One of the perennial debates that springs is how much control the Church exercises over its members. Ever since the early days of the Church, critics have charged that the Church exercises an inordinate amount of control over its members in their daily lives. Even today we hear resurgent claims that “when the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done” (which sentiment has been roundly denounced by—of all things—a prophet over 60 years ago) and the concept that Mormons are somehow brainwashed. (This last charge is particularly prevalent among those who need, for whatever reason, to classify Mormonism as a cult.)
Well, now it seems that the debate has reached mainstream newspapers (once again). Recent articles in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Boston Globe have played two sides of this same broken record relative to the Church’s involvement in Proposition 8. Let’s start with the quote from the Salt Lake Tribune:
That may make some independents wary of voting for a Mormon candidate, he says, and stoke more fears of how much power the church has over its faithful members.
The statement, referencing a statement by University of Iowa communications professor Bruce Gronbeck, raises the specter of “too much control.” Conversely, over at the Boston Globe, writers are almost gleeful over the Church having too little control:
The church’s outspoken support for Proposition 8 exposed an unusual level of disagreement in the ordinarily harmonious Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Internet facilitated grass-roots organizing by the minority of Mormons who support same-sex marriage.
Too much control? Too little control? Seems people can’t really decide—in or out of the Church.
Ya gotta love it.
-Allen
Interesting topic. I think the word “control” can be ambiguous, and that can be one source of disagreement.
Regarding the claim that “when the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done”. This is often confused with the claim that “when the prophet has spoken, the debate is over.” The former is not taught by the church, and as you point out, has even been denounced by a church president. The latter, however, has been taught as the first presidency message in the Ensign. The two claims are different and should not be confused.
Regarding the quotes from the newspapers, I don’t see them as necessarily contradictory. The first says that the church has “power” over “faithful” members, and the second points out that many members might not be all that faithful.
“Interesting topic. I think the word “control” can be ambiguous, and that can be one source of disagreement.”
I think this is the crux of the matter. As can be demonstrated from the most recent Prop 8 discussions on this board, the percieved infuluence of the Church upon it’s members is seen quite differently by many people.
I think it comes down to intent. If you believe that the church is too controlling, you probably believe that they have some sort of secret plan or agenda for doing so – usually involving extorting money, or something equally sinister. I mean, surely the leadership of the church stands to benefit from the inordinate amount of control they are exerting, right? Or else why would they bother?
I’m not sure anyone has an adequate explanation for those questions. They are simply dead set on the idea that Mormons are mindless sheep who are led by the neck by our nefarious geritocracy, and that we are blinded and trapped by our faith.
The way I see it, the leadership of the church presents us with a model of living that they proclaim to be divinely inspired, and is intended to offer us the best possible chance to return to our Heavenly Father. We make no apologies for striving to live up to the ideals that we, too, believe are divinely inspired. To the outside world, this is perceived as strange, and cultish, but they are the ones who are blinded by irrational hatred and fear.
I think what really bothers the critics of the Church are that our leaders don’t need to use extortion, coercion or anything of the like. What really irritates our critics is that we follow our leaders willingly. During the past fifty years the West has seen a rise of individualism. The individualists can’t imagine why anyone would want to participate in something bigger than himself or join a cause that offers no compensation. That would almost certainly require personal sacrifice, something that individualists avoid whenever possible.
Since they would never join a group that requires personal sacrifice, without offering some type of compensation, they assume that we must be forced, intimidated or brainwashed. After all, that’s the only way they see themselves sacrificing personal time, means, comfort, etc. so why wouldn’t it be true for us?
“To the outside world, this is perceived as strange, and cultish, but they are the ones who are blinded by irrational hatred and fear.”
“Since they would never join a group that requires personal sacrifice, without offering some type of compensation, they assume that we must be forced, intimidated or brainwashed. After all, that’s the only way they see themselves sacrificing personal time, means, comfort, etc. so why wouldn’t it be true for us?”
