The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,346 Articles Spanning 205 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
THE MORMON CURTAIN
|
|
2008 Exmormon Foundation Conference Oct. 17 - 19, 2008
|
The time is flying! And time to remind everyone again about the Exmormon Foundation coming up October
17-19, 2008.
Please join us for our annual weekend of education, enlightenment, personal stories, and mingling with a group of interesting and brave people who are exploring life after Mormonism.
Embassy Suites Hotel, Salt Lake City, UT Click here for details: http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/200....
Amazing line up of activities and speakers for 2008, including Steven Hassan - mental health counselor and expert on cults!
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"BOB MCCUE - SECTION 5".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
→
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
One of my friends is a successful clinical psychologist with a background in theology. He is one of the sharpest people with whom I regularly deal when it comes to understanding the academic psychological literature, and practically applying it. Here is part of a note he sent to me and a number of other people as we were discussing the difficulty we have observed in trying to communicate with literalist religious people about matters that question their faith.
He says:
About 90% of the world's population never achieve formal operations as Piaget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Pia...) defined them. When these are plotted against socio-economic status (SES) on the vertical axis, the resulting graph is almost a perfectly inverted pyramid. Higher SES accounts for nearly all formal operations capacity.
As you know formal operations consists, among other things, of the ability to manipulate abstract concepts which in turn is essential for critical, analytical thinking. Objectively appraising one's religious beliefs would be an example of the latter. Brain development in early adolescence (of various frontal regions) makes formal operations possible. Thus in high school formal operations first manifest themselves but they reach their full fruition in college.
Literalist religious beliefs are not confined to lower SES but they are more common there.
There is some question as to whether Piaget's system can be extrapolated from the Western European culture from which it was derived but its validity seems to remain relatively intact in the Northern West.
With many literalists, you may be speaking the same words but you are talking a different language.
As I have noted elsewhere, I think cognitive dissonance and various cognitive biases are highly explanatory with regard to why most of us have trouble dealing with information that conflicts with our important belief. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni... for my treatment that subject. This analysis is particularly helpful when it comes to understanding the situation of well-educated people who confront inadequacies in their belief system. They are capable of abstract, critical thought and hence experience significant cognitive dissonance as they wrestle with issues that pit scientifically sound theory and evidence against dogmatic belief. And, they tend to resort to sophisticated rationalizations in an attempt to relieve their cognitive dissonance. These rationalizations include things like Heidigerian philosophy (the experienced moment is the most reliable reality, etc.), various strains of postmodern ridiculousness, and the other kinds of strained rationalizations for which farms and fair are infamous within the post-Mormon community. "Intelligent design" and "creation science" are examples of the same sort of thing in other parts of the literalist Christian community.
However, I have noticed that with many people discussions with regard to the nature of religious belief do not even get off the deck. All they can do is respond by bearing their testimony -- they "know" on the basis of their experience, what is true. That is where Piaget comes in. Just as things like the intricacies of string theory and quantum mechanics are simply beyond me, abstract ideas with regard to the disconnect between our emotional experience and reality are beyond the grasp of many members of our families and communities. It is not realistic to expect people of this sort to change their beliefs, or even understand ours, as long as their emotional and social experience continues to run along Mormon lines and as long as their intellectual experience leaves them below the formall operations watermark.
Interestingly, many people leave Mormonism because it simply does not work for them without understanding of why that is the case. That is, their emotional experience within Mormonism does not justify the investment of time, effort etc. Mormonism requires. Sadly, people of this type often carry a burden of guilt with them because they have not falsified the Mormon belief system. All they know is that it does not work for them; that it does not feel right. Many of these people still hold Mormon beliefs, which ironically indict them. They believe they were not good enough to live by the Mormon rulebook. They feel guilty. And without the ability to place their religious experience and beliefs in context, it is difficult for them to shake these feelings. This is also often a function of not having abstract thinking skills at or above the level required to get out of the Mormon box.
One of the good things we can say about Mormonism is that it emphasizes education, and hence encourages the development of Piaget's formal operational thinking. It therefore has sown the seeds of its own demise. That is not to say that the Mormon Church will go away; rather, I believe that it will be forced to change because it has created several generations now of people who are capable of abstract, critical thinking. As my friend pointed out above, these people tend to be successful. Either Mormonism will change to accommodate them, or it will lose them. If there is one thing that Mormonism's leaders understand, consciously or not, it is hanging on to cash flow. So bank on it -- Mormonism will change to become acceptable to those of its members who are capable of abstract, critical thinking. This is likely, however, to take several generations.
Consider the difference between mainstream Mormonism and the FLDS in that regard. I have long said that Mormonism retards its adherents. I still think it is a fair statement. However, we are talking about relatively minor retardation. It is far more difficult for a disaffected member of the FLDS faith to leave that cloister that it was for me to leave mine.
From my point of view, a big part of letting go of Mormonism in a healthy way comes down to being able to accept and forgive others for doing what they do in being what they are. As we come to understand that people who have lied to us, stolen time, money and energy from us, and otherwise harmed us were acting in ways that were not only predictable, but in most cases unavoidable, it is easier to let go and move on. The same kind of understanding with regard to those who cannot understand our current beliefs and behavior is helpful. And this of course applies as well to that person to whom it is often most difficult to extend forgiveness - ourselves.
| Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" A Meditation On Healing Religious Wounds And The Breadth Of Religious Symbolism
Article Archived: Wednesday, Dec 6, 2006, at 07:32 AM
Stored Under Topic: BOB MCCUE - SECTION 5
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Bob McCue | TOP | |
I spent about 18 hours driving this weekend, and it had the opportunity to listen to a lot of music as well as a couple of books on tape. Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" has long been one of my favorites, and I listened to it probably a dozen times during the course of my drive. The following stream of consciousness is the result.
Leonard Cohen has achieved near iconic status in the poet/singer/songwriter community, while barely being able to sing. For an introduction, see his biography at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_...) and a recent, well-worth watching documentary Im Your Man (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478197/) that features U2 and numerous other luminaries and their accolades to Cohen, as well as performances of famous Cohen pieces by many of the same people. His website has a lot of useful information as well - http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/. This essay (http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/ - see "UNDER THE SPELL OF STRANGER MUSIC - LEONARD COHEN'S LYRICAL JUDAISM" under the "Analysis" button) lays the foundation for understanding the religious influence in his work.
Cohens "Hallelujah" is particularly meaningful to me. In it, he uses various symbols from his Jewish background in a way that produces a particularly powerful experience for those of us who have had intense experiences with the same symbols. As an aside, I remember being in Peru as a missionary, and being taunted by children in the street with a feigned ecstatic chorus of "hallelujahs". And, ironically, I remember thinking at the time that we were not anywhere near as ridiculous as the Pentecostals and other charismatic evangelicals who used that term as part of their worship. Little did I know how much more ridiculous we were in so many ways that were they. But I digress.
