Mormon Exclusivism

[blooit]

For years I have defended my fellow Latter Day Saints when others have called them cliquish or exclusive. I explained that we were peculiar and that our uniqueness may exclude us but most exclusion comes from the outside, or that all people are exclusive by nature but Mormons no more than others. After many years, I've changed my views on this. I really see us as being too exclusive.

I know many members of the church who feel that if someone swears and you are within earshot, you have somehow sinned. They feel the need to rebuke the speaker or run for their lives. I know very few members who would sit and talk to someone who is addicted to tobacco, or as they drink a beer. A very wonderful sister in my ward (I mean this sincerely) stopped associating with my wife because of an inappropriate joke. The joke? "Behind every good man is a good woman, and behind that good woman is usually another man looking at her butt." This sweet sister felt that this was inappropriate and their previously strong friendship is all but nonexistent now. You should have seen the reaction in PEC, from a couple members, when I suggested we have a joint potluck with a baptist congregation in my neighborhood whose pastor happens to be my friend.

I don't mean this to be a complaint session. It's just that when I look at the life of Christ, I just don't see this being the best approach. Christ took time to comfort the adulteress, the samaritan, and to dine with the publicans. I have had the privilege of baptizing several friends over the last couple years, and not one came by rebuking them for their behavior. Each one has come through loving them regardless of their habits or situation, and then answering questions when asked.

I have my values, but the only way I can share them with others is if they are ready, and if the spirit gives them a conviction of those values. To refuse to be around someone because their values are different (other than in extreme cases of course) does not show love for my fellow man. I think George Albert Smith had it right when he took lemonade out to the rough, swearing construction workers rather than rebuking them like other members had done. People will almost always respond better to love than to open rebuke or isolation.

Just my thoughts.

[zelder]

I know we are exclusive because I've been guilty of it. Self-sanctimonious piety has for far too long been a central theme in our culture. It's time for it to stop. Sinners are not very impressed with our "righteousness" when we shun them from our lives. Love is the central theme of christ's teachings. A lot of people who drink and swear really are not much different than us. They have the same hopes and dreams. They want happy marriages and children. The primary, core human spiritual need to to love and be loved. Drinking, swearing etc are periphery issues.

Edited February 19, 2012 by zelder

[jwhitlock]

Before we get into a one-size-fits-all discussion of what Latter-day Saints are or are not like, we need to understand that how members of the church react to situations is molded as much by where they live, as their membership in the church.

All of the things that have been described above as "typical" LDS reactions are simply not typical among members of the church where I live. Living in a diverse environment has the effect, over time, of eliminating a stand-offish attitude.

[blooit]

I've interacted with members in Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Belize, and many parts of the United States. I would argue that what I have described is very strong in the intermountain west.

[jwhitlock]

I've interacted with members in Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Belize, and many parts of the United States. I would argue that what I have described is very strong in the intermountain west.

I live in the east. There are significant LDS cultural differences between members of the Church in Utah and the immediate surrounding areas, and elsewhere. Members here seem to be far less stand-offish about others here.

[Calm]

Before we get into a one-size-fits-all discussion of what Latter-day Saints are or are not like, we need to understand that how members of the church react to situations is molded as much by where they live, as their membership in the church.

All of the things that have been described above as "typical" LDS reactions are simply not typical among members of the church where I live. Living in a diverse environment has the effect, over time, of eliminating a stand-offish attitude.

Other effects can be what time of day it is, whether they are happy or sad or feeling frustrated or insecure, what's going on at home, with their extended families and friends, kids, have they been insulted recently and feeling overexposed so need to protest themselves.....personality responds differently in different context. It is also most likely reaction not to what has actually been done, but what they think it implies about the person so it can be hard to fix if that is not explored, making the person appear to be more exclusive, unforgiving and stiffnecked than they really are.

[rodheadlee]

I live in the east. There are significant LDS cultural differences between members of the Church in Utah and the immediate surrounding areas, and elsewhere. Members here seem to be far less stand-offish about others here.

I would have to say the same about So Cal and Samoa. But my broither grew up shunned in the Utah/ Idaho area and he literally hates Mormons because of how he was treated in grade school as a child. He is not an anti- Mormon he couldn't be bothered to watse time posting on a BB about it. He is not my real brother but I love him just the same.

