Cultural Mormonism, an account
This is a comment from a post that’s two years old at By Common Consent.
Take one girl and have her sing “I’m a Mormon” and “Book of Mormon Stories” all through her childhood. Immerse her in the scriptures and teach her that there is only one way to happiness in this life and the next.
Emphasize her pioneer heritage and attend many large family reunions at which grandmothers will speak tearfully of how grateful they are to have 100% of their progeny faithful LdS.
Encourage her to attend BYU, and watch with pride as she marries in the temple and has three children.
Listen uncomfortably as she voices concerns about the church, about history and doctrine, about current practices and beliefs. Be alarmed as she cries about the prospect of raising her children in this religion. Be unable to really understand, or talk about it anymore.
This girl will have a lot to say and work through and sort out. She will need people who understand the radical paradigm shift she has experienced. She goes online, and finds people there talking about these things. Slowly, day by day, she comes to terms with her deep disillusionment.
She reads and writes to know she is not alone. That is the ground zero answer for all of the disaffected presense, and this presense overlaps into the faithful bloggernacle because:
1. There are still many interesting conversations that pertain to a post-Mormon.
2. Once one has gone through this epiphany, this shift in faith, the truth seems so clear. The impulse to engage, to talk and debate, to share, is very strong.
With some distinctions, I think this captures the spirit of cultural Mormonism. My questions would be: what if you take out certain parts? Can you take out BYU and can you take out generations upon generations of Mormons? Is growing up with “Book of Mormon Stories” and other primary songs enough? As I (and a few of my commenters at Mormon Matters) wrote, I think that correlation provides the majority of Mormon culture…so anyone who has been active in the correlated gospel an be cultural Mormon. This means that Utah doesn’t matter; BYU doesn’t matter; what matters is that church experience that remains similar worldwide.
And also the “meta-culture” — the sense of thinking about Mormon culture, especially because it is different from the outside world. “Being in the world, but not of it.” This gives people a distinct cultural Mormonism as well, I think. The reason people leave the church but don’t leave it alone is because you can never be non-Mormon when you’ve been Mormon. Ex-Mormonism or former Mormonism will always be different from never being Mormon, and every Mormon and ex-Mormon recognizes this intuitively.
EDIT: Even Orson Scott Card recognizes the vibrancy of cultural Mormonism. So it’s not just me!
The Irresistible (Dis)Grace 
You’ve given me some things to think about.
I’m back already. 🙂
So, for me, the part that sticks out to me the most is where she is crying at the idea of having to raise her children in the church. I can really agree with this sentiment. If I felt that my staying in the church would have no effect on anyone else, then maybe I would do just that. However, I do not believe that is that case. Even if I never have kids, it affects everyone with whom I make contact and everyone that each person in the church comes into contact with. Maybe it’s the natural protector in me, but I feel I must make a stand now.
We have discussed believability in another post. Believability is something that I feel should be strongly emphasized to all of mankind. Otherwise, they open themselves up to being taken advantage of from so many angles (not just religious).
Also, if the words of God aren’t really the words of God then I think that genocide, the chopping off of a drunk person’s head, the themes of skin color representing levels of righteousness, the killing of a person’s 2000 pigs (and perhaps only means of livelihood), the call to chop off the hand of a woman if she is stopping a fight between two men and ends up grabbing someone’s junk in the process, the ordering of killing homosexuals, the approval of deception in stealing someone else’s birthright, the inequality of women, the demand to kill a son as a test of obedience, and so forth are wrong. Even if it is mixed in with positive lessons, then just drop the whole book and teach those lessons without it.
Like Thomas Jefferson, he took the Bible, cut it up and pasted together his own version. His was a total of 46 pages long. He removed the immoral teachings and the supernatural stuff.
I debated a bit over indoctrinating my own children in all this or not.
Ultimately, I decided, what the hell – at least I’ll give them something tangible to rebel against when they’re adults if nothing else.
It’s better than nothing anyway…
We’ve discussed this before, but the idea that we’re going to indoctrinate our children no matter what is still a load of bull. That is unless you conflate the meanings of the words influence and indoctrinate. Dale McGowan has a video explaining the difference.
Indoctrination implies that you’re telling the child there’s only one worthy position, that good people hold only this opinion, and you present no contrary evidence or opinions.
Healthy influence without indoctrination, according to Dale, instead follows the formula “I believe X based on Y. But that’s my opinion, and good people believe otherwise. You should listen to them too and make up your own mind, changing it a thousand times if you need to.”