These comments really amount only to back and forth name calling. We are intending to defend ourselves from the offensive labels suggesting that the Church “controls” it’s members. In order to do so we label the percieved opposition as being “…blinded by irrational hatred and fear.”
“During the past fifty years the West has seen a rise of individualism. The individualists can’t imagine why anyone would want to participate in something bigger than himself or join a cause that offers no compensation.”
I think the above quote has merit however. I have even heard members of the Church not living in Utah, degrade Utah as being too homogeneous. Perhaps there is something socially threating about religious collectivism. Politically I can see why this would be a concern, but perhaps the social aspect has not yet been fully considered.
Cowboy said:
“These comments really amount only to back and forth name calling.”
I understand what you’re trying to do here, but I stand by my post all the same.
It would seem that your intent is to point out that any imperfection in our arguement weakens our chances to “win the debate”, but I’m wondering at what point this ever became a debate that could be won? Particularly by using logic and reason?
If opponents of the church had those things at their disposal, chances are we’d never hear things like “the church controls its membership”, and I’d never have to accuse them of being blinded by irrational fear and hatred.
So, in a sense, I’m agreeing with you that back-and-forth name-calling does nothing to promote civil discourse, but I’m also arguing that civility has never been in play. Maybe that doesn’t excuse stooping to their level in your eyes, but that’s also no excuse to not call it as I see it.
What is quoted at the back of the Doctrine and Covenants remains true. You must understand that we believe that we are governed by the Lord, that it is His call that puts any man He chooses at the head of His church, at any age and at any time. Biblical history and Book of Mormon history sustain that not one of the Lords servants whom he has placed at the head of His Kingdom, Church and People have ever led them astray. Therefore i paraphrase, the Lord will never suffer someone whom he placed at the head of his church to lead them astray, it is not in the program, it is not in the mind of God. Were they to attempt that the Lord would remove them out of the place and so anyone who attempts to lead the children of God astray. They are men ” subject to like passions like unto us”, but they are known by their fruit. There has never been an instance where under the leadership of a prophet of God the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has faltered, slowed in its progress nor led any single individual away from righteousness, truth or goodness. And so it is in this instance.
I have to mirror some of the previous statements. It is a matter of perception. Members of the church don’t generally feel controlled, however, we are comfortable with being led. There is a big difference. The latter implys choice. Our “followship” is centered in our belief that Christ leads this church and the prophet is just his earthly mouth piece.
Our agency is ours and cannot be taken from us. We choose to follow the Lord and His anointed.
We take great heed to the council in the Book of Mormon found in Helaman 5:12. We remember on whom our foundation is built.
LDS people have covenanted to adhere to gospel principles and and at times various inspired discourses and by so doing do not feel they are controlled. If those of the LDS community ever feel they are being controlled then they need to ask themselves “what is it that I’m doing or not doing”. Should it really matter what the outsiders think anyway? As long as you’re doing what is right, who cares what others think.
There are people in the Church who wish the Church had more control over me. But I get along quite well with my local leaders. Perceived control isn’t necessarily actual control.
To say the Church has “control” over its members is overdoing I think. That is not to say though, that the Church does not have tremendous influence in this regard. No doubt this influence can be unsettling in area’s like Utah where this influence can spread into the local politics. The Church also has substantial financial influence through both its “for profit” and “not for profit” entities.
The coercion argument is a little difficult. A few weeks ago I was reading from Mormon Enigma, and the section was talking about Helen Mar Kimbal, the daughter of Heber C Kimbal – and wife of Joseph Smith at the age of fourteen. There has been serious debate over whether or not their marriage was conjugal, but it seems that it was not though the records are unclear. At several points throughout her life and after her marriage to Joseph, Helen remarked over her dissappointment in the marriage arrangement, and at times mentions regret. In the 1880’s during an interview she says, speaking of the day she was married to Joseph:
“[He explained] the principle of Celestial marrage…After which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.[‘] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.
