Media Portrayals

[why me]

What was interesting it was after the Proclamation was published that things began to change morally in a drastic way. I had this impression that the proclamation was published just before a seachange in values.

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, why me said:

I think that it was also what the church was teaching morally. It was rather mainstream. I am reminded of the TV shows like Hazel, Leave it to Beaver, I love Lucy, Father knows best. All of these shows and much more were very mormon. The lds were not out of sync with mainstream values. The lds had a wholesome image.

Polygamy was not mainstream and was considered unsavoury and outside of moral values of mainstream America. So in a sense one might say that the twentieth century image changes were a revamp of the church's image, distancing itself from polygamy.

[california boy]

20 hours ago, why me said:

I think that it was also what the church was teaching morally. It was rather mainstream. I am reminded of the TV shows like Hazel, Leave it to Beaver, I love Lucy, Father knows best. All of these shows and much more were very mormon. The lds were not out of sync with mainstream values. The lds had a wholesome image.

And then Prop 8 happened.

[why me]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

And then Prop 8 happened.

The church and its members took a stance. Nothing wrong in that. Of course, it was overblown in the media in a negative way. I think that it showed changing times. We need to remember that even Obama was against SSM for many years before he had a change of mind. Values were changing but the LDS church did not decide to swim down stream.

[why me]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Polygamy was not mainstream and was considered unsavoury and outside of moral values of mainstream America. So in a sense one might say that the twentieth century image changes were a revamp of the church's image, distancing itself from polygamy.

I don't see it that way. The change in polygamy was a do or die stance. The lds church needed to change course if it wished to survive. However, once polygamy was abolished the church became more mainstream in its value code. And this lasted for quite some time. However it stuck to its beliefs about morality issues even when the powers that be outside the church were involved in value change.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, why me said:

I don't see it that way. The change in polygamy was a do or die stance. The lds church needed to change course if it wished to survive. However, once polygamy was abolished the church became more mainstream in its value code. And this lasted for quite some time. However it stuck to its beliefs about morality issues even when the powers that be outside the church were involved in value change.

I didn't discuss why the church ended polygamy, but the image revamp after. I was saying that the twentieth century clean-shaven, white-shirt-tie image was about distancing itself from its polygamous roots.

My guess is that the people-pleasing, cleancut sunshiny Mormon reputation is still a part of that. It's very different from the image of the early LDS church.

As an aside, I personally feel that people-pleasing mode deeply. I think LDS men adopted it to be more appealling to outsiders, and it naturally became a way for LDS women to position themselves the best they could within the patriarchal church framework.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

My guess is that the people-pleasing, cleancut sunshiny Mormon reputation is still a part of that. It's very different from the image of the early LDS church.

The no beards might be a ‘recent’ change, but why assume the friendly, upbeat part is as well?  Reading journals my relatives and others were highly involved in helping others.  Mom told me of her grandmother that fed anyone that came to her door.  There was a lot of making the best of things.  Not saying there wasn’t the same sorts of hardships there are today, but I think what is different is before Saints lived in a limited area, much of any communal contributions would naturally be to other members and outside of the LDS dense areas, people didn’t get a chance to know them.  Then over time there was a lot of moving out of Utah.  Both my parents’ family left Utah around the same time due to the depression, one went east, the other west.  And then their communities of nonmembers became a lot of their focus, joining local clubs, getting involved in the schools, etc.  What was previously experienced among members was now seen by others.  It would be interesting to chart general perception of Saints over the years by percentage out of the Mormon Corridor.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The no beards might be a ‘recent’ change, but why assume the friendly, upbeat part is as well?  Reading journals my relatives and others were highly involved in helping others.  Mom told me of her grandmother that fed anyone that came to her door.  There was a lot of making the best of things.  Not saying there wasn’t the same sorts of hardships there are today, but I think what is different is before Saints lived in a limited area, much of any communal contributions would naturally be to other members and outside of the LDS dense areas, people didn’t get a chance to know them.  Then over time there was a lot of moving out of Utah.  Both my parents’ family left Utah around the same time due to the depression, one went east, the other west.  And then their communities of nonmembers became a lot of their focus, joining local clubs, getting involved in the schools, etc.  What was previously experienced among members was now seen by others.  It would be interesting to chart general perception of Saints over the years by percentage out of the Mormon Corridor.