[Calm]

I would argue that what I have described is very strong in the intermountain west.

I have lived in 9 different wards and branches in Utah Valley off and on over a period of 40 years. While I never felt at home in any of the ones i was at prior to marriage (perhaps due to the known temporary nature of them and the lack of my husband's great social skills to get past my terminal shyness to actually speak to people), I don't believe I've ever been in a ward that I felt was exclusive or standoffish. There are often a few members and even families who acted that way, but I never felt it as a quality of the ward and I've often wondered if the reserve is more because of social shyness or awkwardness than social selfishness or snobbery.

There were some wards that have had tight knit groups of friends who do many things outside of church together and who don't work all that hard at inviting new people into the group, but I've never seen someone who wanted to be a part of those groups who was willing to put effort into getting to know them not being able to join.

What I love about the Church is that it allows people to associate with others they would not tend to associate with in any other setting so we can get to know a much wider range of people than we normally would, but this does have the downside of making it seem like members are more exclusive than outside the Church environment where those opportunities to mix and match are more limited as people tend to congregate with others of like interests and no one thinks of it as being exclusive, just hanging out with friends.

[nasago]

It is over 22 years that I am a LDS person, baptized, and that had past through temple endowments and quite long frequency. But I came from a Muslim background and I see my friends and Jews with sympathy. If they are worthy people..

Thus it was not easy and it does not remain easy to accept easy to accept any exclusivism for LDS people as linked to some group or nation. Mainly because I originated from American Indians, from one side, and some Negroes, and in the other side I descend mainly from Europeans, mainly from Italians. Mainly from Italians were able to link to much before Christ, and living mainly in Italy and also to outside Italy, into a broad geographic area and period (as going to India, China, Japan, Russia, USA, etc.).

Thus searching through them I discovered the existence of two groups of "neph" people that departed from us, and I traced them and their route. One group, to North, is yet alive and living in some limited place, after some 2,600 or 2,700 years and their language has quite many most of our ancient words and with same meaning and also of that of Book of Mormon. The other group departed toward the opposite direction. And very far from home they settled then a big town and named it, "Neph" (it is in maps), yet surviving, but now the name was adapted to Arab language, next to a name of Book of Mormon turned into also existing town: Ishmael. Thus two friends remain together, side by side...

Thus it appears there is too much " ultra-exclusivism, quite political-cultural, as in Jesus' days" in the "LDS" community that prevents them examines other community that is not their standard one. Quite like we had in Judaism-community days in Jesus' - Paul's days and nowadays against the Latin-Arabian-.. Jews. Jews. as being inferior (Sefardins). Thus they refuse to see other contributions.

I got into LDS site at that nation, and I concluded from old LDS historic files that It appears Brigham Young and/or his successor in England got into contact with my "brothers, descendant" root people, but was/were not able to "recognize/respect" them and their language/culture and their strange religion. None conversion took place for centuries as they were terrible and intense enemies against UK and USA..You know who and where are them.

Their chanting and poetry was clearly the one of old primitive days of Old Testament, according Rabies studied them as being quite like of Jewish background. Thus us also, as the "main trunk branch", is the origin of the "neph" that departed from us. Our language was a mixture of Hebrew (mainly the grammar, meaning of words, also written from right to left) and Greek Phoenician (as with characters used to write, but usually changed as if to the "mirror" and/or upside/down). All that words were found also and equal (the same) in USA+Canada (before and after Joseph Smith, are at Jews and Museum hands) and in the text partly translated of Book of Mormon. Clearly are of our 2,700-2,800 years language.

Thus we should not have so great "cultural exclusivimism" toward a small group and culture of people that was linked to unveiling a book. Some truth not must be "frozen" to a given past, mainly when it is of scientific nature, as to "language" Our people should be called to provide its witness, as we are not biased, being a people that is prior from Babylon exile days and is dispersed all over the Earth. We are judged as being inferior

[Calm]

I would have to say the same about So Cal and Samoa. But my broither grew up shunned in the Utah/ Idaho area and he literally hates Mormons because of how he was treated in grade school as a child.

Was the reason he was shunned was that he was not LDS or some other reason?

