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.

This post is actually a virtual RS/PH lesson, #23:  “How Good and How Pleasant It Is . . . to Dwell Togehter in Unity.”  See how I snuck that in there?  Here are some interesting points from the lesson:

The first part of the lesson emphasizes how temple building brought the Saints together in a common purpose.  It is interesting that the focus is on the work to build the temple, and there is no specific implication that the temple itself would create unity among the Saints, a point made more eloquently by joe spencer here.)

How Action Unites Us

The efforts of the Kirtland Saints were typical of the unity, sacrifice, and devotion that would make it possible for the Lord’s purposes to be fulfilled in the years to come. This was one of many times when the Saints would pull together, heeding the admonition of the Prophet Joseph Smith: “A long pull, a strong pull, and a pull all together.” (JS quoted by BY in 1867)

Q:  Although we are no longer typically involved in the act of building temples, how does temple construction still bring church members together?  What other action-oriented events create unity of purpose?  Consider:  lay clergy, visiting/home teaching, humanitarian/service projects, etc.

Q:  How do church members sometimes pull in different directions vs. together?  What happens when church members pull in different directions rather than together?

Q:  Does a lack of action create disharmony (as the saying goes “idle hands are the devil’s playground”–or something like that)?

A Diverse Church

“We would wish the Saints to understand that, when they come here, they must not expect perfection, or that all will be harmony, peace, and love; if they indulge these ideas, they will undoubtedly be deceived, for here there are persons, not only from different states, but from different nations, who, although they feel a great attachment to the cause of truth, have their prejudices of education, and, consequently, it requires some time before these things can be overcome. “  (1841)

Q:  Do people still expect perfection of other church members?  How do these expectations create disunity in the church?

Q:  How do cultural divides cause disunity in the church?  How can we overcome that in a global church that includes members from all personalities, political persuasions, and socio-economic divides?

Q:  What “prejudices of education” still exist in the church today?  How do we overcome these prejudices?

A Social Church

“We, all of us, have our friends, our connections, our families and associations; and we find that the ties of friendship … and brotherhood have indissolubly united us together with a thousand endearing associations; we have embraced the one common faith.  A kindred sympathy runs through the whole body, even the body of Christ, which, according to Paul’s statement, is his church; and no one part of the body can be injured without the other parts feeling the pain, for says Paul, if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; and if one member rejoice all the rest are honored with it.” (1842)

Q:  Who should be considered part of the Saints?  All who self-identify as Mormons or just those who practice their religion?  All who sympathize with Mormons?

Q:  How do our ties to others in the church increase the church’s strength despite the many flaws we and other members have?

Q:  How do we help those who may feel like a minority in the church feel fully welcome and valued as a part of the group?  How do we keep the majority from driving out the minority?

Discuss.

I just spent the last week in Hollywood, so I thought it would be fun to try different readings of that title to see how the emphasis changes the meaning.  (This reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer says, “These pretzels are making me thirsty!”).

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It – with the emphasis on “obedience,”  it kind of sounds like:  “Obedience!  When the Lord Commands, Do It:  The Musical!”  The score would probably be lame.

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It – “When” as in “when and if,” or as we’ve discussed elsewhere on MM, you have to obey when it’s commanded and not when it is not (e.g. cutting off Laban’s head is A-OK when commanded, but beheading people in general is frowned upon; polygamy is grand if you’ve been asked to do it, but you may be told no if you show up at JS’s door rubbing your hands together and asking for some spiritual wife action.)

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  But surely, when Allah commands (or your terror cell leader says he does), you might want to think twice before you do it.  So, this reading places the emphasis on who is doing the commanding:  the Lord, one of the Lord’s servants, or your Aunt Sally telling you what she thinks the Lord wants you to do.  So–important to verify the source?

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  So, if the Lord’s just suggesting it (earrings & tatoos?), you could drag your feet (e.g. Oliver Cowdery translating the BOM?).

