The Value Of Church Membership For Critics Of The Church And The Emergence Of The Ethnic Mormon

[Olavarria]

Since everyone was talking about Mormon Stories on another thread, I'm left to wonder about the the value Church membership has to people who reject the testimony of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, when it comes to the founding events of the Church. As a "TBM" my membership in the Church means everything to me. It means that the ordinances I've received "count" in this life and will count in the next, provided I exercise faith in the Savior and keep the associated covenants. The priesthood was restored to Joseph and Oliver, the way they said it was, and the Book of Mormon came to us the way they said it did. Those are the reasons I covet my Church membership and identify as a Mormon. For me, if those things are hogwash then the Church is too and if the Church is phony then I want no part of it. But that's me. That's how I see things.

Others however, don't seem to believe the same way, yet insist on being called Mormon. It seems that they want Mormon identity to be more "Jewish". Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. You can convert and theoretically be excommunicated, but you are also a Jew if your mother was one, regardless of whether or not you believe or whether or not she was a convert. Some want to be called Mormon if they were raised Mormon or come from Mormon stock, regardless of their commitment to the faith. But why? Here are some theories:

1)Family ties: Being the son of converts, I have no Mormon family ties outside of my parents, sister and one aunt. Becoming a Sikh tomorrow wouldn't change a thing in my family. However, some people have Mormons on both sides of the family and exiting the Church would put a strain on the family relationships they now enjoy.

2)Social network: being a Mormon makes making friends very easy. A Mormon can walk into any city in the world and have an automatic network of friends and acquaintances spanning race, language and socio-economic backgrounds, all based on their being a Mormon.

3)Marketability: It seems that some people want to make a name for themselves as writers, entertainers or social commentators and need some kind of a gimmick to stand out and what could be more exotic in the East Coast than a Mormon.

4)Bully Pulpit: Being a Mormon somehow gives you instant credibility among other Mormons. So when someone wants to say something critical or different about the Brethren, the Church, or Mormon culture the fact that the messenger is a Mormon somehow makes the things being said, a tad more respectable. Being excommunicated would have them branded as apostates and thus closed to many Mormon ears and uninteresting(see #3).

These are just some possible reasons why some theologically disaffected Saints might cling to their church membership.

Discuss.

ps.

I am not trying to call out John Dehlin, Elna Baker, Joanna Brooks, Michael Quinn, the Toscanos, Popeye the Sailor Man or anyone else in the liberal Mormon world. In no way am I pointing fingers or accusing anyone of anything. I'm not interested in making enemies or fighting and am content with remaining strangers with 98% of the people I read about online. I am also the best damned sinner in this Church, so I'm not coming from a "holier than thou" perspective; seriously:)

Edited May 11, 2012 by Olavarria

[thesometimesaint]

It's like them saying they're a citizen of a certain country. Yet they don't pay its taxes, obey/like its laws, support its leaders, and don't live in that country. Personally I don't see the point.

Edited May 11, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[mledbetter]

Perhaps we shouldn't worry about it so much and just be welcoming of everyone.

[mfbukowski]

Well I also think it is clear that just in general it works as a lifestyle (gosh I wonder why- ) We are, after all, meant to live in families, and to try to be "good" in the sense of being non-criminal, not cheating on one's spouse, not stealing, avoiding addictions etc.

Mormonism fits very well with general humanistic values, if those values include family values.

[Duncan]

how is Judaism an ethnicity? isn't it a religion? aren't we all the same physically speaking?

[volgadon]

how is Judaism an ethnicity? isn't it a religion?

It is both. That is to say, there are Jews who practice Judaism and Jews who are Jews in ethnicity only. One of those cases where the religion was limited to fairly small group over the centuries, so that is why.

[Yirgacheffe]

how is Judaism an ethnicity? isn't it a religion? aren't we all the same physically speaking?

Judaism is culturally an ethnicity.

eth·nic·i·ty/eTHˈnisitē/ (from Google)

Noun: The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

[Duncan]

Judaism is culturally an ethnicity.

eth·nic·i·ty/eTHˈnisitē/ (from Google)

Noun: The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

aren't we all the same under the skin? that's why I wonder if we will ever find "hebrew dna" because what would it even look like? My dad is german and I have jewish heritage but I couldn't pick a german or a Jewish person out of a crowd but just because I can't doesn't mean someone else can't!