I would think that being a friendly, helpful neighbor wasn't uncommon nor a feature unique to the so-called Mormons of the past. That's different from the very cheery, very friendly people-pleasy image that persists today.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, why me said:

The church and its members took a stance. Nothing wrong in that. Of course, it was overblown in the media in a negative way. I think that it showed changing times. We need to remember that even Obama was against SSM for many years before he had a change of mind. Values were changing but the LDS church did not decide to swim down stream.

I am not going to turn this into a Prop 8 thread, but I will tell you flat out, that the perception of the Church as being this wholesome welcoming family centered church definitely shifted to being one that attacks the LGBT community and their families. Just like polygamy still casts a dark shadow over the Church, something that happened 100 years ago, how the Church treats the LGBT community has not been forgotten.  After all, members spent 40 million dollars letting everyone know that they were going after the civil rights of the LGBT community.  That doesn't disappear over night. The Church continues to fuel that belief when it prohibited underaged children of gay couples from being baptized and the current policies at BYU where holding hands and dating has now somehow become immoral if you are gay. The more this policy is exposed to the general public, the less the Church will look like an organization that welcomes everyone.

As far as your idea that the PoF happened at some kind of seismic shift in morals is nonsense.  The 60's and all its free love happened 40 years before the PoF.  Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows Best had been long gone as well.  

What you probably really mean is the gay citizens finally got their rights that was guaranteed them by the Constitution and began to live their lives in a way that brought them love and honesty where they can live their lives as they see fit, rather than be forced to conform to your own personal religious beliefs. 

I am not saying that the Church should change how it treats the LGBT community.  The Church can treat them any way it wants.  But let's not pretend that it is the world that somehow has shifted in 1995 as if that is some kind of prophetic moment.  It was a shift the Church took in 1995, not the world.  While some, like you embrace that moment, others found the shift to no longer match up with their own personal religious beliefs.  It is why LGBT issues is one of the leading reasons people give for leaving the Church.  You live in a different Church from the one I grew up in.

[2BizE]

I agree with the OP. Mormonism and Mormon culture is still on the fringes of modern society. Mormonism is like a coyote scavenging for scraps on the world stage, but inside the Mormon bubble, it is seen as a broad, world religion.

What the outside world still sees and thinks is 1) polygamy. Yes, Mormonism still supports pleural marriage in the afterlife. 2) Weird. The outside world looks at Mormonism as a weird, religion. 2) Sexist, racist, anti-lgbq.  The church is more aligned with the Westboro Baptist church than other religions on these aspects.  Sexism, racism and anti-lgbq are ideologies welded into the fabric of Mormonism that will be extremely difficult to remove.

[jkwilliams]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I would think that being a friendly, helpful neighbor wasn't uncommon nor a feature unique to the so-called Mormons of the past. That's different from the very cheery, very friendly people-pleasy image that persists today.

I’ve wondered where that people pleasing comes from. My sister, who converted to Judaism in her early 20s, has said many times that she attributes her struggles with people-pleasing to her LDS upbringing. I’d like to think it was just my family, but then I have heard a lot of LDS folks say the same thing. 

Incidentally, “Tokyo Vice” must have done their LDS homework, as they really do a realistic portrayal of sister missionaries. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ve wondered where that people pleasing comes from. My sister, who converted to Judaism in her early 20s, has said many times that she attributes her struggles with people-pleasing to her LDS upbringing. I’d like to think it was just my family, but then I have heard a lot of LDS folks say the same thing. 

Incidentally, “Tokyo Vice” must have done their LDS homework, as they really do a realistic portrayal of sister missionaries. 

From what I've seen in other places, this tendency seems to be attached more to Christianity in general than mormonism specifically, and that it's usually something that women struggle with more than men. 

I would guess it comes from a patriarchael theology that focuses on self-sacrifice and that it strikes women more than men (even non religious women) because women are less powerful in our culture (both secular and religious), and people pleasing is often used as a subconscious way to try to gain more power in society while keeping the ones who are in power happy at the same time.

So, it's the whole "I'm trying to be like Jesus" desire, but gone wrong.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From what I've seen in other places, this tendency seems to be attached more to Christianity in general than mormonism specifically, and that it's usually something that women struggle with more than men. 