This shows that influence and indoctrination are two different creatures, a difference of quality and not just intensity. Influence is inevitable. Indoctrination is a choice.
Seth, I doubt that you’re really indoctrinating your children.
re Seth:
Well, of course. I think the point is that you’re going to “indoctrinate” (that’s an ugly word, man) your children in *something* anyway regardless. It might as well be something you believe in. Now, I could give you what would be my suggestions (even though they are useless, seeing as I’m an not a parent and do not know a thing about parenting) on things you might want to avoid doing if you don’t want your children to potentially grow up despising the church…but that’s a far cry from saying, “NEVER TAKE THEM TO CHURCH EVER.”
I’m interested in the role that parenting (or being raised in different environments) can play in whether a faithful member becomes super “conservative” and orthodox…or becomes more heterodox and “liberal”…and also the role that parenting can play in whether an apostate becomes super “kajsfdlasdjfasodfjafdoiau RAAAAAGH” or…not so much like that.
re Guest Writer 800+:
And yet, regardless of how nonsensical or illogical you might think of it (people staying in the building with the bad foundation, you say), it isn’t so black and white. So you have people who don’t “throw out the book and teach the positive lessons without it.” Rather, you have people who “keep the book, teach the positive lessons with it, but do not emphasize all of the negative things in it.” Obviously, some “negatives” are more emphasized than others, but looking at your list, I think most members (and most people of any religion with such kinds of things) wouldn’t advocate these things (well, some of these things…it’s not as if everyone’s on line with gender roles for women, etc.,)…yet they still obviously believe in the scriptures
Yes, I had a conversation the other day with my mom. I mentioned Christ’s teaching that anyone who got a divorce and remarried was committing adultery and caused their spouse to commit adultery if they remarried. I said that I did not agree with Jesus. I also said that such teachings upset me, since I know there are people out there who are staying in abusive relationships because they are afraid of going to Hell. I said that I found that immoral. All she said was, “Well, thankfully almost no one follows that now.”
Like you said, it is not black and white. My mom is happy that people don’t follow the words of her savior. She believes he was perfect, but doesn’t believe all his words? It is interesting to me. It seems that people take what they like from their holy books and call that scripture, and then ignore the stuff they don’t like. I would argue that they can do that with any book or any teaching, but maybe people are comforted by that added claim of divinity, even if they don’t agree with all the teachings.
Getting closer to what your post is actually about, correlation makes a lot of sense to me, but even if I had never traveled and only been to church in the same ward all my life, I think I would still be just as drawn to this stuff (Although I may drop it for my own sanity. Maybe I should just realize that certain aspects will never make sense to me). Mormonism was an almost all-consuming thing for me. Starting from nursery on, it was a true constant in my life. I think it is the pervasiveness of something that makes it so consuming. I had a very large portion of my brain always thinking about the church: what I should or should not be doing, the weekly activities, daily scripture study…Also, I wonder if there is something about LDS teachings in and of themselves that somehow implant this in a person. For me, I think it has to do with the constant emphasis on truth. I have a very high regard for truth and wish to share it with everyone I come in contact with. If I believe that I have information that others do not (and I believe that having more information might influence how they choose to live their life) then I think it is extremely important to share that information.
Jen sees antis as evil. She is upset at the idea that someone would try to tear down another person’s belief in God. She believes that they will be held accountable for it in Heaven. I believe that, if there is a God, it may respect me for my efforts. Because although my current beliefs would be wrong if God exists, I at least cared enough to try and correct what I saw as error.
I wouldn’t want God to say, “Wait, you felt you had some good reasons for not believing in me, but you let people go right on believing? Why didn’t you do anything with the information you had been given?”
But, that’s probably just the Mormon in me talking. 🙂
Getting to your comments in the chapter about correlation, please don’t think that I’m saying cultural Mormonism is for those who travel. You wrote what is key here:
This is what I feel really makes the culture…the fact that this kind of program is correlated makes this a worldwide culture, simply.
I’m fairly certain there are LDS teachings on how to implant this in a person…the only thing I’m wondering is…did these teachings develop on purpose or have they developed accidentally and organically over time? For example, what gets me are “clever” scriptures. With enough interpretation, there are “standard seminary answers” for most of the questions. “Want to know if the BoM is true? Do a Book of Mormon challenge?” That seems simple enough. But the clever parts are, “The Book of Mormon challenge isn’t meant to be a scientific experiment. You have to believe in it FIRST…or DESIRE to believe.” So in case you don’t get any spiritual testimony, just DESIRE to believe and your sign will come AFTER the trial of your faith.