My walk with Cohen this weekend made me think about the transformative process many people who come from literalist religions backgrounds undergo, and how during the later stages of that process we reintegrate and reinterpret our inherited symbols. James Fowler describes this in his book "Stages of Faith". Elizabeth Kubler Ross alludes to the same thing in her stages of grief paradigm (google that), and much of ancient mythology plays with the same theme in countless adventurer into chaos, transformation there, and eventual return and reintegration into society. I deal with some of these concepts at http://exmormonfoundation.org/2006Con....
It is a measure of my recovery that I still feel an intense allergy to Mormonisms foundation symbols the silhouette of J. Smith; of the handcart pioneers; of the Salt Lake Temple; of the beehive; and most of all, of the Angel Moroni with trumpet. Hence, I am fascinated by Cohens treatment of his ancestral symbols, both because of what it will mean for me when I can do the same with mine, and because Cohens work is simply brilliant.
I have decided that part of the next phase of my recovery will include a concerted effort to integrate some of Mormonisms foundational symbols into others that have become more meaningful me of late, such as Dalis Geopoliticus Child (see http://dali.urvas.lt/forviewing/pic12...), Eschers various metamorphosis pieces (see for example, http://imagecache2.allposters.com/ima...), the oroboros (see http://www.asetusa.com/sc/oroborus.jp...), the ying-yang symbol (see http://www.csusm.edu/rms/images/yingy...), evolutionary landscapes (see http://www.dillgroup.ucsf.edu/dl_imag...), the windswept tree (see http://www.cyprusbyclick.com/CITY_GUI...), Etc. . This is part of a therapeutic method some psychologists refer to as de-sensitization. For example, an arachnophobe might be exposed to images of spiders in a sufficiently safe environment to allow her to wrestle with her fear on a regular basis. Gradually, in some cases at least, she will be able to deal with more intense images and with sufficient familiarity her fear can be overcome. I'm not sure to what extent this will help me to slay some of my Mormon demons, but I have been convinced that it is worth a try. Leonard Cohen is one of my guiding lights in that regard.
Cohens voice is so bad that I don't particularly like his rendition of the piece. My favorite cover is by k.d. lang. My favorite is her Juno aware performance. Her emotion, and the crowd reaction, put this over the top. k.d., btw, is a lesbian c&w artist who hails from a small town not far from Calgary. When she came out of the closet close to 20 years ago, that was even less trendy around here than it is now. Quite a human being; a fitting transmitter of Cohen's art. See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCJzn0... . A more restrained version can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW_H-V....
My second favorite cover is by Rufus Wainwright, which you can find in both audio and video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMrZ7l.... It is also included in the documentary noted above. Imogen Heap does a wonderful rendition of part of the song, which you can find at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE1OFH... .
I have cut and pasted the lyrics in full below, in both their versions. The owner of a piece can change it as he wishes. The more sensual nature of the later rendition is even more provocative than was the original.
There is far too much in this piece for anyone to comprehensively analyze it. So I will simply let the words stand for themselves. Depending on how others responde to this, I may add something later to indicate what partiuclarly resonated with me.
Enjoy.
best,
bob
Leonard Cohen
Hallelujah
(CD - Various Positions 1984)
Now I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you
To a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
You say I took the name in vain
I don't even know the name
But if I did, well really, what's it to you?
There's a blaze of light
In every word
It doesn't matter which you heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah
(CD - Leonard Cohen in Concert June 1994 )
Baby, I've been here before.
I know this room, I've walked this floor.
I used to live alone before I knew you.
Yeah I've seen your flag on the marble arch,
But listen, love is not some kind of victory march,
No it's a cold and it's a very broken Hallelujah.
Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, (Hallelujah...)
There was a time you let me know
What's really going on below,
Ah but now you never show it to me, do you?
Yeah but I remember, yeah when I moved in you,
And the holy dove, she was moving too,
Yes every single breath that we drew was Hallelujah.
Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.
Maybe there's a God above,
As for me, all I've ever seemed to learn from love
Is how to shoot at someone who outdrew you.
Yeah but it's not a complaint that you hear tonight,
It's not the laughter of someone who claims to have seen the light
No it's a cold and it's a very lonely Hallelujah.
Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.
I did my best, it wasn't much.
I couldn't feel, so I learned to touch.
I've told the truth, I didn't come all this way to fool you.
Yeah even though it all went wrong
I'll stand right here before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my lips but Hallelujah.
Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.
Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.
| If this were a Mormon testimony meeting, I would stand up, start with the obligatory brothers and sisters, I want to bear you my testimony that I know this is the one and only true church on the face of the earth blah blah blah, and then get into what I really wanted to say that I just got back from a wonderful vacation in France that I am sure you all want to hear about, and then go on to deliver a ten minute travelogue that would have only the most remote connection to religious belief or experience.
Since this is not a Mormon testimony meeting, I will simply tell you that I just got back from a wonderful vacation in France where I saw all kinds of interesting art, architecture, met some fascinating people, read all or parts of about a dozen books, and while immensely enjoying the experience found very little that that to do with Mormonism, post Mormonism or religion, practically speaking. Hence, I dont have much to say that is relevant to the topics under discussion here, and I will spare you the travelogue.
Perhaps what I just said does not mean much for most people, but in my case it is significant. For the past five years, I have not been able to read so much as the badly translated assembly instructions for my grandsons new bicycle without finding deep and intensely important significance with regard to religion in general and Mormonism in particular. Everyone teases me about this. My children can be downright vicious at times in this regard.
And so, as week after week in France went by and I read book after book and visited interesting place after interesting place and found little that drew me back into Mormon related themes, I realized that I am indeed recovering. And I felt good.
Maybe if I get some energy going here once jet lag has subsided and I am caught up at the office, I will cull some of the religion related stuff from my book review notes and post them. Most of that has to with human growth in general; how we deal with crises; how our relationships work; what makes art art and why are we attracted (or not) to it; etc. The books are Frances Mayes Under the Tuscan Sun; Chaim Potok My Name is Asher Lev; Michael Kimmelman The Accidental Masterpiece: On the Art of Life and Vice-Versa; John Gottman The Relationship Cure; John Gottman The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work; Pascale Quiviger The Perfect Circle; Eleanor McKenzie - Beyond the Kama Sutra; Baron Baptiste The Yoga Bootcamp Box; Harry Rasky The Song of Leonard Cohen; Alberto Manguel Reading Pictures: What We Think About When We Look at Art; Lao Tzu Tao Te Ching; Christopher Hansard The Art of Tibetan Living; Erica Brealey The Spirit of Meditation; and a couple I left in France the titles andauthors of which I cant now recall.