[Yirgacheffe]

aren't we all the same under the skin? that's why I wonder if we will ever find "hebrew dna" because what would it even look like? My dad is german and I have jewish heritage but I couldn't pick a german or a Jewish person out of a crowd but just because I can't doesn't mean someone else can't!

Cultural differences have nothing to do with dna. Ethnicity is about belonging to a culture/social group not to some physically identifiable group.

[Duncan]

Cultural differences have nothing to do with dna. Ethnicity is about belonging to a culture/social group not to some physically identifiable group.

that's why I say that Judaism is a religion/social group/culture-I think all those things are in play for a religion

[Yirgacheffe]

that's why I say that Judaism is a religion/social group/culture-I think all those things are in play for a religion

Sure they are all in play for a religion, but in the case of Judaism, and other religions, Catholicism comes to mind, the cultural aspects can be there without the religious aspects. There are lots of "cultural" Jews and Catholics, why can't there be "cultural" LDS?

[Scott Lloyd]

These are just some possible reasons why some theologically disaffected Saints might cling to their church membership.

Discuss.

You're comparison and analysis make a lot of sense. The appellation "cultural Mormon" was probably invented to apply to those who want to view their affiliation more as an ethnicity thana religious faith and commitment.

However, for those of us who view Mormons as synonymous with the covenant people of God, that doesn't work. You can't be part of the covenant people while rejecting, violating or marginalizing the covenant, regardless of how much affinity you might feel for the culture or history and how successful you might have been at deceiving your bishop or stake president.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[bu11fr0g]

There have always been " cultural" Mormons. They had been called " jack Mormons " for decades. But saying you are a cultural Mormon sounds better and about the only use for jack now is jackass.

[bcuzbcuz]

There have always been " cultural" Mormons. They had been called " jack Mormons " for decades. But saying you are a cultural Mormon sounds better and about the only use for jack now is jackass.

Jack is often reference to male, a jackass is therefore a male ***, but there is also jackhammer, jackpot, jackknife, jackboot, also jack (as in car lift), jack-o-lantern, and jack-of all-trades. Seems you need to expand your vocabulary. Not every jack is a jackass. No more MTV for you.

[cinepro]

1)Family ties

2)Social network

3)Marketability

4)Bully Pulpit

Well, to be fair, it's a mutually equitable relationship. While "theologically disaffected Saints" may benefit from any of those four points, the Church gets to keep them on the records and report increasing numbers. I don't think either party would benefit from their names being taken off the books.

Edited May 12, 2012 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, to be fair, it's a mutually equitable relationship. While "theologically disaffected Saints" may benefit from any of those four points, the Church gets to keep them on the records and report increasing numbers. I don't think either party would benefit from their names being taken off the books.

I don't believe the anxiety to report "increasing numbers" of members, nominal or otherwise, is as great as you think, especially lately, when the emphasis has been on "real growth" and what is implied thereby.

[wenglund]

Perhaps we shouldn't worry about it so much and just be welcoming of everyone.

It may be contrary to certain people's nature to not meddle in other people's business. Some people are driven to generally encourage or enforce their notion of conformity.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 12, 2012 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

wengland:

How far can noncomformists not conform, and still be conformists? IOW The individual LDS is to confrom their behaviors, and beliefs, to gospel standards to remain members of the Church. How far away from the standards can someone drift and still be considered a member?

[wenglund]

wengland:

How far can noncomformists not conform, and still be conformists? IOW The individual LDS is to confrom their behaviors, and beliefs, to gospel standards to remain members of the Church. How far away from the standards can someone drift and still be considered a member?

In regards to others, this really is none of my business. Such is between them, the Lord, and in some instances the Lord's chosen leaders.

For my part, beyond me attempting to conform myself to what I believe Christ wishes of me, my interest insn't so much with conformity, per se, but with finding what works best. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Monster]

Try to imagine how the church would look if only totally believing uber orthodox memebrs were attending and participating. LIke it or not you need some individuals pulling from the other side to keep the church grounded and functioning in the world in which it exists. I am sure many would not admit it but without the more liberal Mormons to act as a check the church would spiral into a ultra conservative organization. Just as if nothing but Liberal Mormons were in charge it would lose its identity. We should be grateful that individuals of all belief levels want to participate. When we try to dissuade others from participating or having a voice because they do not believe the same we narrow the view of those left to only see things that conform to their world view. In essences without a contrary voice you put blinders on no matter which side you are coming from.

[mfbukowski]

wengland:

How far can noncomformists not conform, and still be conformists? IOW The individual LDS is to confrom their behaviors, and beliefs, to gospel standards to remain members of the Church. How far away from the standards can someone drift and still be considered a member?