This kind of rhetoric along with rhetoric about testifying of the “truth” and of “knowledge” rather than of mere beliefs, I think, lends well to keeping people in the culture, because a member can always point fingers back, “Well, you should’ve desired to believe” and any person who doubts can go to Fast and Testimony meeting and hear several people who “know.”
Re:
“please don’t think that I’m saying cultural Mormonism is for those who travel”
Gotcha about correlation. I misread that part somewhat.
“the only thing I’m wondering is…did these teachings develop on purpose or have they developed accidentally and organically over time? For example, what gets me are “clever” scriptures.”
I kind of feel that it is a natural evolution of religion in general. They develop these built in defense mechanisms, so that they are never wrong.
The most insufferable one in the Bible for me was used over and over and over by my ex-girlfriend. Whenever I tried to point out something in Mormonism, Christianity or religion in general that made absolutely no sense, she would point me to the same scripture:
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:12-14)
She would respond to my doubts up until a point where she had no response anymore and would then just quote this scripture. It was quite frustrating, I assure you. She was implying that it was my fault for seeing it as foolishness. My problem was, that that scripture only makes sense assuming it is true (which is what she was doing). I could never get her to see that if the Bible is not true, then that teaching just serves as a form of anti-intellectualism. It’s a way of keeping people from thinking their way out of the church. I see it as a built-in defense. Sometimes foolishness is just that: foolishness.
The Book of Mormon has a number of these as well. This one would often leave me feeling uneasy.
O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
(2 Nephi 9:28)
The scriptures teach you to question your doubts and chalk them up as wickedness.
So, I just asked a coworker who is an Exmormon about this.
He does not care about “correcting the worlds wrongs” (as he put it), but can understand why many people who leave the church DO care. He thinks that it has to do with the churches claims of being the Only True Church.
(Now, he comes from a different time when this was MUCH more prevalent. It seems the church leaders may be slowly going away from this since the Book of Abraham papyrus and the Mark Hoffman events. This teaching may not even be looked at two generations down the road. These ideas go back to what someone said on your MM post. I think it was Doug S.)
I know I was raised in a home like that. AdamF, however, was not raised in a home like that, so if he left, it’s hard to imagine him being very focused on it
My coworker discusses how prevalent the teaching of the one true church is. Even with less and less leaders saying this, you hear it in almost every testimony on Fast Sundays. When a person becomes disillusioned and realizes that the church is not everything it claimed to be, they see such teachings as pompous/arrogant. As my coworker put it, it just makes you want to smack the smugness right off their face. Other Christian denominations, while believing their teachings are more correct than other denominations, generally believe that ANYONE with a belief in Christ will be saved. There is a difference in claims. So, combine how much they claim to be the one true church with how gung-ho they are about going out and correcting others and you have an organization that is asking to be knocked off its high horse. This same desire would apply to non-mormons as well as exmormons. In a sense, they set themselves up as a target.
re:
This is an important distinction in actions that was insinuated in the cross talk of Steve Evans at By Common Consent (see the link that’s attached to “a post that’s two years old”) and with evangelical Aaron Shafovaloff at Mormon Coffee…
Steve argues that ex-Mormons should fade away slowly and take on wine-drinking and make a clean cut from the church. Steve and other members cannot understand why someone would “leave the church, but not leave it alone,” and others have suggested that it presents some kind of persisting neurosis that should be worked out in therapy or something (e.g., the normative view is that people who focus on issues they have “left” for extended periods of time have some issue that should be worked out).
ON THE OTHER HAND, Aaron argues as you do (but from a distinctly evangelical bent, of course), that one precisely should try to share the new information they’ve gotten since leaving, because they have new information and it is their obligation to share.
Re: (I meant to put this down here, since that seems to be your preference)
“please don’t think that I’m saying cultural Mormonism is for those who travel”
Gotcha about correlation. I misread that part somewhat.
“the only thing I’m wondering is…did these teachings develop on purpose or have they developed accidentally and organically over time? For example, what gets me are “clever” scriptures.”
I kind of feel that it is a natural evolution of religion in general. They develop these built in defense mechanisms, so that they are never wrong.