It took her a number of years to finally appreciate polygamy, which she eventually did, but at the time felt it a great sacrifice and later commented on how badly she “hated” it. Some may look at this circumstance and call it control. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that she could not have declined, so to say she was forced is not fair. She did think that she was purchasing her salvation in this regard, and time has proven that religious threats of damnation or exclusion from salvation can be powerful motivators. In many cases the consequences for following/not following the Prophets counsel may not be this extreme (say, prop 8), yet it seems many members still equate “following the Prophet” with worthiness and therefore salvation. So whether we call it “control” or “influence” or any other title we, the Church does have a tremendous amount of power and potential for impact. The normative follow up is really the key here, “is this a good thing?”
True case: A friend and member of the Church sends out numerous emails asking everyone to support Prop 8, to “get behind the campaign”. This friend is not in California. I reply with two emails explaining that even if I could vote, I would not support it, and I give detailed reasons why. Another ( who is a member of the Church) who didn’t support it gave even more detailed replies explaining why, and why much of the campaign is founding on erroneous information. When pressed, my friend admitted that he/she really “didn’t know much about this”, but was a campaign organiser in his/her state, “because our leaders asked us to support it”, and it is necessary to “follow our leaders”.
Control? This person exercised his/her “agency”, but agency should be based on proper knowledge, not just the principle of “follow the leader”. In this particular case it was the latter. How many, I wonder acted like this member? I think Hugh Nibley had a classic term for this: Zeal without knowledge. And speaking of the eccentric and sometimes unpredictable Nibley, who was in unpopular opposition to the Vietnam war when the Church supported it, I wonder what he would have thought of this? Mormon Utah was one of the states which broke the crucial deadlock in the overturning of Prohibition, against the wishes of the leadership.
What has modern Mormonism become? In this case, a political machine with enormous power.
What else do you call it? When you’re required to wear underwear they design, make, and sell to you, or else you can’t attend your own sibling’s wedding– now that’s control! They’re basically saying, “We own your a$$!”
Angelina,
That’s a pretty wild conclusion that you’ve jumped to there. How is that control, exactly? Sounds like choice and consequences to me.
Well, it’s clearly control to me. Those under the thrall might not recognize it as such, but come on! Having an institution tell you how and when to wear your own underwear–and even how to dispose of them when they get ratty? And miliions of adults obey without question? Now; that’s control!
I think people who say we’re (too) heavily controlled by the Church are generally speaking from ignorance. I think that from the outside looking it, one simply draws that assumption. However, if one were to see the inner-workings, they’d leave with a much different impression.
That said, I think members are too often guilty of group think, and I also think they wish they could be led around by a prophet who would make personal decisions on their behalf 24/7. In many ways, the leadership has given in, but if anyone’s to blame, it’s the members–the leaders merely filled a dangerously wide void.
Aside from that however, I think for those who are willing to think and act for themselves, the Church remains wonderfully accommodating to such people. Other than a few simple observances, we only really need to agree on a handful of things. One thing I really love about Mormonism is overall looseness with regard to what you want to believe and how you want to believe it.
That said, given the fact cults tend to try to isolate people from competing theories (they’re very jealous things you know), our whole emphasis on receiving a secular education throws the whole cult hypothesis right out the window. I have a bachelor’s in Political Science…that little anomaly wouldn’t have happened had I belonged to a cult…unless maybe I had started the cult.
Angelina,
I guess you don’t fully understand us. That’s okay. Many people draw false conclusions about us based on only a shred on information, without caring to know any more. Whatever makes you feel better.
Wearing garments is a choice, not forced compliance. Sorry. Many people choose not to, or once did, and then turned away from it. That’s their choice.
If you want certain things in life, you are required to do certain things to obtain them. If you don’t do what’s required, you either didn’t want those things to begin with, or you don’t deserve them.