You mean like the '60's - the decade of non-conformity when everyone had long hair and dressed the same?

[sethpayne]

It's like them saying they're a citizen of a certain country. Yet they don't pay its taxes, obey/like its laws, support its leaders, and don't live in that country. Personally I don't see the point.

Elder Holland said:

"... If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...

"I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive"

I can only speak for myself, but even though I don't accept many of the Church's specific truth claims, or perhaps the "orthodox" interpretation of truth, I find much beauty not only in the Book of Mormon, but in Mormonism (culture, theology, practice...) that is beautiful. I don't want to abandon something I love simply because my personal views differ from those of the institutional Church -- even on many issues.

[justdreamin]

You're comparison and analysis make a lot of sense. The appellation "cultural Mormon" was probably invented to apply to those who want to view their affiliation more as an ethnicity thana religious faith and commitment.

However, for those of us who view Mormons as synonymous with the covenant people of God, that doesn't work. You can't be part of the covenant people while rejecting, violating or marginalizing the covenant, regardless of how much affinity you might feel for the culture or history and how successful you might have been at deceiving your bishop or stake president.

I was sort of with you up until the end there where you started writing about deceiving your bishop or stake president. Why do you assume that a person who doesn't believe every revelation of Joseph Smith or every revelation of any Prophet, or every word of Scripture, whether taught or plucked from current use, can not be part of a covenant if they, in good faith, received the covenant, and have been honest about how they believe or do not believe? I have had more interesting conversation with Priesthood leadership while being honest about what I feel "uninspired" about than I can tell you about. You don't have to be dishonest, and not everyone is, (although I'm not saying there are not those who are) to remain in favor while having doubts about such things as, for example, the entire Temple ceremony.

I received my Endowment when I was 19 and was sealed to my current husband the same day. The inititory was beautiful, the sealing a bit underwhelming, but the Endowment really freaked me, a lot. For many years, like 15, I continued to do the "right" thing (read the scriptures, go to the temple, pray about it, etc.) and found that it actually made me feel much worse. One day a little over 10 years ago, I felt like I had to give myself permission to be ok with not getting it, as I was becoming increasing cynical and unhappy. Now, I go to church, or the Temple, if I feel it, like to support my husband or support a RS teacher, or for no reason at all. I'm respectful of those who are there, whether they feel the same or differently than I do. If I decide to go to the Temple, I have to really prepare mentally for it because I still don't like it, so I spend my time either trying to have a completely empty vessel for the spirit to reside, or in prayer for the person for whom I'm doing the work (just in case.) I have kept a recommend for a selfish purpose. It gives me the security of belonging to a group who I feel have the same morals and values I do, and I've always wanted to make sure to be able to attend my children's sealings, and I have, and everyone who knows me including the Priesthood I interviewed with knows it as well. It doesn't seem to have ever been a problem. Maybe because I'm honest about how I feel. Maybe because they are merciful people. Maybe because they know I have no desire to spread the lack of faith virus to other members. I don't know. I may be completely hosed on the other side, but for now I feel like I'm being true to my personal light and knowledge, however different it may be than others'. Of course this is just me. There are as many scenarios as there are people up to the buffett, and I can see where someone in your position could be very annoyed with this, I may not seem like covenant people material to you, and maybe I'm not, but I'm more peaceful now than I've ever been. And, just a couple of things for clarification, I don't smoke, drink, or cheat on my spouse. I do lie on occasion, mostly about how much things cost. I have a calling in the RS though I don't attend church every Sunday. I drink green tea and diet coke. I believe Joseph Smith restored the gospel and wrote the Book of Mormon, but not much else he revealed after that...but I'm not completly closed minded on the subject. I don't know if our current leaders are truely called of God, but I hope they are.

I'm interested now in how you would judge me, just for curiousity sake.

[mbh26]

"Train up a child in the way he shall go, and it shall not depart from him." That's the way some scholars now interpret this scripture rather than, "Train up a child in the way he shall go, and he will not depart from it." I've talked with many people who no longer believe what they were taught as children. But I've found that no matter where your journey takes you, you'll always be Mormon. Indeed, one can leave it, but it will not leave him alone.

[Kenngo1969]

There have always been " cultural" Mormons. They had been called " jack Mormons " for decades. But saying you are a cultural Mormon sounds better and about the only use for jack now is jackass.

Some of us are "jackass Mormons," too, but that's another story!