Ideals Vs. Culture

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I take it you have found an alternative to Church membership as a means to find a sense of belonging and contribute to the world around you in a manner that is generally viewed in a positive way by members of the Church as well, and without identifying as a "cultural Mormon." Is this an informal group of like-minded people,or a more formal organization?

I don't seek a specific group for that. I try to cultivate relationships. My personal mantra for relationships, penned many moons ago, is to build relationships "stronger than ego, tribe, or sorrow." A big part of that is the ideal kindness with intellectual humility and honesty.  

In my opinion, a principled life necessarily transcends group identity. 

[Meadowchik]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your cynicism doesn’t prove the rule either. 

I wouldn't call my view cynical, it's just less facile. But I am not trying to "prove the rule," I am arguing against your measure for kinship as unreliable and dangerous. (And not just to you--perish the thought of measuring the goodness of something only by personal benefit--but dangerous as a social construct to everyone.) It is also, by the way, antithetical to principled ideals.

 

[Islander]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can’t find the precise statement right now, but not long ago, I ran across a comment from Ben Shapiro to the effect that his adherence to the Jewish faith/religion is based more upon ideals than it is upon culture or tradition.

That pretty much characterizes my own adherence to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’m not so much impressed by the richness of your “Mormon” pioneer ancestry or by how long you’ve been a member, or whether you attended seminary or graduated from BYU,  or how many or how high the callings you’ve held prior to your disaffection/apostasy as I am by your faithfulness to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and your embracing of the doctrines, principles, policies, teachings of the Savior’s Church as conveyed through inspired prophets and apostles. In other words, any affinity we might share is grounded in ideals, not so much in culture. 
 

Thus, I would feel a greater spiritual  kinship with the most recently baptized devout Latter-day Saint in the remotest Third World country than with a disaffected member of record in my own locale, especially one who has set himself up as a strident critic of the Church or its teachings. 

Agree. But unfortunately, what you see instead are "cultural Mormons" in most of the country today in the US. I travel for business quite a bit and at list once a month I attend Sacrament in some other ward. Other than socio-cultural affinity and tradition, many people are not and have not become true disciples and servants of the Lord. Very little substance and baseless, empty chatter is all you hear. It seems as if the conformity of tradition and organizational monotony has swallowed up the beauty and vibrancy of the Gospel of Christ. 

Just yesterday, we were helping to move a member of the ward. And I saw one of his neighbors whom actually works out at the same facility I attend and with whom I had friendly but casual conversations in the last few months. The neighbor seemed surprised I was a Latterday Saint. He said: "You are like no Mormon I know". At my surprise, he tried to change the subject. Suffice to say that he did not think much of the church member, his neighbor. Why? Well, that is a different conversation. But, it speaks to the point of membership based on anything other than living the true Gospel principles, teachings and the truth revealed in scripture and by the mouth of the prophets.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I wouldn't call my view cynical, it's just less facile. But I am not trying to "prove the rule," I am arguing against your measure for kinship as unreliable and dangerous. (And not just to you--perish the thought of measuring the goodness of something only by personal benefit--but dangerous as a social construct to everyone.) It is also, by the way, antithetical to principled ideals.

 

My message is succinctly reflected in the title of this thread: that I value shared ideals as a quality of kinship more than I do shared culture or traditions. To me, it seems a rather uncontroversial assertion. And one that resonates with quite a few people. So far, I have 12 “like“ points for my opening post, and it has been up less than 24 hours. It might be the most acclaimed post I have ever made on this board.

Yet you have denounced it as “facile,” “unreliable,” unprincipled. All of which strikes me as absurd. I keep waiting for you to make a solid case, but I’ve yet to see it. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Islander said:

Agree. But unfortunately, what you see instead are "cultural Mormons" in most of the country today in the US. I travel for business quite a bit and at list once a month I attend Sacrament in some other ward. Other than socio-cultural affinity and tradition, many people are not and have not become true disciples and servants of the Lord. Very little substance and baseless, empty chatter is all you hear. It seems as if the conformity of tradition and organizational monotony has swallowed up the beauty and vibrancy of the Gospel of Christ. 