In any event, it is good to be back home and to do some RFM reading. I am starting to feel like an RFM grandpa(ma) kind of like SL Cabbie, Randy J., Stray Mutt, Dagny or perhaps even Richard Packham or Eric K. (bless their holy names). You know I care but do not feel the kind of panic that hits a new mother when her baby gets really sick for the first time. That is, experience has finally made me comfortable with the fact that as bad as Mormonism was, it can't really harm me. Victor Frankl survived, didn't he. Life hurts as well as it wraps us in wonder; we usually overestimate how bad its going to be and underestimate how much fun we will will have; we usually over-react; shit happens and gets cleaned up.
Dont misunderstand. I still feel the agony and panic of those posting as they achieve their first painful glimpses of the massive fraud practiced on them. For example, here is the text of a message that was waiting on my email when I arrived home, changed sufficiently to protect identity:
I find myself going in circles. I can see and argue both sides of the story. (The church is true/no church has the all-encompassing truth.) I see them both clearly. I am leaning more and more towards atheism, and on those days my garments are off. On days when I rely on the old framework, my garments are on. I feel miserable and scared no matter what I wear. I am torn and longing to be free. I am waiting for an answer from God and digging for any answers I can find in books in the meantime. I know that I have a strong sense of ethics, yet I have found that they still remain unscathed--with or without the belief in God. I dont know how to get past this point and I feel as though my heart could break at any given moment. I just want to be able to make up my mind once and for all without the fear of being cursed for doing so. I am afraid to live and afraid to die. I dont know how to adequately make sense of the spiritual experiences that I have had.
Nice. They should build a missionary discussion around that one. "Bro. Brown, do you feeling that grinding, churning feeling in the pit of your stomach? What does that mean to you?"
And, I empathize with the endless stream of tortured spouses who try to find help coping with unraveling relationships. But since I am no longer so raw myself, I accept these feelings without having my own hormonal cascade set off again to twist me into a typing, reading, thinking, sleepless frenzy.
As I read RFM, I also note the way in which many of the same cognitive biases that hold people inside the Mormon tribe are immediately turned into tools that solidify a variety of beliefs that contradict Mormonism, some of which have sketchy rational foundations though in almost all cases, being relatively benign.
And as time passes, I find that I have more trouble getting worked up over whether J. Smith was consciously fraudulent, delusional, well-intended but mistaken, or any combination thereof. He was untrustworthy that much is as clear as it is that the Earth is almost round. Hence, without compelling, objectively verifiable evidence to support what J. Smith says, he should be ignored. If anything, when he said "white", maybe put money on "black".
I dont care about the degree to which G. Hinckley is conscious of the role he plays as the current chief con in the Mormon game. A con man sells confidence instead of substance, and whether he is aware of this or not is irrelevant. The best salesmen make themselves believe in their products. Why? Because if you are a salesman, this helps you to sell. Measure Hinckley for that suit and see how well it fits.
Serious jet lag twice in a few weeks is a form of mental enema it clears the circuits through exhaustion and so allows lifes most recently formed pieces to find their places. This is like what sometimes happens when a writer accidentally deletes an almost finished but troublesome chapter, curses himself, starts to try to re-create it and then watches in amazement as the problems he was struggling with seem to resolve themselves while his story takes off in a fresh direction.
So, as I come back to myself here at home, I notice lots of things. For example, life feels more comfortable. This is not because there is more joy and less pain than when I was Mormon or recently post-Mormon. Rather, it is because my expectations are gradually becoming more realistic. I expect to be sad, angry and bored as well as contented, wondrous and ecstatic. And instead of continually needing to tell myself this, it is becoming instinctual. These new instincts bring peace.
And I increasingly notice that most of lifes satisfaction is found in the daily grind. I am finally past persuading myself of this, and accept it. I dont need to become God, or save the Earth, or be great in any way. The gradual accomplishment of anything fills us and so enables our occasional glorious overflowings, and provides the stamina we will sometime call upon as we stagger through lifes deserts.
Keeping promises. Encouraging each other. Becoming more constant; more present; more conscious; more real; more interested in more aspects of life; more creative (thus, as said the Chinese sage, living twice - once while experiencing and a second time while recording and interpreting the experience through art). All these fruits and many others may the recovering Mormon expect.
I have never felt more positive with regard to lifes short, medium or long term prospects, for myself as well as those I most love.
| I am in the midst of making a significant career/business decision, and was struck last night by how different this process feels this time around as compared to how I experienced while Mormon. This is the first time I have made a decision of this kind since leaving Mormonism.
While Mormon, a significant part of my decision-making model was drawn from the D&C 9, which advises us to use feelings of peace (as the "burning in the bosom" is usually interpreted) as opposed to darkness/confusion to decide what God wants us to do. For those of you who may have forgotten this bit of wisdom, here it is:
8. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it be right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore you shall feel that it is right.
9. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong
When deciding whether to accept a new job or business opportunities; move from one city to another; change intimate relationships; etc. we are generally speaking in a state of high emotional arousal or turmoil. Evolution has programmed us to fear the unknown, hence many of these feelings. The bigger the decision, the more likely we are to be in this state. Hence, if we only do what we feel peaceful about, we will tend toward what is safe; what we know; what we are already doing. Not surprisingly, this tends to keep most Mormons close to their Mormon roots and within the behavioural grooves carvedk into us by our conditioning.
And, when we feel this same angst about decisions that Mormonism encourages (getting married young; having babies young; going on a mission; etc.) we are told that these feeligns of darkness come from Satan. Where else could they come from? God has commanded us to do certain things ... Obviously, we obvious must obey what the Mormon prophets had said ...
Tails, Mormonism wins. Heads, we lose.
I remember, in particular, as a young lawyer being offered several opportunities to leave the law firm I was then working with in Vancouver, British Columbia. As I look back now, it is clear that the main reason I remained there for a decade is that whenever an opportunity to go somewhere else presented itself, I went through the process of fasting, praying, listening to my feelings, etc. and found that I did not feel adequately peaceful about taking the new opportunity. In some cases, these were opportunities that I had actively pursued because they seemed to make so much sense, but when the time came to make the decision I didn't feel peaceful enough and so let them pass. I remember weeks of listening to my emotions boil and feeling confused as to why God would veto chances that had seemed so good. That should have been a clue, but I was pretty dense. Once again, all I can do is laugh at myself as I consider my history.
When we understand a bit about the biochemistry of emotion, it is easy to predict we will have many strong feelings as we consider opportunities that require us to leave established behavioral patterns and perhaps relationships in order to undertake something new. Excitement; fear; rising energy to meet a new challenge; etc. are all part of this. But peacefulness or a burning bosom (the classic Mormon testimony feeling), generally speaking, will not be a significant part of what we feel. At most, we will get glimpes of this.