Yeah, I know… I’m just in the thrall. I don’t really see what’s happening to me.
“Shred OF information”, I should have said.
As I predicted in the first comment, the definition of “control” is the source of disagreement. Angelina and Ryan disagree because they are using different definitions of the word “control.”
Regardless, I don’t think most neutral observers would find it to be “wonderfully accommodating” (Noah’s phrase) that the church won’t allow you to attend your sister’s wedding if you don’t wear the approved underwear. You do still have your free choice, however.
wondering,
We disagree about the definition, because we disagree about their intent. If the leadership of the church does what they do with good intent, then it does not fit the definition of “malicious control” that the critics of the church are asserting.
From what I am gathering, Angelina has taken issue with the church for denying entrance into temples without a valid recommend, even for something as special as a family member’s wedding. This is perceived as overbearing control, and unfair treatment. I am arguing back that the intent is to preserve the ideals and standards of living that go hand in hand with the ordinances and blessings that come from the temple, not to antagonize and wantonly “control” people. If you want to join the military, or be on the honor roll at school, you have to adhere to the standards set by those organizations.
If trusting in my leaders and belonging to something I believe is good is “control”, then so be it. But don’t presume to tell me that I am being manipulated.
You put quotes around “malicious control,” but nobody in the original post or comments has said anything about the control being “malicious.” But that doesn’t necessarily mean there is no control at all.
For example, you might agree that parents in some sense “control” their children, even though there is no malice.
And nobody is claiming that the church is exercising “control” in the sense of threatening physical harm, physical restraint, or confiscation of property. It’s all about social sanctions. I think we need a more well defined concept than “control” to have a useful discussion about this.
Ryan:
I don’t think intent is the issue at all, just as you point out that is a subjective premise to work from. The issue regarding the definition of control is “type” and “degree”. The control is not physically coercive, but I think a case could be made for spiritually coercive, and in area’s of high member concentration, socially demanding. Sure you can do what you want, but if you don’t do what the Church says you will lose you family, wife/kids, etc. and jointly your salvation. In turn if you do what the Prophet says then you can go to heaven and have your wife and be like God.
To suggest that these conditions do not possess an intense element of control is very short sighted, and naive to most of religious/political history. Control that is submitted is stronger than control taken, naturally. If an oranization attempts to take control they will encounter resistance. An organization that makes it’s members willing participants in it’s cause has little fear of internal corruption. Sort of put’s new light on “I teach them correct principles and the govern themselves”.
This whole debate seems to center around whether or not the church can manipulate the membership on a whim simply by issuing a command. There is malice inherent in those motives. The ends may or may not be malicious, but the means certainly would be.
You are correct that no one had previously used the word malicious, and that I erred by putting it in quotations, but I would maintain that it has always been implied by the critics in this discussion.
I like your analogy of parents and children. As a father, I often wonder how much control is appropriate, and when it should be exercised. I do not doubt my intentions are good, but I am certainly imperfect. Trusting that the leader of the church is a prophet of God is critical in believing that we are not being led astray or having unrighteous dominion being levied upon us.
I can see how people outside of the church would reject that notion, but there is also the element of good fruit and works that have followed us this whole time, as well.
“but there is also the element of good fruit and works that have followed us this whole time, as well.”
I can also see how many people outside of the Church would reject that notion as well. The contemporary Church places emphasis on good families, making it’s members better citizens, being honest, working hard, etc. So yes we could say that today the Church produces “good fruit and works”. As some have alluded, one could argue for a sinister intent behind all of this, but nothing which could be clearly proven. However one does not need to delve to deeply into history to find those things which many of the previously mentioned “neutral observerors” would not see as good fruit or works. To many of these observors, some of the discoveries would be more akin to “evil fruit and works”. Yes it is the same old rehashing of arguments, Polygamy, occult influence, blacks and the Priesthood, etc, etc, etc. Let’s just not kid ourselves that Church history has been all roses, and therefore a perfect qualifier of true prophets in the saviors warning that “by their fruits ye shall know them”.
