Teancum Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 Thoughts on this from Jana Riess? Quote Oh, now I get it: Purging the word ‘Mormon’ is a bid for the mainstream I’m still not a fan of the attempt to purge ‘Mormon’ from our vocabularies, but it makes sense as a piece of the larger assimilation puzzle. An Angel Moroni statue sits atop a temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Photo by Erika Wittlieb/Pixabay/Creative Commons July 14, 2022 By Jana Riess Share Tweet Share (RNS) — During the last four years, the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has introduced a host of changes that have made the church a little more mainstream, a little less weird. We now attend church for two hours a week instead of three. We’ve eliminated quaint outdoor theatrical pageants. We no longer require young couples who marry in weddings outside the temple to wait an entire year before they can be sealed inside the temple. This means they’re free to have celebrations that involve non-Mormon family members and friends before they engage in smaller, more private temple rituals. Missionaries can talk to their families once a week instead of just twice a year. Male missionaries can even, in some circumstances — gasp! — wear something other than a white shirt and tie, and female missionaries don’t always have to wear a skirt or dress. And of course, we don’t talk about becoming gods of our own planets someday, or any of the more esoteric theological teachings of our past. Leaders nowadays rarely exhort us about imminent cataclysms — we don’t speculate openly about how we’re living in the end times, talk about the latest Antichrist who’s arisen in geopolitics or require members to store two years’ worth of food in preparation for the apocalypse. Mostly we emphasize being good people who love our families, help our communities and strive to do right by Jesus Christ, our savior. We’re boring, and most Mormons like it that way. Except that we don’t call ourselves Mormon anymore. We’re members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (We’re so boring, in fact, we’ve put time and thought into insisting in our official style guide that the definite article that begins the denomination’s name be capitalized.) President Russell M. Nelson explains why the church’s name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the Sunday morning session of the 188th semiannual general conference on Oct. 7, 2018, in Salt Lake City. Photo © 2018 by Intellectual Reserve Inc. When President Russell M. Nelson announced four years ago we would no longer be using the word “Mormon” — that, in fact, it was a victory for Satan whenever someone referred to the “Mormon” church — I scratched my head in confusion. Although President Nelson had personally objected to the word “Mormon” since at least 1990, the church as an institution had only recently engaged in not one but two blitz media campaigns around that very term: the brilliant “I’m a Mormon” effort to demystify church members by showing ordinary people telling their own faith stories, and the church-produced documentary “Meet the Mormons” in 2014. So to renounce the word “Mormon” was an about-face that made little sense given the tremendous work the church had just put into associating that word with everything positive about our people. Overnight, what had been an affectionate term used by members and nonmembers alike became verboten. Some members even began to claim, ridiculously, that its usage was akin to a racial slur. While I’ve appreciated the idea of having our language be more Christ-focused, we’ve been largely unsuccessful in changing how anyone outside the church talks about us. Journalists still use “Mormon” in headlines, as evidenced by these two from just this week — one on church members in Yorkshire, England; and the other on how the “Mormon” cricket got its name from a famous episode in Utah history. The fact that journalists use “Mormon” does not mean they’re intentionally disrespectful, or that they’re ignorant of the church’s sudden change in direction. Journalists serve a broad audience of people who are going to continue using the term they’ve always used in thinking about Mormons — the very language, in fact, the church itself was encouraging them to employ not long ago. In the last four years since the change, I’ve been periodically tracking the use of “Mormon” and “Latter-day Saint” in Google searches. “Mormon” used to outweigh “Latter-day Saint” by 43 searches-to-1. Now it appears to be 40-to-1, which shows a bit of movement but is an awful lot of victories for Satan. Language takes a long, long time to change. The effort has also been unsuccessful in uniting us as a people, if that was the goal. If anything, it has driven a new wedge of judgment, giving members a convenient shibboleth by which to measure whether someone else truly belongs. Some members feel quite free to correct the language of any and all who still use “Mormon.” They take pains to explain there’s no such thing as a Mormon, not really, not anymore, and that in reality there are only members of the — excuse me, The — Church of Jesus Christ. That preferred new language is confusing — which church of Jesus Christ? It’s not like there’s only one denomination that follows Jesus. The new suggested language just makes us sound like everyone else. I have finally done the requisite dope slap and realized that making us sound like everyone else was a major part of the point of President Nelson’s rebranding-that-he-clarified-was-not-a-rebranding. That it wasn’t a bug so much as a feature. On the whole, President Nelson’s various changes in the church have succeeded in helping the institution exist more comfortably in the world. Years ago, sociologist Armand Mauss proposed the thesis that Mormon history has swung back and forth between periods of retrenchment (which he called “the angel”) and assimilation (“the beehive”). In retrenchment phases, we hunker down in our own subculture and focus on