Hence, my family and I remained in Vancouver for close to 10 years in circumstances that became increasingly unbearable. The level of discomfort on a variety of fronts had to rise to the point where as I went through the Mormon decision-making process, the darkness, angst, etc. I felt at the prospect of staying with my law firm in Vancouver was worse than the fear, etc. I felt at the prospect of leaving. Once again, Mormonism had nuetered or infantilized me. It harnessed me in place.
Now, as I consider various kinds of significant opportunities I expect to feel agitated and have a reasonable understanding as to what my biochemistry is doing to produce these feelings, and how long they are likely to last. I understand that this emotional state is a short-term phenomenon, and that whether I choose to take an opportunity or not, I will shortly return to what might be called my "normal" emotional landscape. That is, my typical long-term emotional state.
The emotional spikes that occur as we contemplate, and sometimes make, significant life changes interfere with our decision-making process far more than they help us think clearly and make good decisions. They should be ignored for the most part, and we should consult with trusted friends and advisors who can help us see through this fog as we attempt to see the pros and cons of our too-rare chances for major, productive change along life's way.
Ironically, what I now regard as a miasma is the centerpiece of the Mormon decision-making process. That is what I was taught to focus on to the near exclusion of all else. And until mid-life, that is what I did.
All I can do is shake my head. Yet again.
| Public Relations - "Spin" - Mitt Romney How Will Mormonism Evolve? - Cognitive Dissonance
Article Archived: Monday, Feb 26, 2007, at 07:33 AM
Stored Under Topic: BOB MCCUE - SECTION 5
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Bob McCue | TOP | |
I just finished listening to an excellent CBC presentation with regard to the current state of culture, and a number of the factors that will influence where we go from here in that regard. You can find the program at http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/spi.... Today is a work day for me, but I will jot down a few thoughts that were stimulated by CBC before hitting the books.
Edelman, the Mormon Churchs spin doctor, was interviewed. He talked about the importance of the democratization of information, and the radical and beneficial effects that will have with regard to our society. The Hinkster might want to talk to him about where this is headed. Or, the big H can call me. I won't even charge for my advice.
The way in which the use of communications devices, and in particular video cell phones, are now used to transmit information from anywhere into the public consciousness was discussed at some length. For example, it is easy to find uncensored video footage taken by soldiers with regard to the war in Iraq (or any other war in which you are interested) on the Internet. Gone are the days during which governments could control the perception of war (or other elements of social reality) by controlling press access to the events in question. To its credit, the US government has not attempted to prevent soldiers from taking or sharing video footage of this type. Some of the US government's most recent and acute embarrassments with regard to the war effort have been a direct result of video footage of this type. There is a new kind of accountability between the government and the public as a result of the explosion of communications and information technologies.
On the other hand, there is a lot of handwringing (mostly by journalists) with regard to the reduced role journalists play in the culture formation process. They used to be the gatekeepers of the massive news enterprises that decided what kind of information most of us ingested each day. They held the government's feet to the fire by asking tough questions, and then reported and analyzed what they were told. Now, many governments (and most notably the US government) understands that they can deliver their message directly to the public through the Internet and other forms of media. So, they sidestep the journalists.
The decline of mainstream journalistic influence may cause an increase in governmental power (and executive power within government) as a result of a decline in governmental accountability. If journalists are not there to ask hard questions, who will ask? I think that is a fair point.
However, journalists and others now have access to massive amounts of information generated by the democratic information gathering and dissemination processes I have already described. A lot of people are now in a position to ask tougher questions than ever before. Think Guantanamo Bay.
The real problem is that governments are developing various excuses not to deal with journalists, or anyone else who wishes to call them to account. This is what should be resisted. As long as we do this, I think the overall trend is great.
In addition, when we think about how the dynamics described above function in the context of the secrecy oriented, non-democratic institutions like the Mormon Church, the same concerns don't exist. The Mormon Church has never been more than marginally accountable to journalists, or to anyone else. Now, the information democratization forces that are putting pressure on the US and other governments are also putting pressure on the Mormon Church. This will likely continue, and can be counted upon to fundamentally shape the way the Mormon Church functions in the future.
Think, for example, of the kind of meta or non-verbal communication I mentioned a day or two ago on SLDrones thread. Since some of that is relevant here, and that post will eventually disappear, I will repeat what I said.
I have come to believe that those who remain quietly on the inside of Mormonism with changed beliefs may be the key to radically modifying Mormonism over the course of a generation or two. The reason for this has to do with how social communication works. Military studies have shown that, for example, a kind of meta-communication occurs as different kinds of weapons are used (or not) and initiatives are taken (or not) during military exercises.
For example, if one army bombs the supply lines of the other (which can be done at any time), guess what will happen next? This is a kind of conversation.
Similar examples can be found within economics. For example, business corporations routinely skirt the rules against price-fixing by nudging and winking at each other in different ways while setting their prices within certain ranges and refusing to budge. Those who see this often respond by holding their price line as well. When on party breaks rank, most others follow suit. This works particularly well in markets what that are dominated by a few players. Think OPEC, though it is big enough to be hard to control.
Consider, then, what happens within your local Mormon ward when many of the people who seem to be successful, intelligent, etc. tend to decline significant callings, don't hold temple recommends, don't bear their testimonies and on the rare occasion when they are asked to give talks or teach lessons, they talk about metaphor, art and science instead of Scripture and testimony.
This kind of behavior sends powerful messages, many of which operate below the conscious spectrum. Over the course of a generation or two, the very nature of Mormonism will change as a result of this alone.
The presence of moderates of this kind within Mormonism, even if they dare not talk about what they believe, will cause significant changes from the inside that would not likely occur if everyone who disbelieved simply stood up and left.
Larry Iannacconne's research indicates that one of the best ways to keep a religious institution strong is to maintain the cost of membership at a high level. This could mean throwing out everyone who is not prepared to bear testimony in black-and-white terms, do what was required to hold a temple recommend, et cetera. The Jehovah's Witnesses use this system, and their growth has been significantly above the Mormon growth levels for a long time.
So, my view has moderated. I still encourage everyone who can to speak out. But I recognize that those who feel that they cannot will still play a significant role from the inside in remodelling Mormonism. Those who hope for utter collapse are, I fear, waiting for Santa Claus. And I think, overall, that the combination of these two forces (contricism from outside and quietly changing behavior from within) is likely to lead to the most desirable outcome. My thinking related to that point is too convoluted to attempt to lay out here.
Think of all this in the context of Mitt Romney's current run for the Republican nomination. He is a sharp double-edged short sword from a Mormon perspective. A Mormon in the White House sounds like a dream come true from the Mormon perspective. What could more clearly indicate that Mormonism has "arrived"? However, courtesy of Mitt Romney many Mormons are going to learn an awful lot about their own religion. It will be hard for them to stick their heads in the sand and simply avoid the message this time. They are intensely interested in the outcome of this political process, and hence will read the newspaper reports with regard to Romney and the progress he is making toward the US presidency. Whatever is discussed in that regard will enter the Mormon consciousness in an unprecedented way.