Just yesterday, we were helping to move a member of the ward. And I saw one of his neighbors whom actually works out at the same facility I attend and with whom I had friendly but casual conversations in the last few months. The neighbor seemed surprised I was a Latterday Saint. He said: "You are like no Mormon I know". At my surprise, he tried to change the subject. Suffice to say that he did not think much of the church member, his neighbor. Why? Well, that is a different conversation. But, it speaks to the point of membership based on anything other than living the true Gospel principles, teachings and the truth revealed in scripture and by the mouth of the prophets.

Yes. Shared ideals, in concept, transcend mere group identity, A point that seems to escape Meadowchick’s grasp. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't seek a specific group for that. I try to cultivate relationships. My personal mantra for relationships, penned many moons ago, is to build relationships "stronger than ego, tribe, or sorrow." A big part of that is the ideal kindness with intellectual humility and honesty.  

In my opinion, a principled life necessarily transcends group identity. 

Of course, and the Church exists on the basis of cultivated relationships. A common identity is not necessarily a group identity. While not seeking a specific group per se, you have built one by living out your mantra, at least a common sense of belonging and contribution to each other. No one can find a sense of belonging and contribute to the world around them alone. Not that everyone needs (or realizes they need or have)  a sense of belonging or to contribute to the world around them.

By definition, relationships must be stronger than individual ego (no matter how strong the ego, take away the relationship and the ego is wounded); stronger than tribe (without relationships there is no tribe); or sorrow (without relationships there would be no sorrow, of that kind anyway...). That goes for "good" and "bad" and "functional" and "dysfunctional" relationships.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Sure, and religion isn't necessarily a reliable measurement of core principles. 

Over time, I feel the most kinship with people with intellectual humility and honesty, who are kind. To me, the ideals that matter the most to goodness in this life cannot be assured by association.

Even so, we are heavily affected by association, first within the family ( I grew up with mom, dad, and four siblings, all of whom are very dear to me), then with neighbors and schoolmates & teachers, but perhaps even more important the clan of close relatives:  Only later did I realize that my aunts, uncles, and cousins were part of a strong subculture -- in which there was a powerful familiarity and comfort and trust -- in which we all participated.  One of my uncles pointed out to me that he and his brothers had all married very similar women.  I hadn't noticed the fact until he mentioned it.  Then I also realized that we had a common subculture, common values of speech and thought.  We had a common set of understandings, and we all pulled together in  a crisis.  We were not motivated by hate and vilification, and cuss words were never heard.  "Dear hearts and gentle people," as Doris Day used to sing.  An attitude which has survival value over time.

Nearly all of them were Methodists, and all of them had minor flaws.  Goes with being human.  My aunts and uncles are all gone now, and my siblings and cousins far away.  I just had a birthday, and many of them remembered me with nice cards.  I thank the Lord everyday for my good fortune, and I plan on greeting them all on the other side.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Even so, we are heavily affected by association, first within the family ( I grew up with mom, dad, and four siblings, all of whom are very dear to me), then with neighbors and schoolmates & teachers, but perhaps even more important the clan of close relatives:  Only later did I realize that my aunts, uncles, and cousins were part of a strong subculture -- in which there was a powerful familiarity and comfort and trust -- in which we all participated.  One of my uncles pointed out to me that he and his brothers had all married very similar women.  I hadn't noticed the fact until he mentioned it.  Then I also realized that we had a common subculture, common values of speech and thought.  We had a common set of understandings, and we all pulled together in  a crisis.  We were not motivated by hate and vilification, and cuss words were never heard.  "Dear hearts and gentle people," as Doris Day used to sing.  An attitude which has survival value over time.

Nearly all of them were Methodists, and all of them had minor flaws.  Goes with being human.  My aunts and uncles are all gone now, and my siblings and cousins far away.  I just had a birthday, and many of them remembered me with nice cards.  I thank the Lord everyday for my good fortune, and I plan on greeting them all on the other side.

It sounds to me like you measure the quality of those relationships by the interactions themselves and not by your relative association to religions. Wouldn't it have been sad if your Methodist family members did not consider you kin because you weren't Methodist? But no, by the sound of it, you were all obviously influenced by shared cultures and ideals which though perhaps pervading religion also transcended your respective religions, and you all cultivated rich bonds because of actual lived harmony. 