The most insufferable one in the Bible for me was used over and over and over by my ex-girlfriend. Whenever I tried to point out something in Mormonism, Christianity or religion in general that made absolutely no sense, she would point me to the same scripture:
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:12-14)
She would respond to my doubts up until a point where she had no response anymore and would then just quote this scripture. It was quite frustrating, I assure you. She was implying that it was my fault for seeing it as foolishness. My problem was, that that scripture only makes sense assuming it is true (which is what she was doing). I could never get her to see that if the Bible is not true, then that teaching just serves as a form of anti-intellectualism. It’s a way of keeping people from thinking their way out of the church. I see it as a built-in defense. Sometimes foolishness is just that: foolishness.
The Book of Mormon has a number of these as well. This one would often leave me feeling uneasy.
O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
(2 Nephi 9:28)
The scriptures teach you to question your doubts and chalk them up as wickedness.
In a sense, it is saying: If you think to hard, it won’t make sense, so don’t think too hard.
I would sometimes hear fireside talks that would address this. They would mention those poor, poor people that had “thought their way out of the church.”
I would sometimes wonder, ‘Since when is MORE thinking a bad thing?’ In my experience, the more thought I put into something, the better understanding I get.
Another comment. (Yes, I write too much)
I spoke with another coworker. He doesn’t really feel like an exmormon. He left in his early teens because he never really bought into the whole thing. However, he does still feel like he has to be involved to some extent.
For him, it is because there are few places on earth where the concentration of one belief system is so dense as it is in Utah. It affects the legislation in this state. It affects the day-to-day interactions he has with virtually everyone he comes into contact with. It affects his life on many levels. He feels he would be able to care less about the church if it weren’t still dictating his life so much.
What he brings up begs the question:
Is there a larger percentage of exmormons in Utah that don’t “leave the church alone” after they leave than in areas where Mormonism is not very prevalent?
Another thing he brought up to me is he feels that the church has a real persecution mentality and that the term Anti-Mormon is overused. He feels like HE’S the one persecuted in this state with all the silly rules made up that he has to follow and if he ever tries to attack the source of that persecution, he’s considered a persecutor. For him, it’s not about being anti the other side, but being pro his side.
It’s like the issue of Pro-choice and Pro-life. The other sides would probably not like being called Anti-choice or Anti-life.
As per your friend, I would have to have some (personal and anecdotal) disagreement. I wouldn’t say I’m anti- in any way, and I’m not frothing in the mouth, so I guess I can identify with him (doesn’t really feel like an ex-mormon…does still feel like he has to be involved to some extent.)
I’ve never lived in Utah, though. If we’re going by the dominant culture here, then I should be fuming at southern baptists and rules/laws about that.
but then again, I’m one person. I can’t say if there are many others like me here in OK or when I go to school in TX.
EDIT: In fact though, a lot of my hypothesis about cultural Mormonism has utilized the distinction between dominant and minority culture MORE. So, I have written in the past that being in a primarily non-Mormon area highlights my cultural Mormonism more. Your friend is constrained by real laws, but in my life, I’m not so much constrained by laws, but by customs. Then again, it seems your friend is trying to “break free” of more Mormon habits, whereas in my case, the difference is from my maintenance of certain habits (no tea in a state where iced tea is drunk like water?!)
This difference highlights and positvely feeds back into the LDS idea of, “In the world, but not of it,” or being a “peculiar people,” in my opinion.
How does the LDS Church affect local Utah politics that makes it any different from any other rural western state?
Re: Andrew
As you are just one person it is rather hard to tell if you are the exception or the rule. I would need to see data from this. It may not be the only answer, but it could play a factor.
Re: Seth R.
I don’t know that it does, but it gives people a more specific entity to be annoyed at. Whereas, other states that are predominantly Christian only give Christianity in general as the target rather than any particular denomination. I was perusing Yahoo Answers and came across this question:
“How come everyone hates Chritians?
I mean SERIOUSLY!!!! there’s a whole website devoted to hate on the bible. This is ridiculous!!! I know we have the freedom of speech, but cant we just have our opinions and you hae yours and stay out of each other’s way? It could be argued that Christians don’t stay out of YOUR way, but I don’t see very many websites devoted to hate on Islam or Buddha.”
The answer with, hands down, the most votes of agreement was this:
“Because Muslims and Buddhists don’t bother us on a daily basis.”
I would say that this answer agrees with my 2nd coworkers theory. In Utah, you push back against the Mormon way. In other states, you push back against the (more general) Christian way.
P.S.
The idea that there are no sites speaking against Islam is ludicrous. This person seems much more aware of sites that he sees as a personal attack rather than objectively looking at the reality of the situation.
yeah, I recognize my anecdotal sample of 1 sucks :3.
