- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So I was just listening to a panel of a few people who used to be leftist liberals who “converted” to conservatives/classical liberals. Probably not your cup of tea politically (I gather the forum has mostly left-leanings), but that’s besides the point. (especially since Dave Rubin was on the panel and he’s gay, and always very civil and respectful) In the Q&A, someone asked a question about “apostasy”. Many of the panelists experienced loss of friendships as they redpilled modern liberalism. One of them pointed out that it’s an aspect of tribalism and that punishing apostasy makes it less desirable to leave. It keeps the numbers up.
The connection to the church was obvious. The church is kind of an echo chamber. It’s tribal. If you don’t conform to beliefs X, Y, and Z, even though none of those things really have anything to do with the Gospel, you are not fully accepted in the tribe. You’re gay? Your kids can’t be baptized. Married outside the temple? You can’t get sealed for a year and your relatives look down on you as “less faithful.” You voted Democrat? Mocked. You wear a sleeveless dress to church? Gossiped about. You leave the church? 90% of your friends: gone.
Okay, so that isn’t true for everyone in every ward (aside from the first two points and probably the last), but this isn’t all that uncommon either. Tribalism in all its forms is not from God and yet it’s a massive part of the church. It’s even enshrined in the Book of Mormon and Old Testament. Perhaps that underscores how the Gospel of Jesus Christ is essential to breaking the cancerous cycle of tribalism. It’s only through the love He exemplified and his power to change us that we can put an end to tribal thinking that is so easy to fall into as humans.
Anyway… Here’s the floor. Discuss.
It’s hard for me to say, without reservation, that tribalism isn’t from god. Some believe tribalism to be the byproduct of evolution. Humans are tribal because way back when it helped them survive. Could it be from god when considered in the light of it being something that helped or helps people survive? Maybe tribalism is like the “lesser” law of Moses. This thing that people needed in the moment that they needed it that had the purpose of preparing them for a better way that was to come.
Maybe the answer isn’t getting rid of tribalism but expanding the tribe. Expanding the tribe to be
allraces, then allbeliefs, then allsexual orientations, then eventually allhumans, then allhumans and animals, then allliving things… then aliens if they ever show up then angels from heaven. So you might keep the pros of tribalism (looking out for one another) and the cons of tribalism (exclusion) fade over time. Much of what I see happen in church is just people doing what people do. “Human gonna Human” as Curt sometimes says. There was a time when I was somewhat angry at church members for acting more like Pharisees than followers of Christ. Now my standards are lower. Many (most?) of us humans crave security and belonging. The church provides both of those things quite well for those that fit the mold. The tribalism is a natural outgrowth of that. IOW, tribalism fulfills basic human social/emotional needs.
As for Apostasy, I tend to think of it as barriers to entry and to exit. It is not easy to become Mormon. It is super easy to get baptized but the process of changing your behaviors, patterns, and lifestyle is high sacrifice and long term. This process of integrating into the faith community is hard and I believe is why many new converts go inactive. The barriers to exit are judgment, loss of eternal reward assurances, and shunning.
Roy wrote:
Many (most?) of us humans crave security and belonging. The church provides both of those things quite well for those that fit the mold. The tribalism is a natural outgrowth of that. IOW, tribalism fulfills basic human social/emotional needs.
This sums it up pretty well. This world and everything in it is ephemeral. There are a lot of chaos, mystery and disorder. Humans crave order. We crave answers. Religion fulfills those needs. It provides us answers (true or not). It promises us permanence. It promises us justice. All that it asks of us is that we steadfastly adhere to what our religious leaders have said, and make great sacrifices for it.
When someone challenges the religious status quo, it’s because those challenges are a threat against the bedrock of faith. Most members could not endure even the notion that what they believe is false. Statistically speaking, with the diversity of religious beliefs, there is a very small chance anyone could tell the difference between an objectively true religion, and a false one. Yet most everyone holds their beliefs with the utmost certainty, even when faced with indesputible evidence to the contrary.
And when we don’t have any sound, logical argument to defend our views… we make fun of the other side. When we can’t prove we are right, we take every measure to prove that the other side are wrong. There was a funny debate in Sunday School this morning, over whether or not the devil was smart, and whether or not his plan could’ve actually worked. I thought it was funny, since the whole foundation of the arguement was speculative, without any way to prove one way or another. Both parties thought the other was heretical, and felt it was their God-given duty to set the record straight.
The common reactions to apostasy are a sign of weakness and insecurity, rather than malice. They’re trying to hold desperately onto what little security and certainty they have (even if its just an illusion).
This reminds me of Dunbar’s numberThere is only one part of this that doesn’t quite work in Mormonism
Quote:Dunbar explained it informally as “the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar”
I consider myself a guest at church. It’s not my religion/organization to change. I try to help modernization along, but I always do it by seeking rationality, not by trying to force my view onto them. It is their tribe, after all. I can tell you that tribalism is the impetus for the formation of religious groups, including during and immediately after the time of Christ. Paul used the term “Family of Christ”. There were many stark differences among the believers, but there was much more in common.
Beefster wrote:
You voted Democrat? Mocked.
FWIW, I have recently observed faithful LDS adherents severely mock other members for voting republican. There is no moral highground in the current political climate; only a lot of moral valleys that people seem unable to crawl out of.On Own Now wrote:
I consider myself a guest at church. It’s not my religion/organization to change. I try to help modernization along, but I always do it by seeking rationality, not by trying to force my view onto them. It is their tribe, after all.Nice perspective. I too have found kind of distancing myself mentally/emotionally does help.
But it does bring up the question (not just to you) of “well then why do you attend?” For me, at least now, it is to keep my marriage.
Unfortunately, we are more “natural” than we like to believe. On Own Now wrote:
FWIW, I have recently observed faithful LDS adherents severely mock other members for voting republican. There is no moral highground in the current political climate; only a lot of moral valleys that people seem unable to crawl out of.
My MIL and FIL are both strong members. They are also both strong far left liberals. While I admire this about them, they come out swinging and say some VERY cruel things about ALL Republicans. THANK goodness the hubs and I are Independent or family visits with them would be aaaaawkward.
😯 On Own Now wrote:I consider myself a guest at church.
I feel more like the Guy on the Couch. Except it’s not August, it’s 5 years later.
Tabitha wrote:
On Own Now wrote:
FWIW, I have recently observed faithful LDS adherents severely mock other members for voting republican. There is no moral highground in the current political climate; only a lot of moral valleys that people seem unable to crawl out of.
My MIL and FIL are both strong members. They are also both strong far left liberals. While I admire this about them, they come out swinging and say some VERY cruel things about ALL Republicans. THANK goodness the hubs and I are Independent or family visits with them would be aaaaawkward.
😯
I don’t know where Americans get the idea liberalism is far left from. Perhaps because their Overton Window* is shifted so far to the right that they think the center is the left.
I see your point. I definitely can be using “far” anything incorrectly. My stepdad is Republican. Not just a conservative with mild convictions. He’s the guy that’s wearing those political shirts and offense bumper stickers and there is no bend in anything said about politics if it isn’t his own. And then there’s my in-laws on the equal “far” end of the spectrum that have the same amount of convictions about politics as his, making it just as difficult to have conversations with due to the unwillingness to see anothers view if it isn’t a liberal one, they’ve got the bumper stickers on their Prius and she’s got wall hangings about the IQ level of repubs. The way I see it both have valid points and should be able to listen and respect each other’s views. So that’s where I use the “far” term. Old Timer wrote:
Unfortunately, we are more “natural” than we like to believe.
I find this statement ironic in its truth. We believe that we are special – and in doing so … we are just like everyone else.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.