I had to really struggled with letting myself feel shunned or left out due to moving three times in a three year period during my junior high years (I lived in Ill, then Utah, then Ill, the No Ca), Dad had been told to get ready to move to his new job, but it was slower opening up than anticipated. School in Utah was very hard, we went to a different school then the rest of the kids in the neighbourhood, started a month and a half late and got stuck in any classes that had slots in them so I don't think I shared the same class when anyone...and believing we'd be gone in a month or two didn't help. So I very much felt an outsider there, but more just ignored then shunned and looking back I don't see it as intentional by anyone. I was quiet, shy and probably looked like I didn't want any friends and I did get bullied and teased on a few occasions, something that had never happened to me before (just by guys, not any girls). At Church it was a very different story, the leaders knew what was going on and tried hard to help us feel at home, get involved and the kids did as well. When I got back to Ill, it was as if I had never existed to my friends....and not one of them was LDS so that can't be blamed on the LDS culture at all.

When we finally moved to CA though for my grade 8 year, what had been probably typical shyness had solidified into terminal shyness/social anxiety and I never felt comfortable either at Church or school, which tells me feelings that people were 'shunning' me were an internal reaction, not the reality.

I am so grateful for BYU providing me with an environment that made me feel safe enough to push myself out of my shell, I knew I was not going to get bullied or humiliated if I did something clumsy or foolish as had happened in the past at school (never church). It wasn't as if I met anyone who was suddenly my soulmate or beyond studying together had interests with, what BYU did was give me a predictable environment with teachers who were interested enough in me to make me realize I had something to offer but that I had to be the one making the contacts, people wouldn't just come to me.

After that experience I have never found a place where I've felt out of place, I've never had someone put me down or ignore me to the point I felt like I didn't exist. The two wards I've lived in since moving back to Utah and actually living here rather than just passing through on the way to better things have been the most inclusive of any I've ever seen anywhere save for our very little branch in Russia. I have heard some concerns about the young women, but the ones in our current one that are on the outside are actually the snobs apparently, the others are too down to earth and don't want to play the games.

Edited February 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

I live in the east. There are significant LDS cultural differences between members of the Church in Utah and the immediate surrounding areas, and elsewhere. Members here seem to be far less stand-offish about others here.

Those damn Utah Mormons! Please! They may be less common elsewhere, I'll admit, people like that can be found practically anywhere in the Church.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

nasago, could you make your font slightly larger as it's hard to read with it being that small. thank you.

Edited February 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[altersteve]

I live in Utah County, Utah, and everything in the OP is an accurate description of what Mormons are like here. And I get very irritated by it. I try to be an example, but it doesn't do much good usually. Hopefully the Church starts putting more of an emphasis on trying to get rid of this attitude.

[jwhitlock]

Those damn Utah Mormons! Please! They may be less common elsewhere, I'll admit, people like that can be found practically anywhere in the Church.

They can; here, at least, they have a harder time justifying their attitudes since they are a much smaller minority.

[jwhitlock]

nasago, could you make your font slightly larger as it's hard to read with it being that small. thank you.

Speaking of that, I really had to squint to read your ladder signature line that you were referencing.

[Calm]

Speaking of that, I really had to squint to read your ladder signature line that you were referencing.

Yeah, I tried to edit it to make it larger, but couldn't make it work even though it should have. May have to ask for mod help as someone else had the same problem.

[volgadon]

save for our very little branch in Russia.

I miss those.

[Kenngo1969]

They can; here, at least, they have a harder time justifying their attitudes since they are a much smaller minority.

Utah born and bred, and I've never encountered that attitude. If you all want to point the finger at Utah or a segment of it instead of cleansing your own inner vessels, go ahead.

[Jeff K.]

Patience and charity by an individual can make any ward a wonderful one to be part of. Not saying people can't be stand offish, they certainly can, but its not a trait shared by any geographic area, a little charity towards people who are in the wrong might help. I have seen stand offishness on a number of different scales and not limited to the church.

[jwhitlock]

Utah born and bred, and I've never encountered that attitude. If you all want to point the finger at Utah or a segment of it instead of cleansing your own inner vessels, go ahead.

Odd that you claim to have never encountered it. I wonder who all those talks in General Conference were directed at that addressed this exact issue - specifically among members of the church in Utah.