I literally CRIED when I read this because it’s the first thing Orson Scott Card has written that’s right in YEARS!
http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=9578
(Jk, I don’t cry)
Ha ha. I loved his Ender’s series. Ender’s Game is still my favorite book of all time (although, I read it when I was twelve).
Anywho, good article. He speaks a lot of correlation.
Also, this talk of tribalism keeps reminding me of my friend who said, true or not, he was a Mormon and would always be a Mormon. There is a definite loyalty to the tribe.
I remember stating years ago on the bloggernacle that I was a Mormon first and foremost, and only secondarily an American. I noted that in some real ways, I felt more affinity with a Mormon in Japan than with an American in Massachusetts.
My first loyalty always has been and always will be the LDS Church. All my other priorities will simply have to make room for that one central one.
I think I’ve quoted you frequently on that issue, Seth. http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/mormons-get-the-yoke-of-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/#comment-6098
got any others like it lol?
Guest Writer 800+ ~ Another thing he brought up to me is he feels that the church has a real persecution mentality and that the term Anti-Mormon is overused.
When I attended BYU, the evangelical Christian Bible study had some LDS students attending who didn’t want to be LDS anymore. BYU has an incredibly strict policy regarding ex-members in that they aren’t allowed, period. As soon as a current student becomes an ex-member, he’s out. Ex-members who wish to enroll as new students or transfer students need not even bother, the answer is no. (Andrew’s really sad that he’ll never get to go to BYU, I know.)
We tried to find out why that was and poked around, asking different people in the administration. Finally we were given a story about how, back in the 1970s, a few BYU students left the church and began passing out anti-Mormon literature on campus, and thus the “no ex-member” policy was born.
We were told by a pastor in the area that this story was total bullcrap. He said that the policy was instituted in the 1990s when a couple of students peacefully left the LDS church to join his church. He claimed to have a copy of a letter from the First Presidency giving their decision on the matter, though I never saw a copy of this letter myself. There was no anti-Mormon literature and no campaign against the church, just a few guys who didn’t believe in Mormonism anymore and wanted to finish their degrees without transferring.
Think about it though. A college that’s 98.6% Mormon spreading around a bullcrap story about anti-Mormon students on campus to justify discrimination against ex-members?
Persecution complex indeed.
BTW, Orson Scott Card sucks. Brandon Sanderson blows him out of the water.
Re: Bridget Jack Meyers
You went to BYU?
And, I may have to check out Brandon Sanderson.
seriously, Jack is crazy.
A never-mo desperately trying (and succeeding, in the end) to get into BYU, while there are members who would never think about it twice…I guess that’s why Jack is winning “nicest evil villain;” she’s got street cred.
I’ve had another thought about this post. If Mormons truly do remain more connected to their religion after they are out, might it also have something to do with HOW Mormons get out?
For example, do people leave Mormonism because of the history if their religion more than people who leave another religion? Take me, for example, after being obsessed with studying the history of Mormonism for the past 3 years, I am now trying to remember what I used to think about BEFORE I thought much about church history. I know a person that studied it for 6 years, another for 10, before they left. Once people have looked into it so thoroughly, it becomes a passionate interest for them. Originally, they go in, like myself, thinking that the facts will exonerate Joseph and the foundation of the church. Once they find that many more questions arise than are answered, they explore further and further. I kind of hope that how long it takes most people to let go of the Mormon church is proportional to how many years it took them to leave. If that’s the case, I’m ahead of the curve.
In any case, I kind of think that absorbing oneself in the history of your religion and not believing anymore after doing so is much more common for Mormonism than it is with other religions. Could this also be part of it?
-Andrew, this idea once again leaves you as the exception rather than the rule.
Guest Writer 800+,
This is an idea that I think was popularized by John Dehlin in his “dark time” (I don’t know if he calls it that, and I could be mischaracterizing how things entirely went). I’m pretty sure his materials have consistently characterized those who doubt or have crises of faith as not being those who did not care *enough*, but those who cared *too much*. So much so that discrepancies and issues became irreconciliable. So, the staylds.com site and other things, it seems to me (then again, I haven’t checked it out in months, so I may have remembered incorrectly) to be an effort to get people who were “too into it” to look at things more flexibly or AdamF-like (if we can turn people into adjectives and adverbs, that is).
I still think this only tells part of the puzzle. I’m not quite willing to go down as a rogue exception just yet