I would guess it comes from a patriarchael theology that focuses on self-sacrifice and that it strikes women more than men (even non religious women) because women are less powerful in our culture (both secular and religious), and people pleasing is often used as a subconscious way to try to gain more power in society while keeping the ones who are in power happy at the same time.

So, it's the whole "I'm trying to be like Jesus" desire, but gone wrong.

I don’t know. I struggle with it as much as my sister does, and it doesn’t seem limited to women. Perhaps it is prevalent among Christians. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not going to turn this into a Prop 8 thread, but I will tell you flat out, that the perception of the Church as being this wholesome welcoming family centered church definitely shifted to being one that attacks the LGBT community and their families.

 

I have always been baffled by the fall-out from Pop 8.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not change it's stance on same sex marriage.  There was no a sea change in LDS doctrine or policy.  At best, it may have been a first time in testing out its ability to mobilize members for a ballot measure.

But why did (and does) the Church attract so much ire for getting involved, when so many other organization were more involved, donated more money, and had a bigger impact on the final vote tally?  For whatever reason, Mormons became the scapegoat on a measure that voters approved by a healthy 5-point margin.  If every member of the LDS church had avoided the voting booth that day, the measure still would have easily passed. 

I just don't get why the Church is vilified for its Prop 8 role.  They played a very small role in a very large state, and had been consistent in their teachings and doctrines for decades leading up to the 2008 ballot measure. 

Maybe this discussion is worth it's own thread.  You didn't want to turn this into a Prop 8 thread, so I apologize for belaboring the point and risking just that.  As you were.

 

[Peacefully]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t know. I struggle with it as much as my sister does, and it doesn’t seem limited to women. Perhaps it is prevalent among Christians. 

I don’t think so. I grew up in a different church and people-pleasing and just having a bright, sunshiney attitude was not prevalent like it seems to be in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, being in the Bible Belt, almost everyone had a church, but they didn’t seem particularly bent on people-pleasing.  It was probably the missionaries who exuded these traits most of all, and they were some of the first “Mormons” I met as an investigator. I attributed it to how happy LDS people were, so it didn’t turn me off.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Peacefully

[Saint Bonaventure]

50 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ve wondered where that people pleasing comes from. My sister, who converted to Judaism in her early 20s, has said many times that she attributes her struggles with people-pleasing to her LDS upbringing. I’d like to think it was just my family, but then I have heard a lot of LDS folks say the same thing. 

Incidentally, “Tokyo Vice” must have done their LDS homework, as they really do a realistic portrayal of sister missionaries. 

I'm a solitary, but well-meaning outsider. The LDS folks I know have more than their share of people pleasing. 

[Calm]

Are other churches as highly focused on service from all members as we are?  I certainly know of nonmembers who have gone to great lengths in their lives to serve.  I would assume that there are plenty of congregations out there very service oriented, but I wonder if they have gone as far as we have building it into the structure of our community (lay members serving in most callings, fast offerings, ministering, the new Just Serve program).  My guess is there is.  Would be interesting to match people pleasing attributes to high service oriented faiths.

Also to compare missionary churches.  Perhaps much of our people pleasing is our effort to be good representatives of our faith.

[the narrator]

Back when The Simpsons was watchable.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t know. I struggle with it as much as my sister does, and it doesn’t seem limited to women. Perhaps it is prevalent among Christians. 

It's definitely not limited to women.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I have always been baffled by the fall-out from Pop 8.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not change it's stance on same sex marriage.  There was no a sea change in LDS doctrine or policy.  At best, it may have been a first time in testing out its ability to mobilize members for a ballot measure.

But why did (and does) the Church attract so much ire for getting involved, when so many other organization were more involved, donated more money, and had a bigger impact on the final vote tally?  For whatever reason, Mormons became the scapegoat on a measure that voters approved by a healthy 5-point margin.  If every member of the LDS church had avoided the voting booth that day, the measure still would have easily passed. 

I just don't get why the Church is vilified for its Prop 8 role.  They played a very small role in a very large state, and had been consistent in their teachings and doctrines for decades leading up to the 2008 ballot measure. 

Maybe this discussion is worth it's own thread.  You didn't want to turn this into a Prop 8 thread, so I apologize for belaboring the point and risking just that.  As you were.