what’s unique about our religion — on what can save us from the darkness of the world. In times of assimilation, we engage with the world and see ourselves at home in it. We are more accommodating in tweaking our culture and even our beliefs to continue to be at home in that world. Sometimes these nods to assimilation can be small changes, like two-hour church or relaxing missionaries’ dress codes. Sometimes they are dramatic and affect what we had seen as core doctrines, like when we abandoned the practice of polygamy. The Salt Lake Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is shown April 4, 2020, in Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer) We’re in an assimilation phase, a “we’re not weird” phase. Shedding the term “Mormon” helps us to assimilate ever more comfortably because the word, with its accompanying history, is one of the most distinctive things about us. Getting rid of it also distances us from polygamous groups from whom LDS leaders have long tried to consciously uncouple. (Haven’t heard of conscious uncoupling as the new preferred term to use instead of breakup or divorce? Consider that an example of how many years it takes for language to change.) I’m still not a fan of the attempt to purge “Mormon” from our vocabularies. The effort has proved to be spiritually divisive as well as pragmatically impossible to implement outside the church’s own publications. What’s more, it makes the whole large-tent Mormon experience about the small-tent LDS Church. Doubling down on the traditional, full name of our church may not make us more appealing to potential converts, at least in this country. Sociologist Ryan Burge noted recently that in the U.S., every single Protestant denomination suffered declines over the last decade, and the only Christian group that is growing is nondenominational. So while there are fewer Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians, within the Christian audience is a growing share of “just Christian” folks who don’t identify with a particular denomination. I don’t think insisting on the “correct” name of the no-longer-Mormon church is necessarily the best way to reach those people who, as Burge put it, “are increasingly telling us they don’t like the idea of ‘The Church.’” But the move makes sense as a piece of the larger assimilation puzzle. Emphasizing denominationalism may not win converts, but jettisoning “Mormon” makes us appear that much closer to mainstream.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 Jana Reiss said something? You interrupted my nap for that ? Oh. 2
pogi Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 Quote And of course, we don’t talk about becoming gods of our own planets someday, or any of the more esoteric theological teachings of our past. Leaders nowadays rarely exhort us about imminent cataclysms — we don’t speculate openly about how we’re living in the end times, talk about the latest Antichrist who’s arisen in geopolitics or require members to store two years’ worth of food in preparation for the apocalypse. Mostly we emphasize being good people who love our families, help our communities and strive to do right by Jesus Christ, our savior. We’re boring, and most Mormons like it that way. And if we were focusing more on becoming gods of our own planets, or of doomsday apocalypse warnings/preparation, and the latest Antichrist in geopolitics, I guarantee that she would probably be complaining that we are doing it wrong and should more "emphasize being good people who love our families, help our communities and strive to do right be Jesus Christ, our Savior." But when we do that, we are "boring". Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Retrenchment is wrong, and assimilation is wrong too. Just what exactly would Jana Reiss have us do exactly? What are her visions and ideas for the church, other than being a source of exploitative monetary gain as a critic? I am much more inspired by people who earn a living by building up rather than tearing down. There is nothing useful or of value in this to grow from. 2
bluebell Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Thoughts on this from Jana Riess? I don't think she really gets it. 4
bluebell Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 25 minutes ago, pogi said: And if we were focusing more on becoming gods of our own planets, or of doomsday apocalypse warnings/preparation, and the latest Antichrist in geopolitics, I guarantee that she would probably be complaining that we are doing it wrong and should more "emphasize being good people who love our families, help our communities and strive to do right be Jesus Christ, our Savior." But when we do that, we are "boring". Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Retrenchment is wrong, and assimilation is wrong too. Just what exactly would Jana Reiss have us do exactly? What are her visions and ideas for the church, other than being a source of exploitative monetary gain as a critic? I am much more inspired by people who earn a living by building up rather than tearing down. There is nothing useful or of value in this to grow from. No offense to Jana, I actually really like her stuff in general. But I think it's helpful to remember that her job is to repeatedly come up with Latter-day Saint relevant stuff to write about that also will get an audience engaged in the topic (both pro and con). She has to be provocative in her topic selections or no one will read them. In this instance the question isn't really what Jana would have us do. It's what does Jana need to do to stay relevant and keep her job. (and I know that sounds snarky but I don't mean it that way. She does need to work to keep her job and she's going about it in a perfectly valid and reasonable way. It's what blog writers and youtubers have to do if they want to stay viable in the marketplace). 2