If people like us play our cards right, we can have a significant influence over how much Mormons learn about Joseph Smith and Mormonism during the next little while. Remember, the journalists now have access to democratically produced information instead of the relatively narrow sources upon which they used to rely. With many people like us feeding the same basic information to as many journalists as possible, the probability of Romney being put on the spot with regard to various Mormon issues approaches 100%. And the probability of his answers to those questions ending up in the public spotlight courtesy of the mainstream media approaches the same number.
Hence, it is extremely probable that Mitt Romney will in effect teach many Mormons far more than they have ever before had the opportunity to learn about the reality of their religion.
The basic issue to emphasize is that of trustworthiness. Every time we get the chance, we should put this front and center.
Start with Joseph Smith's trustworthiness. Given the man's track record of deception with regard to his sexual affairs and many other important issues that came up during the course of his leadership of the Mormon community, why should he be trusted with regard to anything that is not nailed down tight by trustworthy third-party verification? What standard of trustworthiness should be used? In general, the more important the issue of the higher the quality of evidence required. But in Joseph Smith's case, let's not set the bar too high, and use the standard required for a relatively modest investment. When anyone who's not already socially or emotionally committed to Mormonism applies this to Joseph Smith, they tend to be unwilling to accept anything of importance the man has had to say. The only people who believe Joseph Smith after becoming familiar with most of his story are those who already have a significant commitment to Mormonism. Social psychology eloquently explains why we should expect this to be the case. It applies to Mormonism as well as to the Jehovah's Witnesses, Young Earth creationists, alien abductionists, Scientologists, et cetera.
The most reasonable way to characterize Joseph Smith in this regard is to say that he was often in tight spots. That is, he got himself into trouble and found his control over the Mormon group slipping away. In these cases, he needed to find ways to get people to obey him, and then said and did what he needed to do to get that job done. This is not an unusual human characteristic. And, Smith was charismatic and hence able to get away with far more than most other people in similar situations.
The fact that a lot of Smiths lying had to do with sexual indiscretion makes his the kind of story that should make headlines.
The trustworthiness issue can then be extended from Smith through various generations of Mormon leaders into the present generation. For example, given the nature of scholarly work with regard to Mormon history, on what basis is it reasonable for Mormon leaders to now use the lesson manuals they do with regard to missionaries, Sunday School, and even for credit classes at the university level? If Mormons are so happy, what about all that anti-depressant use in Utah?; Utah's bankruptcy rate?; Utah's MLM participation, spousal abuse, etc rates?; etc.
Again, these issue should be put front and center with regard to Romney whenever we have the opportunity to communicate with members of the press and others who may have the ear of those people. I have sent a couple of e-mails to journalists who have written articles with regard to Romney, I intend to continue to do that from time to time, and encourage others to do the same. I think many perhaps underestimate the power, at a time like this, that can be exercised in this way.
In short, Mitt Romney's run for the US presidency will create a massive information spike that will be driven into Mormonism's heart. It is highly probable that this will reduce the power of Mormonism's leaders, and increase the power the average Mormon perceives herself to have relative to the Mormon institution. You don't have to accept callings; give money; go on missions; etc. Do what makes sense, not what you are told to do. etc. This is what almost happens when information circulate is improved within a human group.
One of the reasons for which this spike has the potential to be so influential is that Mormons will, in the case of Mitt Romney, have a rare opportunity to compare their personal reaction to bits of information related to Mormonism's foundational beliefs, to the reaction of the general public to the same information bits. Consider the following in this regard.
Generally speaking, the populace at large does not care about Mormonism. Hence, the debate with regard to Joseph Smith's deceptive nature, Book of Mormon geography, DNA and the Book of Mormon, etc. is carried out at the fringe of the Mormon community. The few Mormons who hear about this at all, generally only hear what exmormons say (and we know exmormons are not credible because they're generally sinners like Simon Southerton), as well as what Mormon apologists and leaders have to say. It is easy for most Mormons to brush the issues off in that context.
It is entirely another thing to see Mormonism's foundational truth claims debated in national newspapers, become the subject of jokes by people like Jay Leno and Bill Maher, etc. in a context where it's obvious that virtually everyone with even half a brain just shakes their heads and laughs at the Mormon position. Mormons will come to see themselves as they should -- as people who resemble in many ways the young earth creationists and Scientologists when it comes to the credibility of their core beliefs.
It will be extremely difficult for many Mormons to tolerate seeing themselves in this way. So, the information Mormons will ingest courtesy of Mitt Romney will dramatically raise the levels of cognitive dissonance within the Mormon community. This will bring many thoughtful Mormons to the point at which they can no longer hold literalist Mormon beliefs, which in turn will dramatically decrease their willingness to obey Mormon authority.
Near the conclusion of the CBC program, one of the commentators indicated that the ability of those who wish to manipulate culture to use spin for that purpose depends upon two things: ignorance and apathy. Mitt Romney's run for the US presidency will create an intense interest within the Mormon community that will cause everything relevant to that (including "real" Mormon history) to receive an unprecedented degree of attention. This will work against both the ignorance and the apathy that has to date kept many issues with regard to Mormonism's history and current social practices off the radar screen of the typical otherwise well-informed Mormon.
All of this almost makes a guy want to shout "Hallelujah!".
So, how will the Mormon Church attempt to spin this? I don't think they will have any choice but to use Mitt Romney's run for the US presidency as part of the Mormon mainstreaming project. They cannot credibly dispute the nature of the information that will be put on the table with regard to Mormons history, and the history of its beliefs. All they will be able to do is distance themselves from that, using institutions like the Catholic Church as their model, and claiming that this is always been what they have done, though some misguided (and likely unintelligent) former Mormons did not see that. I sure hope they play this card in public, since many of the newly enlightened Mormon crowd will feel insulted since they too did not read or question because they were obedient to Mormon authority.
And, the Mormon Church will of course emphasize Mormonism's similarities to mainstream evangelical Christianity every time that chance offered.
I doubt that the Mormon Church itself will make any official pronouncements. They will leave this to the goons at FARMS, Meridian, various blogs, etc. These are Mormonism's modern intellectual Danites. You got a dirty job to do, you know who to call (indirectly, of course).
However, the perception these Danites will create will not be questioned by Mormonism's highest leaders, and over the course of a decade or two will cause a significant reshaping of the way in which the average Mormon person coming to maturity will perceive her relationship to the Mormon institution.