 

I am not going to turn this into another Prop 8 thread but if you really have no idea why this is often referred to as "The Mormon Proposition by now, I seriously doubt that you really are looking for answers.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not going to turn this into another Prop 8 thread but if you really have no idea why this is often referred to as "The Mormon Proposition by now, I seriously doubt that you really are looking for answers.  

I don't want to turn this into a Prop 8 thread either, but your insinuation that I'm not actually looking for answers is not well received on this end.

I really do want to know why it was called "The Mormon Proposition.'  What did the LDS church do more than other churches?  What did LDS residents of the state do more than other residents?  In a state with 40 million residents, LDS residents number less than a million.  In a church with hundreds of millions of dollars in resources, only $125k was donated by the institutional Church.  

We don't need to hash out the answers here.  I'm not even sure I WANT to hash out answers in this thread.  But you don't need to impute bad faith to someone who has honest and objective reasons for disagreeing with you. 

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I really do want to know why it was called "The Mormon Proposition.' 

As far as I knew it was only called that because that was the name of a documentary about it.

[MustardSeed]

8 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I agree with the OP. Mormonism and Mormon culture is still on the fringes of modern society. Mormonism is like a coyote scavenging for scraps on the world stage, but inside the Mormon bubble, it is seen as a broad, world religion.

What the outside world still sees and thinks is 1) polygamy. Yes, Mormonism still supports pleural marriage in the afterlife. 2) Weird. The outside world looks at Mormonism as a weird, religion. 2) Sexist, racist, anti-lgbq.  The church is more aligned with the Westboro Baptist church than other religions on these aspects.  Sexism, racism and anti-lgbq are ideologies welded into the fabric of Mormonism that will be extremely difficult to remove.

I have found this often to be true, that many people think these things of our church members.  I think it doesn’t help any to deny deny deny - 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I don't want to turn this into a Prop 8 thread either, but your insinuation that I'm not actually looking for answers is not well received on this end.

I really do want to know why it was called "The Mormon Proposition.'  What did the LDS church do more than other churches?  What did LDS residents of the state do more than other residents?  In a state with 40 million residents, LDS residents number less than a million.  In a church with hundreds of millions of dollars in resources, only $125k was donated by the institutional Church.  

We don't need to hash out the answers here.  I'm not even sure I WANT to hash out answers in this thread.  But you don't need to impute bad faith to someone who has honest and objective reasons for disagreeing with you. 

Sorry for being a bit sharp, but this issue has been gone over so many times on this forum and it is something that happened  14 years ago.  I just think that if someone was really interested in why the Church has taken so much heat over what they did to pass Prop 8, they would have found out by now.  

Never the less, this is the data from Protect Marriage.  Protect Marriage was the organization that ran the Yes on 8 campaign.  So it is not coming from the opposition to Prop 8, but rather the actual organization (set up by the Church) to run the campaign.

 

Quote

Church members contributed $20 million dollars in support of Proposition 8.^[15] 

•But Protect Marriage estimated that Latter-day Saints contributed half of the $40 million dollars raised for the measure.^[20]  

•The Church used Church services, such as making announcements related to Prop 8 in sacrament meetings,^[24] putting on firesides about Prop 8,^[25] and having Church members participate in phone banks.^[26]

•Yes, they failed to report some portion of their non-monetary contributions and had to pay a $5,539 fine.^[28] Depending on the point of view, this could be seen as either a clerical error or an attempt at evading the 501c3 tax laws.

•In June 2008, the Church asked members to “do all you can . . . by donating of your means and time.”^[21] Church leaders asked members to blog, make phone calls, and canvas neighborhoods.^[22

•Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

When people talk about the Mormon proposition, they are talking about such a huge percentage of the campaign that all came from members of the Church.  Political campaigns are crucial to getting people elected and propositions passing.  It was the members that owned the campaign and did all the heavy lifting.  It is why so many look to the Mormons as being responsible for Prop 8 passing.

Hope that helps.  If you have more questions, feel free to PM me.  I am happy to provide more information if I can, but I am not interested in participating in yet another thread on this issue.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

As far as I knew it was only called that because that was the name of a documentary about it.

Not true.  See above post.

Edited May 3, 2022 by california boy