pogi Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 26 minutes ago, bluebell said: No offense to Jana, I actually really like her stuff in general. But I think it's helpful to remember that her job is to repeatedly come up with Latter-day Saint relevant stuff to write about that also will get an audience engaged in the topic (both pro and con). She has to be provocative in her topic selections or no one will read them. In this instance the question isn't really what Jana would have us do. It's what does Jana need to do to stay relevant and keep her job. (and I know that sounds snarky but I don't mean it that way. She does need to work to keep her job and she's going about it in a perfectly valid and reasonable way. It's what blog writers and youtubers have to do if they want to stay viable in the marketplace). As soon as we let money and profitability make our life decisions for us, I think we have lost something of greater value. She does have a choice in whom she serves. I'm sure with her experience she could easily find an equally rewarding job where she doesn't need to exploit her faith for money. I may be coming off as pretty harsh, but I am speaking more in generalities. I don't think that hiding behind our job is a good excuse for poor behavior. I don't hate all of her stuff, but I think she can do better. If money is owning her decisions, then she needs to break free. 3
the narrator Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 Completely disagree with that Mormonism is in an assimilation phase. The whole "I'm a Mormon" campaign and Hinckley's tenure was a period of assimilation, and that campaign was very much an attempt to normalize Mormons as every day people. Nelson is as close to a fundamentalist prophet that the Church has seen in a century. He views the world and its normalizing of LGBT persons as the single greatest threat to the souls of humanity, and everything he does is centered around sheltering the Church against it. In conversations with Armand Mauss before he passed, he was adamant that the Church was soon to enter a retrenchment phase. I was skeptical (aka, naively hopeful that he was wrong), but he was absolutely correct. Recent changes are not indicative of iassimilation, as they have nothing to do with the world outside of Mormonism. Rather, they are band aids attempting to slow down the hemorrhaging of members. IOW, they are meant to facilitate retrenchment by keeping members in. While the anathematizing of "Mormon" may seem to be an effort to better frame Latter-day Saints as non-Other, it's largely quite the opposite. That was the goal of the I'm a Mormon campaign (which was based on similar campaign done by Scientologists.) Instead, it is an effort to emphasize the Church as "The Church of Jesus Christ," where the Church is adamant that the direct article is capitalized to emphasize that it is the only authentic church of Jesus's, rather than one among many. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 3 minutes ago, the narrator said: Completely disagree with that Mormonism is in an assimilation phase. The whole "I'm a Mormon" campaign and Hinckley's tenure was a period of assimilation, and that campaign was very much an attempt to normalize Mormons as every day people. Nelson is as close to a fundamentalist prophet that the Church has seen in a century. He views the world and its normalizing of LGBT persons as the single greatest threat to the souls of humanity, and everything he does is centered around sheltering the Church against it. In conversations with Armand Mauss before he passed, he was adamant that the Church was soon to enter a retrenchment phase. I was skeptical (aka, naively hopeful that he was wrong), but he was absolutely correct. Recent changes are not indicative of iassimilation, as they have nothing to do with the world outside of Mormonism. Rather, they are band aids attempting to slow down the hemorrhaging of members. IOW, they are meant to facilitate retrenchment by keeping members in. While the anathematizing of "Mormon" may seem to be an effort to better frame Latter-day Saints as non-Other, it's largely quite the opposite. That was the goal of the I'm a Mormon campaign (which was based on similar campaign done by Scientologists.) Instead, it is an effort to emphasize the Church as "The Church of Jesus Christ," where the Church is adamant that the direct article is capitalized to emphasize that it is the only authentic church of Jesus's, rather than one among many. I think there's a lot of truth to the idea of mainstream assimilation but that's nothing new. The church has been doing that for a very long time. But it does seem to be picking up steam IMO. The church has been undergoing some fairly rapid change and almost all of that seems to be (whether intentioned or not) reducing the peculiarity of the church and its people. At the same time there does seem to be a kind of self-imposed purging going on within the church. By that I mean that there are Soooo many members stepping away either entirely or partially that the makeup of the church is going to be altered for generations. I think the result of that self-purge will be a smaller church membership that is even more dogmatic than it used to be. So on one hand church leaders seem to be removing some of the peculiarities whilst they are simultaneously prepared for a dramatic change to the membership of the church. A kind of approved purging to maintain only the most dogmatic types around the world. 2
