There are some traits that are commonly expected among members of the church.  The traits I want to evaluate are:  loyalty, conservativism, conformity, hierarchy, structure, tradition, and formality.  There may be some who generally dislike one or more of these traits, but upon further examination it is probably just a reaction to being out of sync with the current consensus of the Mormon community.  Each of these traits could be considered on a scale from the opposite of the trait to an extreme version of the trait.  Where do you draw the line for yourself personally on each of these?

• Loyalty creates cohesion. But if it goes too far, you get radicalism.
  • The other end of the loyalty spectrum is opposition, rather than disloyalty, because both ends of the spectrum are activist by nature, not passive.  How do you feel about each of the following on the continuum:  persecution to the point of killing church members, active opposition to the church, expressing outsider criticism, harboring resentment toward the church (but not acting on it), expressing insider criticism, verbal defense of the church, active defense of the church, willing to kill church enemies.
  • Where do you fit between active opposition to the organization and active loyalty to the organization?

• Conservativism creates stability. But if it goes too far, you stop progressing.
  • The other end of the conservative spectrum is anarchy or instability–actively breaking down existing practices and stable structures.
  • Where do you fit on this scale – how radical are the changes you would like to see introduced and how quickly would you like to introduce them?  How opposed are you to changes that are even now introduced?  Do you yearn for the good old days?

• Conformity creates unity. But if it goes too far, it creates inauthenticity and stifles self-expression.
  • The other end of this scale is complete individuation, and prizing uniqueness by looking to distinguish everyone as individuals.  The conundrum is that often what passes for self-expression is just a desire to conform to a different model that the individual finds more appealing.
  • Do you accept the conformity standards at church or do you feel you have to be inauthentic to fit in?  Do you feel free to express yourself while still being accepted by the community?

• Hierarchy creates order. But if it goes too far, you get unrighteous dominion and blind obedience.
  • The opposite of hierarchy is a populist, grass roots, egalitarian leadership – leadership by the vocal masses, loosely similar to the ideal of communism (certainly not the practice of it).  On the downside, this can be chaotic and result in the rule of charismatic underdogs.  Likewise, some prefer to relinquish their own responsibility by relying too much on hierarchy, even in a lower-power structure organization, taking even the most innocuous statements as law.
  • How hierarchical do you feel the church is?  Is it too hierarchical (too many detailed mandates from the highest levels) or not hierarchical enough (too many decisions made at the local level)?  What level of hierarchy is most comfortable to you?

• Structure creates security. But if it goes too far, it is like a prison.
  • The opposite of structure is having no programs and free, open meeting agendas.  The risk is that nothing gets accomplished and nothing is measured.
  • How much structure is comfortable to you?  Is there too much structure in the church (checklists, correlated manuals) or too little (open dogma, lay clergy, not commanded in all things)?

• Tradition builds a legacy.  But if it goes on too long, it becomes obsolete.
  • The opposite of tradition is spontaneity.  In worship, this could be constant change to meeting formats, speaking and music styles, etc.  To some extent, charismatic meetings are more spontaneous in this manner, but consistently charismatic meetings have their own traditions.
  • Cultural preferences in Mormonism can embody the whole religion for some people.  How do you respond to changes in tradition (no more roadshows, no more farewell meetings run by the family, changes to the temple ceremony)?  Do you feel there are some traditions that should end or are you comfortable with the traditions – do they make it your home?

• Formality creates a sense of purpose. But if it goes too far, form overtakes function and erodes meaning.
  • The opposite of formality is casualness.  Some religions are very casual by comparison – preachers in jeans, barbecuing with worship, etc.
  • How formal is too formal to you?  How casual is too casual?  Do you like the balance in Mormonism or is it too formal or not formal enough?

If there is a continuum for each of these, where do you think the church sits?  Where do you sit?  Are you aligned?  If so, how do you avoid the perils of groupthink?  If not, how do you avoid ostracism from the church community?  How can a group like the church remain cohesive while avoiding the negative extremes of groupthink?

Discuss.

First of all, what is the War on Christmas?  Here are six of the skirmishes:

1. Governments, retailers, employers and public schools avoid, censor or neutralize all references to Christmas.  In some cases, this is an effort to maintain separation of church and state (for government run institutions), and in other cases, it is an effort toward inclusion (for employers, retailers and individuals).
   • Rather than referencing Christmas, verbiage has been changed to things like “holiday tree,” “winter break,” “end-of-year bonus,” and “holiday season.”
   • Glenn Beck, in a silly mood, suggested the term “RamaHanaKwanMass” as an amalgam holiday covering all the major bases.
   • On Seinfeld, George’s father creates his own holiday “Festivus.”  Festivus is the holiday for “the rest of us.”  They decorate the silver festivus pole while screeching “serenity now” at each other.
2. Traditionalists (who also happen to be Christians in this case), not content to sit on the porch and shake their canes at the world as it goes by, have fought to re-include the word Christmas in public settings and protested its exclusion in various ways:
   • attempting to change the official state tree name in CA from “State Holiday Tree” to the “California State Christmas Tree.”  The measure failed, although Gov. Schwarzenegger still called it a “Christmas tree.”
   • Sears and Kmart ran deliberate campaigns in 2005 and 2006 to re-popularize the use of Christmas in the signage in their stores.
   • Responding to threats of a boycott, Wal-Mart relented on its policy of neutrality and changed its “holiday shop” to a “Christmas shop” in 2006.
3. The focus has begun to shift away from neutrality toward inclusion and diversity.
   • After receiving a signed petition of almost a million shoppers, Target relaxed its policy of using the term “holiday” and began including references to both Christmas and Hanukkah in its store signage stating that the use of the word holiday was a “mistake.”
   • Schools study holiday traditions around the world and across religious boundaries; however, non-religious greetings are still encouraged:  as my 6 year old daughter proudly proclaimed:  “Best wintry wishes!”
4. Many point out the fact that Christmas was not really a Christian holiday anyway, but was in fact an effort to recast Pagan elements with newly acquired Christian themes in order to win converts and de-emphasize immoral but fun practices.
   • Christmas trees, yule logs, candles, holly and mistletoe all have pagan origins that were later re-imagined as Christian symbols.
   • Originally, young men would go to houses demanding alcohol and food rather than a focus on making children happy (or making them behave).  Parties and debauchery were the rule (before it became commercialism).
   • Obviously, Christ wasn’t even born on December 25 anyway, unless those shepherds were wearing Gortex parkas (slight exaggeration) as they watched their flocks by night.
5. Stripping away the religious elements of Christmas leaves just the commercial elements, opening the door for some very well-founded criticism of the holiday.
   • Without religion, you’ve basically got a retailer’s and bank’s holiday that instills greed in children and adults alike.
   • Some have even gone so far as to suggest that Santa Claus was introduced by competing religions to deliberately draw focus away from Christ.  Some people also think the moon launch was faked.
6. Abbreviating the name “Christmas” to “Xmas” has been alternately rejected and embraced by Christians.
   • Some view the “X” as a way of taking Christ out of the holiday.
   • Others view the “X” as a symbol of Christ, essentially the cross.

My own view on these 6 battles is:  1) separating church & state feels important to me; also I liked the Festivus episode, 2) I wouldn’t sign the petition, but I don’t care if they say Christmas along with other holidays, 3) I’m all for more holidays, not fewer, 4) I have to work hard to see Christmas as a Christian holiday, 5) see #4, and 6) I use Cmas to abbreviate, but then we don’t focus on the cross as a symbol of Christianity.

So, where do you fall out on each of these battles?  Until then:  “Best wintry wishes!”

A recent article in Time discussed the differences between liberal and conservative patriotism.  The key points really resonated with me for how Mormons view loyalty to the church.

Conservatives

• Hallmarks of Loyalty:  paying tribute to the past (Pioneer Day?) even while portraying an idealized past that never existed, preserving the culture even to the exclusion of initiates (Mormon colonialism?), a tendency to grade on a curve because they take a dim view of human nature (Mormon persecution complex, Haun’s Mill?); use of symbols to portray loyalty (Mormon artifacts in our homes?).
• Signs of Disloyalty (to a Conservative):  Criticism of the cultural norms or the glorious past; the infiltration of new norms into the culture; questioning the claim of greatness.
• What they get right:  There’s something to be said for loving the church like you love your (possibly dysfunctional) family:  because it is your heritage and your home.
• Cautions:  May become “nationalist” (“one true church” mentality) or dismissive of other faiths; tend to substitute myth for history; expect unquestioned loyalty to come first and foremost; over time, symbols and artifacts may become a substitute for real faith; may become a club for the pedigreed few.
• The Big Question:  Can the church truly embrace converts (and liberal loyalists alike) with a near majority conservative loyalty worldview?

Liberals

• Hallmarks of Loyalty:  Loyalty is to the ideals and concepts rather than to the organization; loyalty is about helping the church to live up to its potential in the future; new converts improve the church through diversity combined with commitment to the ideals; like to call the church on the carpet when it fails to live up to its ideals.
• Signs of Disloyalty (to a Liberal):  Not owning up to mistakes of the past; reliance on symbols rather than the ideals; elevating the status of “insiders” regardless of merit.
• What they get right:  They keep the church (and leaders and members) honest by refocusing on the ideals (may be JS restorationists) and being willing to ask the tough questions.
• Cautions:  Believe the church must earn the loyalty of its members by living up to its ideals which will not always be possible (fallibility of leaders and lay clergy); may dismiss the pragmatic realities necessary for the church’s self-preservation (policies vs. doctrines); if loyalty is to the ideals, one can seek the ideals elsewhere (but lose the benefit of the church framework and fellowship).
• The Big Question:  When liberals leave the church is it due to actual flaws of the church or their own Quixotic idealism?

The article cautioned both sides from going too far in asserting that their own patriotism is the only brand truly loyal to our country.  Isn’t that a great caution for us as Mormons?  Can’t we come to a moderate consensus about loyalty to the church that takes the best of both into account (or am I just being a liberal idealist to think so)?

So, are you a conservative, liberal or moderate Mormon?  How do you “reach across the aisle” to others?  Did you find anything new of value in the alternate perspective, or did this just confirm your biases?

Discuss.