That is wonderful.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Of course, and the Church exists on the basis of cultivated relationships. A common identity is not necessarily a group identity. While not seeking a specific group per se, you have built one by living out your mantra, at least a common sense of belonging and contribution to each other. No one can find a sense of belonging and contribute to the world around them alone. Not that everyone needs (or realizes they need or have)  a sense of belonging or to contribute to the world around them.

By definition, relationships must be stronger than individual ego (no matter how strong the ego, take away the relationship and the ego is wounded); stronger than tribe (without relationships there is no tribe); or sorrow (without relationships there would be no sorrow, of that kind anyway...). That goes for "good" and "bad" and "functional" and "dysfunctional" relationships.

Well, yes, and that is why those of us who "leave the church" can still find kinship with believing church members, and vice versa: we continue to cultivate relationships. We find kin in relationships of good quality which are stronger than any group identity of church believers (or church non-believers.)

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It sounds to me like you measure the quality of those relationships by the interactions themselves and not by your relative association to religions. Wouldn't it have been sad if your Methodist family members did not consider you kin because you weren't Methodist? But no, by the sound of it, you were all obviously influenced by shared cultures and ideals which though perhaps pervading religion also transcended your respective religions, and you all cultivated rich bonds because of actual lived harmony. 

That is wonderful.

If there had been shared culture but no shared ideals, Robert’s experience would not have been so “wonderful.” Yet you denounce the valuing and prioritizing of shared ideals as “dangerous,” “facile,” “unprincipled.”

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. Shared ideals, in concept, transcend mere group identity, A point that seems to escape Meadowchick’s grasp. 

Of course ideals transcend group identity! That's why it is facile, unreliable, and unprincipled to use church membership as a proxy for transcendent ideals!

There are good people in this world who will stand excellently with other human beings as "adoptive" kin regardless of religious adherence. 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course ideals transcend group identity! That's why it is facile, unreliable, and unprincipled to use church membership as a proxy for transcendent ideals!

There are good people in this world who will stand excellently with other human beings as "adoptive" kin regardless of religious adherence. 

Nobody here is advocating using group identity as a “proxy” for shared ideals. That is a distortion. 
 

The group identity without the shared ideals is no better than shared culture without shared ideals. 
 

Edited to add: And if anybody plays off of group identity, it is those who seem to think that past membership in the Church endows them with some special credibility to bash it. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nobody here is advocating using group identity as a “proxy” for shared ideals. That is a distortion. 
 

The group identity without the shared ideals is no better than shared culture without shared ideals. 
 

Edited to add: And if anybody plays off of group identity, it is those who seem to think that past membership in the Church endows them with some special credibility to bash it. 

Of course you're advocating that. You yourself said you would assume unless otherwise indicated members were in good faith believers in the gospel ideals. You are using church membership as a proxy for gospel ideals. That's why it's facile. Of course people are more complicated than that.

I'm not sure why you need to contrast your gospel kinship model against people who bash the church. I would think that a principled person who values gospel ideals would evaluate a "church basher" by their principles and ideals. A disaffected member can still have ideals and still be principled. 

This just seems like you're trying to delegitimize vocal disaffected members, as you habitually do.

As a vocal disaffected member myself, I can say that my core values are the same as they were my entire life as a believing member. 

That is why I find your OP absurd. In retrospect I suppose I should have just skipped your post altogether because you were obviously being inflammatory.

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well, yes, and that is why those of us who "leave the church" can still find kinship with believing church members, and vice versa: we continue to cultivate relationships. We find kin in relationships of good quality which are stronger than any group identity of church believers (or church non-believers.)

Yet you do not identify as a "cultural Mormon" and the kinship (from your standpoint at least) is on non-religious terms.

What do you think of those with whom you maintain a kinship who continue to relate to you on religious terms (from their standpoint at least), and to whom your status as a former/lapsed member of the Church is important (and important to reverse)?

As some relationships best maintained at equilibrium if you don't talk about or relate through certain subjects?

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yet you do not identify as a "cultural Mormon"

What do you mean by that? I'm still culturally Mormon in many ways. 

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

and the kinship (from your standpoint at least) is on non-religious terms.

Not sure what you mean. I can "translate" religious terms and use them genuinely when appropriate in my relationships with those who speak the religious language. It's nice when others "speak my language," too, making it a mutual effort.

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What do you think of those with whom you maintain a kinship who continue to relate to you on religious terms (from their standpoint at least), and to whom your status as a former/lapsed member of the Church is important (and important to reverse)?