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  Emphasis on action (vs. thought or questioning?).  This is probably the most orthodox reading.

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  Well, that just makes the meaning of “it” ambigious in this context.  Which actually brings up a good point – when He commands, do what exactly?  This title isn’t really proper grammar–the pronoun “it” is lacking a direct object to the verb “commands” to explain the pronoun.  Are all commandments clear about what exactly should be done?  (Remember, we shouldn’t need to be commanded in all things).  Or is that perceived ambiguity really just an excuse to vacillate?

Think about this:  What did obedience mean to JS and to the early church members?  How has that meaning evolved over time?  What does it mean to LDS today?  What does it mean to you personally at this stage of your spiritual journey?  Here are some of JS’s thoughts on obedience from the lesson:

Earning Salvation

“To get salvation we must not only do some things, but everything which God has commanded.” (1844)

This is a clear “earning salvation” quote.  The word used here was “salvation,” although current teaching would upgrade that to “exaltation” (salvation is free for everyone through the atonement; exaltation costs extra).  How has the church’s understanding of the role of faith and works evolved?  Has the dialogue spurred by evangelical churches added clarity or confusion to our actual doctrine?  In short, why are we so doggone defensive about this?

Church Unity Imperative

“When instructed, we must obey that voice, observe the laws of the kingdom of God, that the blessing of heaven may rest down upon us. All must act in concert, or nothing can be done, and should move according to the ancient Priesthood; hence the Saints should be a select people, separate from all the evils of the world—choice, virtuous, and holy.”  (1844)

How did JS’s obsession with building an earthly kingdom of God (a Zion or city of Enoch) influence his emphasis on obedience as a means to purifying the saints into a “holy people”?  Are we still attempting to build a kingdom of God on earth today or is the church’s global status (staying put vs. gathering to Zion) shifting us toward a broader moral spectrum for practical reasons (shirtless calendar guy would probably say there is still crackdown on infractions from HQ)?  Does obedience purify us?  If so, how?  Is it important to become a “holy people” or are we fooling ourselves to think so?  Are we collectively getting holier or less holy over time?  (Evidence for “holier” = fewer apostles are being ex’d than in JS’s day).

When True Is Unpopular

“The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what He tells us to do. It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it.” (1842)

Clearly, JS stood alone in some unpopular principles (e.g. plural marriage, King Follett discourse, etc.).  If all people have the light of Christ which tells them what is good, why are some true principles unpopular?  How can we tell if an unpopular principle is true or just outdated?  What types of peer pressure (from other churches) exist for the church?  How does the church cope with unpopular (yet true) principles? 

Principle-Based Obedience

 Joseph Smith taught the following in April 1843, later recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 130:20–21: “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”

“All blessings that were ordained for man by the Council of Heaven were on conditions of obedience to the law thereof.” (1843)

How does the emphasis on the underlying principle (the law upon which it is predicated) vs. the obedience itself add meaning to this idea?  Here are some possible examples to consider:  temple attendance vs. temple worship, accepting a calling vs. magnifying a calling, prayer vs. seeking to know God, being born again as an event vs. enduring to the end faithfully (finishing the race).  How does changing to principle-centered worship vs. activity-centered worship make us more spiritual?  Why is it so easy to forget the underlying principles and start checking our duties off a list?

Becoming Holy Like God

“Remember, brethren, that He has called you unto holiness; and need we say, to be like Him in purity? How wise, how holy; how chaste, and how perfect, then, you ought to conduct yourselves in His sight; and remember, too, that His eyes are continually upon you.” (1834)

This is theosis teaching (on par with NT brand theosis anyway) from a very early date (10 years before King Follett breathed his last).  Does this brand of “eternal progression” distinguish LDS from other Christian sects?  How has that distinction changed over time?  Is “eternal progression” a true but unpopular principle in our day?  Is obedience requisite to progression or does it hamper progression?

Discuss.