid-night seizure.
In private education, many managers believe the reason people aren’t signing up for private education anymore is not only the expense, but the fact that they went back to school during the last recession, and then graduated into chronic unemployment and student debt. So, I see that as an analogy for why perhaps people may not be as excited about religion as they were in previous recessions.
One risk though, is assuming these cycles are permanent. Sure America is not as religious-oriented as they once were, but these things can change — such as a short calamity that causes suffering, people pray and the burden is lifted — these kinds of things could revive religion….I wish I understood God’s rules for intervention. They sure are inconsistent and apparently, arbitrary.
SilentDawning wrote:I
f it wasnt’ a proactive, marrying of doctrine with practicality, then I think the accidental harmony of these two things is what made the churches survive…As I said, I’ve been reading about extraordinary groups with extraordinary lifestyles. The Oneida, the Father Devine Movement, The Shakers, and the Gypsy’s. T he ones that have survived have a theology/culture that promotes child bearing and expansion. Some have missionary forces, they encourage marrying in the faith, they encourage large families. If their theology supports these aims, then it leads to longevity for the organization…Sure, there are anomalies — strange doctrine that comes to pass, but there needs to be some kind of core theology that encourages the kind of behavior that perpeturates the community — otherwise, it dies — such as the Shakers, the Oneida, and the Father Devine movement. All of these groups had thriving communities, but their growth was based on applications from existing adults, primarily. The theology focused on the community now, but not growth in the community over the long-term, and that’s why none of these movements have grown. They have all shrunk to the point of near non-existence. The interesting thing about this to me is that some of these groups like the Oneida and Shakers look like they were special cases because they were so radical and basically forced people to choose between the group and the larger society. By contrast, it seems like many popular churches nowadays are not really competing with society in general to the point that their very survival depends on it if at all, it looks like they are mostly competing for a minimal amount of time, interest, and continued support from their followers.
It looks like Mormonism started out in the same category as some of these groups where it was very radical and completely separate from the mainstream culture but over time it has evolved to be sort of in-between this category and most churches where Mormons will live among, go to school with, and/or work with non-Mormons and less faithful Church members but they are still forced to choose between the Church and the larger society in several cases. I can admit that temple marriage, relatively large families on average, and aggressive missionary work have helped the Church grow so far even though I don’t like these LDS traditions, but in the case of temple marriage I think this is probably more of an unintended side-effect of the doctrine than the main reason it was established to begin with.
I see some of these doctrines as being very hit-and-miss in terms of how practical they really are or not and it seems like the Church leaders have repeatedly been more than willing to stubbornly hold onto doctrines and policies long after they have become increasingly inconvenient not only in the case of major lasting embarrassments like the racial priesthood ban and polygamy but things like garments and home teaching. In other words, I’m not so sure that what we have now means that most of this has proven to be practical or beneficial for the Church overall; in many cases it seems rather arbitrary and mostly looks like a product of many members mostly deferring to tradition, scriptrues, and authority figures instead of being willing to say no when something doesn’t make much sense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.