I think of them individually as unique people, not lumped together. I cannot read anyone's mind. Our relationship, to me, is what we create together.

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As some relationships best maintained at equilibrium if you don't talk about or relate through certain subjects?

The ability to talk about differences of belief or to relate through certain subjects really depends on the person.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course you're advocating that. You yourself said you would assume unless otherwise indicated members were in good faith believers in the gospel ideals. You are using church membership as a proxy for gospel ideals. That's why it's facile. Of course people are more complicated than that.

I'm not sure why you need to contrast your gospel kinship model against people who bash the church. I would think that a principled person who values gospel ideals would evaluate a "church basher" by their principles and ideals. A disaffected member can still have ideals and still be principled. 

This just seems like you're trying to delegitimize vocal disaffected members, as you habitually do.

As a vocal disaffected member myself, I can say that my core values are the same as they were my entire life as a believing member. 

That is why I find your OP absurd. In retrospect I suppose I should have just skipped your post altogether because you were obviously being inflammatory.

If anyone here has made it inflammatory, it is you. 
 

And since it is clear you are determined to escalate it, I’m bowing out of the conversation. I won’t spend the rest of my Sabbath engaged in a spitting match with you. 

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If anyone here has made it inflammatory, it is you. 
 

And since it is clear you are determined to escalate it, I’m bowing out of the conversation. I won’t spend the rest of my Sabbath engaged in a spitting match with you. 

No, not at all. You began the OP that way, Scott:

"Thus, I would feel a greater spiritual  kinship with the most recently baptized devout Latter-day Saint in the remotest Third World country than with a disaffected member of record in my own locale, especially one who has set himself up as a strident critic of the Church or its teachings."

Just gross and offensive. I'm simply willing to point it out.

If you're a decent neighbor, and I am happy to assume that you are, I'm sure that as neighbors you and I could get along and even enhance each others lives in small but not insignificant ways. 

Have a good Sabbath.

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Meadowchik

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, not at all. You began the OP that way, Scott:

"Thus, I would feel a greater spiritual  kinship with the most recently baptized devout Latter-day Saint in the remotest Third World country than with a disaffected member of record in my own locale, especially one who has set himself up as a strident critic of the Church or its teachings."

Just gross and offensive. I'm simply willing to point it out.

If you're a decent neighbor, and I am happy to assume that you are, I'm sure that as neighbors you and I could get along and even enhance each others lives in small but not insignificant ways. 

Have a good Sabbath.

 

I'm not seeing what is problematic about someone feeling greater spiritual kinship with those who agreed with their spiritual beliefs than those who were critical of their spiritual beliefs.  That seems like a pretty natural thing that would be true for most people. 

Can you explain what's gross and offensive about that statement?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It sounds to me like you measure the quality of those relationships by the interactions themselves and not by your relative association to religions. Wouldn't it have been sad if your Methodist family members did not consider you kin because you weren't Methodist? But no, by the sound of it, you were all obviously influenced by shared cultures and ideals which though perhaps pervading religion also transcended your respective religions, and you all cultivated rich bonds because of actual lived harmony. 

That is wonderful.

Yes, exactly.  Religion is only one aspect of culture, and sometimes it gets confused with socio-political reality.  There is the concept of American civil religion, which is not at all a church-related concept, but rather is bound up in the flag, the Constitution, Washington, Lincoln, etc.  Our shared experience as a nation, music, movies, etc., are powerful symbols in common, which can pull us together -- or can separate us into distinct generations.

[Navidad]

I would like to ask a question please! This thread has me wondering . . . . Is it unheard of for someone to submit to baptism in an LDS baptistry, but not then join the church? Must the second always follow the first, or the first won't happen? Could not someone declare their desire to repent, confess and accept the atonement, but not have a desire to join the LDS or any other church for that matter? In LDS polity, is the link between baptism and church membership inevitable and inviolable? Thanks.

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. Shared ideals, in concept, transcend mere group identity, A point that seems to escape Meadowchick’s grasp. 