If we are sticking to Biblical qualifications, then the fact that a man cannot serve two masters must also enter the equation. If we assert that our God is with us, then there can be no critical flaw in the organization of the church or its mission. That says nothing of human weakness which has existed in all the peoples of God throughout history, including the Savior’s own original 12 apostles. However, when a prophet receives revelation for the church, we must trust that it is true and from God. That is what is on trial here.
And to your earlier point: I am still seeing very real elements of intent in what you said. In my mind, intent puts everything we’re discussing into context. Otherwise, I’m just not sure what it is people are trying to say about us. It could be taken as a compliment if I am told that I do a very good job listening and taking direction, unless you were also to tell me that I’ve been secretly helping a tyrant enslave millions of people, or something.
I agree that it if you are going to define it as control, then it should be defined as spiritually-driven control (coercion is a bit strong, in my opinion). However, I guess I just don’t see why it matters if people think that we’re being controlled, then. If we still have our free agency, and if we believe that those who are in control have a divine mandate, then aren’t we just actively participating in something we believe in? That is, unless there is foul intent afoot?
We all stand to lose things like our homes, our families, or our souls as the result of our actions REGARDLESS of who is “pulling the strings”. That’s life, and there will always be consequences for our actions.
Well if I were a betting man, which I am, then I would wager that the obvious intent of this post was to take the Prop 8 debate into a new and larger direction. The control argument that those outside of the Church are trying to make is that, if the Church tells members how to think in terms of a political campaign, the members obey. To those inside of the Church, it is seen as righteously excercising free agency at some level or another. I am either excercising my agency to follow the Prophet, or to support a cause I already agree with. To those outside of the Church it is seen as control.
Your argument about intent is still subjective, and therefore not germane to determining whether the Church possesses/excercises control over its members. Intent will merely determine wether this control is a good thing or a bad thing. It’s that who righteous king concept taught in The Book of Mormon. The groupthink argument is probably the best middle ground here, but it is clear that the Church does have and excercise control. Perhaps a quick recent example aside from SSM. If you were to turn on the local news radio in Utah at this time last year, you would hear that the big local issue was illegal immigration. Frankly it was becoming ridiculous, many of the local legislators were proposing some very drastic measures to deport, etc, illegal immigrants. Every issue from education to healthcare, to public services, and their associated problems, were being blamed on illegal immigrants as the primary cause. On assignment from the First Presidency, Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the Presidency of the Seventy was sent to address Utah lawmakers. In a very polite, quasi consultative manner, Elder Jensen urged that compassion be shown to illegal immigrants, and basically said “drop it”. Two weeks later after a brief discussion that had consumed Utah politics for the better part of five years, you would not even know that there had been such a debate. The local news rarely, rarely, mentions it. Nothing meaningful in the way of legislation was passed, or supported. I actually agree with the Church/Elder Jensens position, but was amazed nevertheless at the political power held by the Church. The leaders spoke, the members listened – even the elected members.
How many of us really appreciate how controlled we really are? Controlled by our heritage, gender, culture, educational status, etc. Is Angelina free of control from the media or her peer group? Does marketing/advertising have any control over our behavior? Why do current political campaigns cost millions/billions if there isn’t an attempt to control the voter?
One could argue that peer group is, in many ways, the equivalent of what we call a church. There is a shared ideology/theology, vocabulary,life style, world view, etc. Their temples may be named Walmart or Hooters, but they still have their costumes and customs. (Do the girls at Hooters wear underwear?)
I would suggest that we are all “controlled” whether we perceive it or not. To me the issue is not whether I am controlled or not. It’s the what, who and why of the issue. It’s the unknown, unappreciated influences that scare me…not that I strive to bend my will to that of Heavenly Father.