the narrator Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I think there's a lot of truth to the idea of mainstream assimilation but that's nothing new. The church has been doing that for a very long time. But it does seem to be picking up steam IMO. The church has been undergoing some fairly rapid change and almost all of that seems to be (whether intentioned or not) reducing the peculiarity of the church and its people. At the same time there does seem to be a kind of self-imposed purging going on within the church. By that I mean that there are Soooo many members stepping away either entirely or partially that the makeup of the church is going to be altered for generations. I think the result of that self-purge will be a smaller church membership that is even more dogmatic than it used to be. So on one hand church leaders seem to be removing some of the peculiarities whilst they are simultaneously prepared for a dramatic change to the membership of the church. A kind of approved purging to maintain only the most dogmatic types around the world. I think this (https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2022/07/not-assimilation-but-alliance/) is basically right, though I think it misses the purposes of these alliances. Just like the baby steps for women are largely intended to reinforce gender distinction as part of its efforts to oppose LGBT interests, its recent high profile alliances are also all about the Church's/Nelson's opposition to LGBT persons and interests. The Church's recent obsession with "religious freedom" is undeniably about freedom to oppose homosexuality and trans identity, and if you look back onto how much the Church and especially its apologists pointed to the efforts of Black churches in California during Prop 8, the recent alliance with the NAACP make a lot more sense. 2
bluebell Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 32 minutes ago, pogi said: As soon as we let money and profitability make our life decisions for us, I think we have lost something of greater value. She does have a choice in whom she serves. I'm sure with her experience she could easily find an equally rewarding job where she doesn't need to exploit her faith for money. I may be coming off as pretty harsh, but I am speaking more in generalities. I don't think that hiding behind our job is a good excuse for poor behavior. I don't hate all of her stuff, but I think she can do better. If money is owning her decisions, then she needs to break free. Your position presupposes that she believes she is doing something wrong. I'm not her but I can easily see reasons that she might believe she is exactly where God wants her to be. And I'm not saying that she is purposefully writing about things that she knows she shouldn't write about (or that she doesn't really believe) to make money. I'm only saying that, since it's her job, she has a duty to pick topics that will get readership and engagement and it can be helpful for us to remember that when we read her stuff. 1
Popular Post the narrator Posted July 15, 2022 Popular Post Posted July 15, 2022 21 minutes ago, bluebell said: Your position presupposes that she believes she is doing something wrong. I'm not her but I can easily see reasons that she might believe she is exactly where God wants her to be. And I'm not saying that she is purposefully writing about things that she knows she shouldn't write about (or that she doesn't really believe) to make money. I'm only saying that, since it's her job, she has a duty to pick topics that will get readership and engagement and it can be helpful for us to remember that when we read her stuff. I think Jana is trying very hard to find positive things about the Church to keep herself and others still invested in it. This article is a good example of her trying her best to make a positive spin out of something that many around her have been critical of. So while many here may view and dislike her as a critic, she is very much engaged in her own sort of apologetics. 5
Fether Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 (edited) I decide to wear a specific shirt today. Me: This is a good shirt Jana Reiss: Fether chose to wear that shirt because he supports the child labor laws that are found in the country that it was made in. Not only that, he actually thinks his nationality is from there and is actively trying to identify as being from that country. Edited July 16, 2022 by Fether 3
Buckeye Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 Nathaniel Givens has a good response. https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2022/07/not-assimilation-but-alliance/ 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: I think there's a lot of truth to the idea of mainstream assimilation but that's nothing new. The church has been doing that for a very long time. But it does seem to be picking up steam IMO. The church has been undergoing some fairly rapid change and almost all of that seems to be (whether intentioned or not) reducing the peculiarity of the church and its people. At the same time there does seem to be a kind of self-imposed purging going on within the church. By that I mean that there are Soooo many members stepping away either entirely or partially that the makeup of the church is going to be altered for generations. I think the result of that self-purge will be a smaller church membership that is even more dogmatic than it used to be. So on one hand church leaders seem to be removing some of the peculiarities whilst they are simultaneously prepared for a dramatic change to the membership of the church. A kind of approved purging to maintain only the most dogmatic types around the world. A smaller, more healthy church is better than a larger church with a lot of fat. Part of the last days includes a number of people leaving the church. So I view recent developments of more people leaving as a positive development as it is one more thing moving in the right direction. Things are going exactly as they are supposed to be. We inch closer and closer to the lord coming 2
HappyJackWagon Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 22 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: A smaller, more healthy church is better than a larger church with a lot of fat. Part of the last days includes a number of people leaving the church. So I view recent developments of more people leaving as a positive development as it is one more thing moving in the right direction. Things are going exactly as they are supposed to be. We inch closer and closer to the lord coming I think that is exactly how church leaders view it.