I think it is interesting that a few years ago, one of the Mennonite groups in Canada sent a missionary couple here to work among the Mennonites in Chihuahua. The concern was that they (those here) had lost the spiritual essence of their faith and identified as Mennonite only in terms of their adherence to Mennonite cultural norms (of which there are many). It seems to me that perhaps in faith groups that have strong cultural rules and norms for group identity that this might be a more common event than in those where their faith does not find reflection in quite so many cultural and societal norms and mores.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I would like to ask a question please! This thread has me wondering . . . . Is it unheard of for someone to submit to baptism in an LDS baptistry, but not then join the church? Must the second always follow the first, or the first won't happen? Could not someone declare their desire to repent, confess and accept the atonement, but not have a desire to join the LDS or any other church for that matter? In LDS polity, is the link between baptism and church membership inevitable and inviolable? Thanks.

 At this point in time confirmation takes place at the same time as baptism, so unless the person walked out between they would be officially considered members even if they weren’t intending to be more than likely. 

Section 18.8 of General Handbook

Quote

After a person is baptized, he or she is confirmed a member of the Church and receives the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see Doctrine and Covenants 20:41; Acts 19:1–7). The person becomes a member of the Church after both of these ordinances are completed and properly recorded (see John 3:5; Doctrine and Covenants 33:11; 3 Nephi 27:20).

I don’t see a baptism being approved if they told the interviewer their intent not to be a member.  Baptism is not seen as separate from becoming a member. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings/baptism-and-confirmation?lang=eng

Edited June 15, 2020 by Calm

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

 At this point in time confirmation takes place at the same time as baptism, so unless the person walked out between they would be officially considered members even if they weren’t intending to be more than likely. 
 

I don’t see a baptism being approved if they told the interviewer their intent not to be a member.  Baptism is not seen as separate from becoming a member. 

Thanks Calm. I guess that is another difference that I find interesting. I realized while reading this thread that while I have observed a number of LDS baptisms, they have all been of eight year olds. I have never witnessed an adult baptism in the years I have attended our ward. There may have been one or two we weren't invited to, but I am not aware of any. Take care.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I would like to ask a question please! This thread has me wondering . . . . Is it unheard of for someone to submit to baptism in an LDS baptistry, but not then join the church? Must the second always follow the first, or the first won't happen? Could not someone declare their desire to repent, confess and accept the atonement, but not have a desire to join the LDS or any other church for that matter? In LDS polity, is the link between baptism and church membership inevitable and inviolable? Thanks.

Baptism and confirmation is the gate into the kingdom of God (the church) through covenant.  Those who are taught by missionaries (or hopefully parents) and are baptized into the church understand the covenant to be a long-term commitment to participate and serve in the kingdom.  One cannot separate the covenant from the ordinance.  They understand baptism to be a beginning in the kingdom and not an end unto itself.  To see it as such is to misunderstand the ordinance.

Edited June 15, 2020 by pogi

[Navidad]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Baptism and confirmation is the gate into the kingdom of God (the church) through covenant.  Those who are taught by missionaries (or hopefully parents) and are baptized into the church understand the covenant to be a long-term commitment to participate and serve in the kingdom.  One cannot separate the covenant from the ordinance.  They understand baptism to be a beginning in the kingdom and not an end unto itself.  To see it as such is to misunderstand the ordinance.

Thanks  Pogi. Very well said. I was simply curious. I do get confused (probably nothing new to most of you) about the exact nature of the Kingdom of God in LDS ecclesiology. Not too long ago I read a wonderful book by Klaus Hansen about the Kingdom of God in Mormon history. I believe its formal title was "Quest for Empire." He (Hansen) stated that Joseph Smith used the term Kingdom of God "with some lack of precision." Hansen's book is about the political nature of the Kingdom of God and the Council of Fifty, among whom, at Joseph Smith's insistence were non-members. George Q Cannon insisted the Kingdom of God was separate from the Church. Over time it appears that the meaning of the term has changed so that today the Kingdom of God and the LDS Church are one in the same. It appears to have taken on a real millennial meaning, when it will expand into both a political and ecclesiastical role. It is all very interesting. We had a discussion about it one time in Elders Quorum. The men were fairly equally divided among themselves as to whether or not non-LDS Christians would be members of the kingdom in the millennium. So yeh, I am still unsure about the exact make-up of the Kingdom of God in this dispensation and the next. I guess ultimately it will refer to the Kingdom of Heaven - perhaps exclusively the Celestial Kingdom? As beliefs evolve over time it can be confusing for an outsider to understand! The Kingdom of God is a good example. Take care!