Doc:
I certainly agree that there are many externalities which greatly influence our thoughts and behaviors, the recent surge during the last ten years surrounding the popular news/entertainment and commentary synthesis demonstrate this very well. If a control argument is to be made then generally there must be an unequal relationship between the two parties, where one possesses the means of coercion upon the other. Walmart and other like groups can and likely utilizes a number of direct and subliminal marketing techniques in order to influence its customer base to purchase it’s goods and services. All of this notwithstanding Walmart does not have the ability to directly punish individuals who refuse to utilize their services. So to say there is control here is a bit of a stretch. The Church has the ability to directly punish the insubordination of it’s members.
Your post does I think however, introduce a dynamic to this discussion which has not been fully articulated, and that is the impact of “influence” (control, what ever label you choose) by means of indocrination. Using the prop 8 argument again, I think the Church imposed very little true “control” through direct institutional punishment to those who failed to conform – excluding some of those who chose to be public in their opposition. Still given the expectation many members hold that the Brethren speak directly in behalf of The Lord, the magnitude of their influence is undeniable. Many member felt that to take a position in opposition of the Prophets was to oppose God himself. Obviously the teeth in this argument are subject to what one believes in this regard. If you believe that the Prophets are not legitimate ambassadors of the Savior, then logically you may assume that members were manipulated into following the Prophet out of a fear of offending their God. If you feel that the Brethren are called of God, then you would likely believe that the Prophets were just the messengers conveying the Lord’s will for his children – and how could that be manipulative.
It isn’t that the church controls it’s members. It is that most members try to do what is right. In a world where people will tell you they may have broken 9 commandments; “But I haven’t killed anyone.” and brag about it should tell you something. When Baptist drink and dance on Saturday and go to church on Sunday. When the only Jews that know what kosher is are a few that live in New Jersey.
Well; when you have a group that try to keep the commandments, help their neighbors, have polite children, go to church for 3 hours on Sunday and they don’t drink coffee. Of course they are going to call us a cult. In the real world people don’t act like that. They would call us Jesus freaks but the evangelicals don’t want to be lumped in with us; so they say we aren’t Christians. I really don’t get that part.
This again falls into the category of tit for tat name calling. Can you seriously be suggesting that Mormons are one of the only groups who try and honestly live the commandments based on how they interpret them? Especially considering the groups you mentioned; Jews, Baptists, and evangelicals. Those are some pretty radical and unsupported assertions, and I think you will have a hard time backing out of them without having to concede that the irrationality of this statement. You could of course attempt to insist you are correct, but I think you will find little reasonable support.
My previous post rambled a bit…I hit the wrong button and it posted before I could polish it. Sorry.
The point I wanted to make is that we are all profoundly controlled/influenced/ indoctrinated in ways most of us are not really aware of. It makes no sense to me to discuss whether the church controls/influences me…it obviously does. If the prophet speaks for the Lord, I don’t mind being controlled or influenced by the Lord. The church doesn’t punish me…the Lord does. If that’s bad, so be it.
However, there is this knee jerk hypersensitive contemporary cultural pc response to being “controlled.” I frequently see patients who smoke 2 packs a day and have an STD who try and tell me how free they are. They are totally controlled by their habits, peer group (religion), infection, delusions, etc. And they are being “punished” physically and don’t even realize it. Yet they still accuse me of being brainwashed. We are all controlled.
RE: Walmart (representing media, marketing, our contemporary culture, whatever)…it punishes me by creating in me an “inextinguishable discontent” (Hugh Nibley). I desire more, buy more, eat more, lust more, etc. than I ever would otherwise. It distorts reality and relationships. The end result is my ability to choose and act (agency) is compromised. And I don’t even realize how much of my agency I have surrendered when I get into debt; get hooked on Twinkies, Oprah, and Diet Pepsi; and am indoctrinated to believe Obama is going to save us all.