One thing I wonder about is the extent to which the Mormon Church will attempt to use tools such as the so-called "viral" marketing we are beginning to see on the Internet. These take advantage of the fact that for the time being at least, what we see on the Internet at youtube, on bulletin boards, on blogs, etc. is generally perceived to be more genuine -- less "spun" -- than what we see in newspapers or on television, at least as long as what we're looking at has a homemade look and feel. People who wish to shape public opinion for commercial, governmental, or ideological purposes, are beginning to take advantage of this, thus creating a new kind of spin. Hence, video footage (such as the famous "wig out" bridal video) is staged to look like a real-life event, put in a place where it is likely to be assumed to be a real-life event, while in fact being an early step in a marketing campaign for shampoo.
I have no doubt that the Mormon Church and other ideologically based institutions have already begun to use tools of this kind. We should be on the lookout for them.
Edelman, the Mormon Church's public relations guru, is clearly tuned into this kind of thing as indicated above. I doubt he will have any moral compunction with regard to using this kind of thing to further Mormonism's interests.
So, in this communications rich age, Mormonism does have a God, and He does provide Mormon prophets with direct inspiration. But his name is not Elohim, it is Edelman.
These thoughts are rambling, incomplete and can no doubt be critiqued from a number of different points of view. If anyone cares to do that, I will come back later and respond.
Now, I'm off to read some of the best literature known to humankind -- the Canadian Income Tax Act.
| A Proposed Talk For Sacrament Meeting (or Wherever) - Quote Not To Use "Mormons Are Like Redwood Seedlings Being Pruned Into One Foot Tall Bonsai"
Article Archived: Tuesday, Apr 17, 2007, at 08:05 AM
Stored Under Topic: BOB MCCUE - SECTION 5
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Bob McCue | TOP | |
I have been intensely busy at work for the last little while, and accordingly not either posted or read much here for several weeks. However, I had the opportunity to read a few threads this morning, and wrote my first extended post in weeks on the "a lost Elder" thread. As I was finishing it, an interesting thought occurred to me for which I thought it was worth creating another thread. So here that is.
I know that people read this board still attend Mormon meetings, teach Sunday school lessons, etc. And, I have from time to time collaborated with friends of this kind, some of whom hold significant Mormon leadership positions, as they prepare talks to be presented at ward conferences, stake conferences, and in more mundane Mormon settings. Don't let it out that rank apostates sometimes help with the church talks that make everyone feel "the spirit". That will our little secret.
I used to write talks like this fairly regularly because I thought it was so ironic that I had the chance to do so, and I was always tickled by the positive responses, and to my knowledge, the response was invariably positive. However, eventually this came to feel like how CS Lewis described the experience of writing "The Screwtape Letters". Lewis said that one of reasons for which he stopped writing the newspaper series that eventually became that book, was that it cost him too much to twist his mind into Satan's persona. That is, he did not like being in that psychological space, and he did not like the kinds of things that he began to perceive emerging in his behavior, which he attributed to spending too time thinking like a senior devil (Screwtape) mentoring a junior tempter who had been tasked with bringing a particular human being over to the dark side.
Likewise, the further away I find myself from the Mormon mindset and community, the less inclination I have to put myself into the excruciatingly narrow mental framework that is required in order to write what would be a well-received Mormon sacrament meeting talk, for example, while spicing it with concepts that have within them the seeds of greater things.
In any event, as I concluded dictating what I posted on the other thread, it occurred to me that most of it would fit in nicely in a presentation at any Mormon leadership meeting, or other meeting, of which I could think. However, in that setting the wonderful concepts I had just outlined would be applied quite differently than I had intended.
There wonderful irony in this. What I was attempting to explain is the way in which human beings have an immense potential for growth and evolution. Mormons are relegated to a tiny portion of that potential development space by virtue of their belief system. Their use of the ideas that so excite me (and would likely excite many of them) would amount to turning redwood seedlings into one foot tall bonsais. "Wow! Just think what kind of stay at home Mom I could be?!" thinks a young woman who is bright and energetic enough to pick up either a Pulitzer or a Nobel, and maybe both. And by that I do not denigrate stay at home Moms. The same woman, with maximum degrees of freedom, might choose the role of stay at home mom, and I would applaud that. What still makes me weep is the perception of that one foot space as the only space within which a human being must grow. If there is a god, she has surely reserved an especially uncomfortable place in hell (watching endless mormon infomercials?) for those who sell this idea.
In any event, I hereby license anyone who wants to use the ideas below in Mormon meetings to do so. But, you will have to put your own "Mormon wrap" on it. I no longer have the energy for that task.
And I encourage you to encourage those who listen to you, to walk to the edges of their tiny world and see what they can discern through the the miasma that has been purposefully constructed at that border by their Mormon leaders, and the hand-puppet apologists who serve them. (see http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs....).
*****
Excellent comments.
I am a big fan of Kohlberg's theory regarding moral development. James Fowler's "Stages of Faith" analysis is useful too (he attributes his ideas to Kohlberg in some ways), as well as Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' "stages of grief" analysis when it comes to both leaving Mormonism, and the psychological landscape we must navigate once on the outside.
I also agree that the best way to understand our experience is to think in terms of these concepts on a multi-dimensional basis. We are complex systems, and we interface in countless ways with other larger and far more complex systems. These include our intimate relationships; our family relationships; our relationships in the various communities of which we are part; our relationships in the workplace; etc. not to mention our connection to the ecosystem and the rest of reality.
For example, there are infinite possibilities for permutations and combinations of traits between our attributes and those of our single most intimate partner. Multiply that infinity as many times as you wish to understand the nature of the complex space in which we function.
Accordingly, for some purposes our personalities are overdeveloped in some ways, underdeveloped and others. And, different people at different life stages have different capacities for continuing growth and development.
One of the most important conclusions coming out of the recent work related to personal productivity and satisfaction with life, both in the workplace and elsewhere, is that we are usually better off focusing on expanding our capacity in those areas where we have demonstrated both special strength, and interest. Evolution seems to have designed us to be interested, not coincidently, in those areas where we have strengths that are deemed useful in our place and time. See Martin Seligman "Authentic Happiness" for some of this (www.authentichappiness.com).
Conversely, it seems to be counterproductive in a variety of ways to spend very much energy trying to change basic character attributes that might be characterized as weaknesses. Rather, we are usually best off finding ways to protect ourselves from these (if you are disorganized, hire a good admin assistant; if you are Bill Clintonesque and want to stay in a single, intimate relationship ... I don't know what you do ...)And of course, these traits are to a large degree a function of social and other circumstance.
In some societies, for example, certain traits are considered to be strengths, whereas in others the same traits are liabilities. In many cases, these considerations are rooted in what at least once where survival imperatives.
