- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Something I’ve thought about a lot while going through this faith transition is the idea of unity and whether or not it is a good thing. When I was still a TBM, I was completely in love with the idea of unity and Zion, and having a people of “one heart and one mind”. I know it drives a lot of people crazy, but I actually enjoyed the like-mindedness of the student body when I was at BYU-I. To a certain extent, I even believed that it was better to have everyone together and be wrong then it would be to have everyone pulling in a million different directions to achieve their own subjective good and creating a grid-lock. Theoretically it seemed that with everyone together, things would actually get done, and should the direction prove to be wrong, it would be much easier to change as an organized group. But since then I have seen a lot of negative side effects of like-minded thinking. One of them being how false ideas can become entrenched in homogenous groups and can be very difficult and even take generations to remove. I’ve also seen that “tyranny by the majority” can be a very real thing, heaping persecution on those who believe differently than the group. I think it is important to have people who question in order to keep an organization in check. Unfortunately, I feel like this has been largely been demonized in church culture by the repeated indoctrination to sustain church leaders and not criticize them. What are your thoughts? There’s no question that societies which are well organized, cooperate and work together as a team tend to survive longer, and achieve more. On the other hand, I think there is a strong need for individual “checks” on groups when they get off base. As it applies to the Church, I think individual voices are good. Particularly when given from the armchair of credibility and pure motives to go good. Martin Luther is a good example. I think the changes to the CHI a year or two ago may have come about due to the cry of individual voices outside of the “everyone get in lock step” mentality we see at Church.
I’m not certain that the Church has to work that hard to keep so many people on the same page. Humans are social creatures and we tend to band together instinctively. We feel security within a group (family, work, community) and work rather automatically to maintain our membership of that group. Why do so many of us “StayLDS” if we have so many questions about the veracity of the LDS Church? Why do those who do leave associate themselves with some other group (former Mormons, Ex-Mormons, etc.)? The ties to our groups are very strong and it has an significant impact on our behavior. The threat of being ostracized or publicly shamed and being left outside such a group is a real threat to our well-being both psychologically and physically. Is this a good thing? I think the answer is both yes and no. Being LDS (or Lutheran or Buddhist) gives you automatic entry into any group that has those characteristics. I can stop off at a chapel in New York City, Hong Kong, or the backwoods of Canada, proclaim myself a member of the Church and immediately be accepted into that group (more or less). It’s bad for the reason already mentioned…changes to the group’s ways are slow in coming because those who petition for change run the risk of being excluded from the group. The loneliness that results can be very hard to handle. In my opinion, the worst part of being in the LDS group (and this probably applies to other churches as well) is that while we pray in public, we sin in secret. And heaven help the man or woman whose secret sin becomes known. Depending on the violation committed, the road to repentance can be a very lonely one. To be clear, I don’t think that fear is the main force that keeps us in line or that every person who sins or “rocks the boat” a little is automatically rejected. There are as many instances of tolerance and compassion within the LDS Church as there are of its opposite. However, such fear is one of the psychological threads that keep us bound together in whatever group we are a member of.
I think unity can be hoped for, or perceived, in different ways. Like you mentioned in earlier life, it may have been comforting and feel like a strength to believe that everyone in our group was just like us (or we were just like them). We all like the same song on the radio. We all dress the same. We all believe the same things about life and death. I still have hope in the City of Enoch ideal, to be of one heart and one mind, and to have no poor among us. But I see new ways of doing that, ways that include more people and more diversity. How much more powerful could it be to have a widely diverse and openly creative society, one that valued many ideas and paths, but united under the banner of love and constructive cooperation? That’s even better than having unity through complete homogenization and loss of individuality.
I do long for the kind of Zion Brian describes. As our family experienced some of our difficulties years ago, I realized I was mourning because I realized so many did not think about/care about a Zion society. As a few years have gone on, I have come to realize that may be due to having different definitions and not wishing for that everyone is the same type of thing. As a convert, that was never my thoughts of what Zion would be. I do believe we can be one in heart and mind with the right definitions. It would definitely require everyone in the ballgame to be humble, first and foremost. I have written extensively about unity and Zion on my personal blog. Rather than provide individual links, if anyone is interested, go to http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/ and look up “unity” and “Zion” in the labels section at the bottom right.My short version:
I’ve come to view Zion in the way Elder Wirthlin described in his talk, “Concern for the One” – as an orchestra of multiple instruments playing complementary harmonies rather than one instrument played really loudly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.