RE: Walmart (media et al) and unequal relationships. I don’t know that I can validate this comment, but it seems self evident to me that the folks behind society’s Walmarts are a lot more sophisticated than the majority of their customers. People who earn $2000/month just have to have a 56 inch LCD. Just gotta have the BLING. Have you ever felt that most of society functions at a fifth grade level? Just look at the marketing demographic. Scary.
Being aware of the extent of societies efforts/success in controlling me is key in maintaining my real free agency…my self control. To me that’s the only control that really matters.
Cowboy – Can you seriously be suggesting that Mormons are one of the only groups who try and honestly live the commandments based on how they interpret them? Especially considering the groups you mentioned; Jews, Baptists, and evangelicals.
I’m not saying that at all. I’m just talking about the 10 commandments unless you are talking about the 613 Mitzvot. They do have a prison in Utah. What I am saying is there is a difference. By the way I come from 3 generations of Baptist ministers.
Fifteen years ago I moved to Utah and one of the first things I noticed were things left in the yards of the homes. Garage doors were left open. I lived in a good neighborhood in Texas and it was a running joke; “If you had something you didn’t want, leave it in the front yard and it would be gone in the morning,”. You notice there are no cigarette buts on the ground. Not that the state is especially clean. (Except Provo, I think they have a crew that washes the entire city every night.) Do you remember when you were 14 – 15 and you tried to smoke a cigarette? You didn’t know how to hold a cigarette? You see that here, but the kids are 24 – 25 years old. If it snows and you get up late, one of your neighbors probably shoveled your sidewalks for you. You don’t know who it was because they don’t tell you. They just do it.
The groups I mentioned; Jews, Baptists, and evangelicals are people I know. People I call friends and brothers. What is it you really want to know? Send me an email if you want.
I can agree with the social critique at some level suggesting that many large corporations use questionable marketing practices which employ military based psychology for the distribution of their goods. I can accept with greater conviction the observation of how caste struggles and top down oppression from the ruling class is tied intrinsically with the education/miseducation of the lower classes. Where I have difficulty is the comparing of Walmarts subliminal marketing efforts, with the Church’s control efforts. Perhaps if the discussion had been regarding the Church’s own public relations firm, Bonneville Communications – and it’s affectionately trademarked method “Heartsell” – I could see the parallel somewhat. This conversation has been largely about the direct control imposed by authority. I also cannot accept the conclusion that we are all controlled, so the best path is to be controlled by the best possible agent. If nothing else this is a defeatest attitude and does little to promote the good of the Church, or to shed light on it’s darker parts.
King of Texas:
I am having a hard time making sense of most of your comment. If you are suggesting that Utah (Provo) is a nice place live, I won’t argue with you. I think your perspective of neighbors shoveling each other’s walks is a bit polyanna, but mostly due to the assertion that everywhere else is so bad. I have lived in other states and frankly I have found that there are nice neighborly places, and other places more akin to what you described in Texas. What I have not experienced is anything which would lead me to believe that good Mormons and Mormon communities are any better or more common than any of the other good people and communities across the nation. Frankly, I have also found that some of the worst Mormons and Mormon communities are just as bad as the worst that the “world” has to offer.
It is very clear by your comments that what you are trying to sale is the idea that Mormons are the only group who truly live their faith as opposed to all of the Baptists who “drink on Saturday and worship on Sunday”, or “the Jews” who really are not devout. According to recent news the Church has approximately 12-13 million members worldwide. Many people speculate that only about a quarter, to a third of those would actually be considered “active” . Based on the membership roles I have seen in the various wards I have participated in throughout North America – including multiple wards in Utah – I would say that is probably about accurate. I would also venture that this is probably very consistent with stats on other groups as well. Most Baptists that I have met are not what I would considered “hardcore” baptists. Your comments only seem to work if you compare the one third of Mormons who are “active” to the two thirds of baptists and Jews who “eat, drink, and make merry”.
I don’t even know what you are talking about by the cigarrettes example.