For example, I have a very quick metabolism. At almost age 50, I can still eat more than I probably should and get away with it without exercising as much as I should, while still seeming to remain relatively fit. In our environment of abundance, my biology in this regard is advantageous in many ways. However, were I living during a time of famine, my need to consume relatively large amounts of calories in relation to the energy I put out would probably make me a social and survival liability relative to my group, and likely drive me into starvation much sooner than people whose bodies make more efficient use of the calories they take in.
In any event, in my opinion one of the most important concepts to bear in mind is that the complexity I described above is not a cause for lamentation. Rather, it demonstrates a fundamental fecundity in the reality of which we are part that is so exciting that sometimes it makes me feel like I want to get up and dance around my desk (or wherever).
We have so much potential for continued growth or personal evolution when combined with those whom we love the most, not to mention the rest of this incredible reality from which we have emerged. That is one of science's basic lessons for us -- that brand-new stuff continually emerges as a result of some kind of yet not understood creative force that operates within all aspects of reality (from the smallest -- quantum physics -- up to the largest -- cosmology --, and at every known level in between). We are one manifestation of that creative push. And from within us, and each of our social relationships, the same creative push wells up and from time to time produces new, cool stuff.
Think of it. Put any two living things together in a relationship, and a brand-new creative push comes into being. Remove one living thing from a complex relationship, this changes the relationship and so a brand new creative push comes into being. If energy is directed toward that, we can expect brand-new stuff to simply pop into existence. To the extent that we have the ability to control the nature of the energy directed into the relationship, the nature of the conditions that influence the relationship, etc., we have some ability to control the kind of "new stuff" that pops out.
Life is way better than Christmas every day, when you think about it in these terms.
Not all of the new stuff that pops out will please us, but much of it will end, we are capable of training ourselves to focus for the most part on what pleases us, is useful to us, etc. We can, in this limited sense, construct our own reality. Jon Haidt's chapter with regard to Buddhism (see "the happiest hypothesis") was very helpful to me in that regard. He differentiates in a clear and easy to understand fashion between reality as it is (including the real nature of our social relationships) and the web of values, memories, imperfect perceptions, and other lenses through which we must interpret that reality.
The better we understand the way in which our minds work in this regard, the more likely it is that we will be able to both deal with reality as it is a functional way, as well as constructing for ourselves lenses that will enable us to shape and enjoy this wonderful ride.
As is the case with most aspects of life, some of us have greater natural talent to bring to this task than others. However, Haidt and scholars that work in his field (positive psychology and its social psychology branches) are developing an increasingly impressive suite of tools that are likely to improve each of our perception of life.
The bottom line in all of this, in my view, is that we participate in, and are an integral part of, an ongoing miracle.
In any event, the best we can hope for from theories of the type discussed above (Kohlberg, Fowler, Kubler Ross, Piaget, and countless others) is a basic idea with regard to how things fit together.
And, most importantly, exploring the potential for how our lives could be - literally choosing and then constructing our lives - is exciting, and endlessly fascinating.
I just got up and danced around my desk, and then tried to see if I could jump high enough to touch my head to the ceiling, as I used to be easily able to do as evidence of what used to be a 30+ inch vertical. Could not quite make it. Got to start working out again ...
Life is good.
| Let us celebrate our heroes, and empathize with the vast majority of our social groups (including, even, religious leaders) who have no realistic chance when pitted against their social forces. These thoughts were stimulated by my reading of a recent article posted at http://www.edge.org. I have mentioned, perhaps too many times, that this is one of my favorite places for intellectual stimulation.
The article (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/zimba...) is an interview with the famous Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo. His "prison experiment" was one of the first to expose the power of social context to shape individual behaviour. Within days, well-adjusted students who were randomly selected to be guards became abusive, and similar students who were randomly selected to become prisoners began to display classic prisoner type behavior. The behavior was so extreme that it had to be terminated after six days, instead of running for the two weeks for which it had been planned.
In this interview, Zimbardo describes the experiment in the context of other studies he has undertaken with regard to heroism, and notes the unusual character of the few individuals who tend to swim against social currents. These he calls "heroes". To use his words,
"In her analysis, [Hanna] Ardent was saying that from everything we knew about his history, Eichmann [a German leader at Auschwitz] was essentially a normal person before he went into Auschwitz. And when he came out of Auschwitz he was again assessed as a normal person. So the interesting question is, what was the process of transformation from before to after his being embedded in that situation. As a social psychologist, I bring forth the power of situations to transform good people into evil, which is what I've been studying since my Stanford prison study way back in 1971. I argue that there are some features of special situations that can corrupt the best and brightest. Normal people, even good people. Not all, but most. And the ones who resist, the ones who somehow have the street-smarts - the situational sophistication - to resist are the exceptions. In fact, I'm going to call them heroes.
Arendt's analysis is really a forerunner of the situational analysis, although she doesn't express it as such. There is no question that what Eichmann did was evil, but there's also no question that when he was outside that situation, he was normal. The issue then is, what is it about the particulars of that situation that was able to transform this person."
Zimbardo has spent a lifetime probing this question: Why do a few resist social forces while most can be persuaded to engage in even "obviously" immoral acts once certain kinds of social dynamics push in that direction?
However, before we brand all who resist Mormonism's influence heroes (and start to celebrate our own heroism) we should recall that many who swim against social currents are misguided, disillusioned, nut cases, etc. The difference between a hero and a nut job is often largely a matter of perspective. However, with the benefit of significant historical perspective, it is possible to identify special individuals.
For example, Zimbardo's studies on heroism involved interviewing people of many cultures who assisted Jews to avoid extermination during the Holocaust. And, his studies with regard to the powerful effects of social context have helped us to understand how many of the Auschwitz guards were normal, upstanding citizens, good parents, charitable individuals, both before Auschwitz, and after Auschwitz. There was something about being in the environment created around Auschwitz that radically changed their character, and enabled them to participate in some of the most atrocious acts that have ever been chronicled. His prison experiment elegantly disclosed how easy it is for powerful circumstances of this sort to be created, and how rapidly they take effect. For more of the same sort of thing, see Stanley Milgram's famous "shock" experiments related to the power of authority (or perceived authority) to shape behavior.
We should also remember that our heroes for the most part do not feel that they "chose" their course of action. They simply acted out of the role genetics and circumstances have molded them to play as the agents of change at the fringe of society. Many people who read and post here are heroes in small ways, and some in very large ways.
Among the many bits of useful advice Zimbardo (and other social psychologists) have for us in light of their research findings is contained in the following paragraph:
"My research really says several things. One, that we have to recognize that some situations, some social settings, some behavioral contexts, have an unrecognized power to transform the human character of most of us. Two, that the way to resist - the way to prevent a descent into Hell, if you will - is precisely by understanding what it is about those situations that gives them transformative power. It is by this understanding that you can change those situations, avoid those situations, challenge those situations. And it's only by willfully ignoring them, by assuming individual nobility, individual rationality, or individual morality that we become most vulnerable to their insidious power to make good people do bad things. Those who sustain an illusion of invulnerability are the easiest touch for the con man, the cult recruiter, or the social psychologist ready to demonstrate who easy it is to twist such arrogance into submission."