Having lived in Utah for quite a while, and seeing how living in a more diverse environment in the east influences cultural Mormonism, there is no doubt that there is a difference in attitude among LDS in the two areas. We just happen to be ahead of the curve in this respect; not that we don't have problems, but in this area they are nowhere near as pronounced as in the Intermountain West.

[Kenngo1969]

Patience and charity by an individual can make any ward a wonderful one to be part of. Not saying people can't be stand offish, they certainly can, but its not a trait shared by any geographic area, a little charity towards people who are in the wrong might help. I have seen stand offishness on a number of different scales and not limited to the church.

No, see, that's where you're wrong. Not only is it limited to the Church, it's limited to a certain geographical subset of the Church. No problem. Glad I could set you straight! You're welcome.

[Kenngo1969]

Odd that you claim to have never encountered it. I wonder who all those talks in General Conference were directed at that addressed this exact issue - specifically among members of the church in Utah.

Having lived in Utah for quite a while, and seeing how living in a more diverse environment in the east influences cultural Mormonism, there is no doubt that there is a difference in attitude among LDS in the two areas. We just happen to be ahead of the curve in this respect; not that we don't have problems, but in this area they are nowhere near as pronounced as in the Intermountain West.

Well, that's just proof positive that the Brethren can't win, isn't it? Some in the Church complain about the Brethren's alleged tendency to deliver Utah-centric messages, yet there's this horrible problem of cliquishness and standoffishness that's so unique to Utah Mormons tha such messages are necessary. CFR, by the way. Please show me where this issue has been addressed and directed specifically toward Utah Mormons. Thanks in advance.

[Mudcat]

I live in the South and I have had only limited observation of how LDS treat other members.. my wife's local church isn't large enough to be considered a Ward and they call it Branch. Dunno the difference really. The people there have always been happy to see me when I come and I hear no of no members berating members directly.

The only inner faith complaints I have ever caught wind of were related to Utah LDS that settled in the area... in that there is a bit of a holier than thou attitude of the front. But from what I can tell, it must where off pretty quick.

The only thing that comes to mind as a social complaint, was when a Bishop (younger guy, transplant from Utah, bone doctor, bit of a hot shot I suppose) sat in the choir and smacked on chewing gum while Elder Christofferson and a GA by the name... Elder Gay, gave presentations. He was cited as being a bit disrespectful by my in Laws.

To his merit, the Bishop did a good job on my daughters broken arm.. but whenever the subject of her break comes up around the dinner table.. a lively discussion about gum smacking is sure to follow.

edit add - there have been in my life occasions where I have felt excluded in some respects, by my LDS side of the family, but I don't know if such examples fit what you seem to be suggesting.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Mudcat

[jwhitlock]

Well, that's just proof positive that the Brethren can't win, isn't it? Some in the Church complain about the Brethren's alleged tendency to deliver Utah-centric messages, yet there's this horrible problem of cliquishness and standoffishness that's so unique to Utah Mormons tha such messages are necessary. CFR, by the way. Please show me where this issue has been addressed and directed specifically toward Utah Mormons. Thanks in advance.

I don't complain about the Brethren delivering Utah-centric messages; if President Hinckley saw the need to tell the members there to repent and be more inclusive of non-members both in their neighborhoods and in their schools, then it's just an indication to that it is a problem in Utah. I watch enough General Conference to know that this theme continues to come up from time to time, and that it's directed to areas where the Latter-day Saints have a significant presence. It's tough to be a religious snob in your neighborhood or school where your LDS minority status is measured in fractions of a single digit, percentage-wise. That you seem to be unaware of not only this problem in Utah, but of the fact that it is mentioned from time to time in General Conference is not particularly impressive. It certainly isn't worth my while to respond any further to a CFR that is based on that kind of ignorance.

I do find it ironic that Brigham Young, as stated in your own tag line, saw the saints kicking themselves to hell. Part of the reason for that was pride, and where there's pride, there is also exclusiveness. In effect, your tag line recognizes that this very problem would be present in Utah, and you, in turn, deny that it is a problem.

Instructive, indeed.

[volgadon]

my wife's local church isn't large enough to be considered a Ward and they call it Branch. Dunno the difference really.

I've been in branches most of my life. The two main differences are that branches are smaller than wards and are headed by branch presidents rather than bishops.