Teancum Posted July 15, 2022 Author Posted July 15, 2022 4 hours ago, pogi said: And if we were focusing more on becoming gods of our own planets, or of doomsday apocalypse warnings/preparation, and the latest Antichrist in geopolitics, I guarantee that she would probably be complaining that we are doing it wrong and should more "emphasize being good people who love our families, help our communities and strive to do right be Jesus Christ, our Savior." But when we do that, we are "boring". Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I did not view this from her as overly critical. Apparently you do? She claims to be an active believing member so she is on your team. 4 hours ago, pogi said: Retrenchment is wrong, and assimilation is wrong too. Just what exactly would Jana Reiss have us do exactly? What are her visions and ideas for the church, other than being a source of exploitative monetary gain as a critic? Monetary gain as a critic? She is a member. Are you ok with members having monetary gain from church things so long as they don't meet your definition of critical? 4 hours ago, pogi said: I am much more inspired by people who earn a living by building up rather than tearing down. There is nothing useful or of value in this to grow from. Ah ok got it. So they can make money off the Church and your belief so long as they might YOUR requirments.
Teancum Posted July 15, 2022 Author Posted July 15, 2022 3 hours ago, bluebell said: I don't think she really gets it. How so?
Teancum Posted July 15, 2022 Author Posted July 15, 2022 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: A smaller, more healthy church is better than a larger church with a lot of fat. Part of the last days includes a number of people leaving the church. So I view recent developments of more people leaving as a positive development as it is one more thing moving in the right direction. Things are going exactly as they are supposed to be. We inch closer and closer to the lord coming I love it. WHen we are growing fast it is evidence of the truth and the stone cut out of the mountain without hands to fill the entire earth. When the church growth is slowing or possibly retracting its a good thing and sign the end times are soon. Simply amazing. 4
bluebell Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 1 hour ago, Teancum said: How so? I like the article that Buckeye linked to. “Not assimilation but alliance”. I think Jana missed some important considerations that the article mentions. 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 1 hour ago, Teancum said: I love it. WHen we are growing fast it is evidence of the truth and the stone cut out of the mountain without hands to fill the entire earth. When the church growth is slowing or possibly retracting its a good thing and sign the end times are soon. Simply amazing. The church is growing and it will fill the earth at some point in the 1000 year millennium. Patience my friend 2
pogi Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 2 hours ago, Teancum said: I did not view this from her as overly critical. Apparently you do? She claims to be an active believing member so she is on your team. Monetary gain as a critic? She is a member. Are you ok with members having monetary gain from church things so long as they don't meet your definition of critical? Ah ok got it. So they can make money off the Church and your belief so long as they might YOUR requirments. I don't like the damned if you do, damned if you don't approach. While I am fine with some criticism, I don't find it very inspiring or worthwhile most of the time. In regards to your questions about money, I was responding to the idea that Jana "needs" to write in such a provocative way to keep her job and make money, as if she was a slave to her job and money. I didn't like the sound of that. I stand by what I said and I think it is generally true - "As soon as we let money and profitability make our life decisions for us, I think we have lost something of greater value." 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 5 hours ago, the narrator said: ... He [President Russell M. Nelson, though the failure of the quote's originator to use President Nelson's title is duly noted] views the world and its normalizing of LGBT persons as the single greatest threat to the souls of humanity, and everything he does is centered around sheltering the Church against it. ... Really? CFR. And, no, a quote speaking of sin, in all of its potential varieties, in general, won't cut it. Thanks in advance.
the narrator Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: though the failure of the quote's originator to use President Nelson's title is duly noted Lolz. You're funny. To answer your question, my assessment is based on my own observations of Nelson's policies, including the policy of exclusion, and rhetoric over the years. If it isn't obvious that his views of homosexuality and gender aren't driving him, then IMHO you need to observe and assess more. Edited July 15, 2022 by the narrator -3
Kenngo1969 Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 33 minutes ago, the narrator said: Lolz. You're funny. To answer your question, my assessment is based on my own observations of Nelson's policies, including the policy of exclusion, and rhetoric over the years. If it isn't obvious that his views of homosexuality and gender aren't driving him, then IMHO you need to observe and assess more. Translation? "You're an idiot , so I'm not going to bother answering your CFR." Whatever, Dude.
the narrator Posted July 16, 2022 Posted July 16, 2022 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: Translation? "You're an idiot , so I'm not going to bother answering your CFR." Whatever, Dude. It's a silly CFR request. So, yeah, not interested in spending time on silliness.
Recommended Posts