Therein lies much of my rationale for taking radical, decisive action to remove my children from Mormonism's influence. And, for those who would change the Mormon community, this points the way forward. That is, just as context shapes individual human behavior, the context within which social organisms like Mormonism is set will shape their behavior. Accordingly, the big issues with regard to Mormonism are things like how information flows between the Mormon community and the rest of the world. Imagine, for example, the effect of high school educational requirements with respect to the sociology of religion and how religion works across a broad range of societies.
Similarly, think about the possibility of rules that would restrict the representations religious groups can make with regard to their history and other issues that are within the grasp of history and science. Or, what about rules that might affect the way in which religious organizations and other charities can use donations made for religious purposes to run huge businesses.
In any event, reading Zimbardo's interview made me think about a number of things. First of all, I thought of the recent article on Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry...) containing excerpts from the recent book "God is Not Great". The slate piece provided a thumbnail sketch of Mormon history. While it was accurate for the most part (and I don't have time to set out the quibbles here), it irritatingly cheeky and deeply misleading because of its failure to place Mormonism within its social-psychological context. I have the same criticism for Richard Bushman's recent "Rough Stone Rolling". It is unreasonable to attempt to describe the history of Mormonism and understand the behavior of those within it, now or at any other time, unless the relevant social-psychological forces are sketched as background. I will further suggest that it is irresponsible to even undertake the description without that background context. I am critical of Hithchens in this regard, as I am of Bushman. The behavioral patterns of both the religious leaders and followers in contexts similar to that of Mormonism in all its stages have been studied extensively by social scientists. Failure to even mention this context indicates ignorance, at best. I did not watch the recent PBS series, but so far have seen nothing to indicate that it use social psychology as a lens the understand the Mormon experience. Perhaps someone who saw it could chime in on that point.
More importantly, Zimbardo reminded me of the massive debt I owe to a number of heroes within Mormon culture. These include people like William Law, who stood up to Joseph Smith. People like Fawn Brodie and Juanita Brooks, who swam against powerful tides when they publish their groundbreaking books with regard to Mormon history. My favorite hero -- and ironically still at least in some ways a faithful Mormon -- is Michael Quinn. His books were tipping points for me and members of my family. A single appendix (I can't remember which one -- it summarizes Mormon history in point form) to his "The Mormon Hierarchy -- Origins of Power" drove a spike through the heart of the ignorance that I used to call my Mormon testimony. Mike Quinn has laid more on the altar of faith as he has followed his convictions than anyone else I personally know.
I also pay tribute to Steve Benson. The first time I read one of his essays (it was called "Letting Go of God", I think), it chilled me to the bone. I was not ready for that kind of thick, rich, caustic soup. And, in that essay Steve displayed the acerbic wit that makes him the world class political cartoonist he is. Again, I was not ready for that when it came to beliefs I had not yet rooted out of my head. I know other members of Steve's family, and thought that while I might be on my way out of Mormonism (and I was just starting the journey at that point) and so resembled Steve in some ways, that I would never come to see the world the way he did. Several months later, after my journey was well underway, I ran across the interviews with Dallin Oaks (one of my former heroes), and Neil Maxwell that Steve and Maryanne transcribed. This abrupt pulling back of the Wizard's curtain confirmed for me in modern terms what Quinn had so beautifully established in historical terms -- that is, the Emperor had not onlybeen naked in the beginning, but had not found any clothes in the meantime. Naked, naked, naked. And so Steven and Maryanne became my heroes. I honor both of them for what they did.
The list is long, and I arbitrarily stop here.
So, thanks to Phillip Zimbardo, today I feel deeply grateful for my heroes. We each have our heroes.
And at the same time, I feel a deep empathy for the large percentage of the Mormon mass that cannot be realistically expected to change or even to see the possibility of change. Zimbardo and other social psychologists have nailed this down tight. We might wish that our loved ones will change and some of us might even still pray for it, but it is not going to happen except in a few cases, and if we wish to live our lives in peace, we must find ways to accommodate ourselves to this reality and not allow ourselves to be consumed by feelings of loss, anger and sadness in that regard.
Why was I one of the few to find new eyes? I have no idea. And so I simply try to accept this, and that most will not be like me. Maybe, in the end, I just a nutjob (and I know many people who bow their heads and say "yes" on that one.)
Both ends of the emotional spectrum are always with us. Joy and pain; exhilaration and despair; light and dark; ying and yang. However, the early stages of this journey for me were characterized by breathless peaks of joy, wonder and exhilaration, followed by equally radical moments of terror and despair - kind of like the ocean during a storm. As time passed, both the mountains and valleys began to level out, and as I have found new and more healthy places to invest my energy. A stable foundation to life, independant of man's authority, that I do not recall ever experiencing has made its presence felt. I believe this has to do with a simple acceptance of reality as I now perceive it, including our inability to know many things respecting it. This means accepting the pain, suffering and other unpleasantries that are part of life, as well as consciously putting myself in places where I expect to experience off, wonder and joy.
So, the new vines that I feel growing up around my soul are increasingly dominated by emotions such as acceptance, gratitude and a deep satisfaction that encompasses, and is more than, joy.
Life is good.
| Steve Farmer (see http://www.safarmer.com/Farmer.Beijin...) is a former Harvard prof who uses a complexity based computer program to help date ancient documents. He has told me that he thinks he may be able to shed new light on when the B of M was written. I am aware of another similar complex pattern finding system that is right now being applied to assist in determining where the B of M came from, who likely wrote it, etc.
Does anyone else sense a noose tightening? Or maybe I am a hopeless optimist.
And we can thank Mitt for the fact that countless people who knew nothing about Mormonism until recently (including most Mormons) are now hearing lots about it. This news should soon include the kind of issue I am raising here.
As probable reality's noose tightens, I predict that concepts related to "mythic truth" being almost as good as literal truth (per Santayana and other post modernish thinkers (see http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~kerrlaw...) will begin to circulate more broadly within Mormonism. LDS Church historian Leonard Arrington used to quote Santayana as his authority for the proposition that whether something is mythically true or literally true is not important. This is part of what got him fired as the only real historian ever to hold the position of official LDS church historian. As a result, he and the entire "church history" (an oxymoron is there ever was one) department were moved to BYU where they could be more easily controlled and ignored, as it suited those at the top of the Mormon power pyramid.
Who was it who said something about the truth not needing our help because it cuts its own way?, and the silliness of a puny human arm attempting to hold back the mighty Mississippi River?
I guess some things take a while to sort out. 200 hundred or so years is not so long in the big scheme of things. Right?
| |