An interview with Armand Mauss
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:28 am
In looking for a book Lamanite recommended, I found this blog (which has a post by our very own Plate).
Link: http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com/2008/ ... ehive.html
Quotes and my comments:
When questioned about what he'd like to see inside a Mormon Studies field of academics, Mauss answered:
So: 1) anti-Mormons are part of a larger anti-cult movement, and 2) the anti-Mormon part seems to be fueled in large part by ex-Mormons.
He's entirely right about that last sentence.
So much for idea that the church targets converts from people with money or, conversely, the poor. On the contrary, it targets the middle class.
This I found highly interesting. I think what we're seeing currently is a retrenchment, and a deep one at that.
Further:
So all those revelations were... kicked to the curb? We should be so lucky.... (my comments in italics within the quote)
Addressing Mormon culture:
Truer words were never spoken. Amen and amen!
So... someone please tell me that I'm wrong when I say Mormon culture defines the church, not Mormon doctrine.
blip
blip
blip
Link: http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com/2008/ ... ehive.html
Quotes and my comments:
When questioned about what he'd like to see inside a Mormon Studies field of academics, Mauss answered:
1) Where does the anti-Mormon animus come from? Sociologists Bromley, Richardson, Robbins, Anthony, Barker, and others, have all (in various ways) raised some interesting questions about whose interests are actually being served by the thriving “anti-cult” movement in the world (usually including an anti-Mormon component, so derivatively the same question is applicable to the anti-Mormon movement specifically). Ex-Mormons seem to play a prominent part in the latter movement, even launching entire new careers. I know of no counterpart phenomenon of the opposite kind (i.e. ex-Evangelicals – or ex-anything else –) who become Mormons and then devote themselves to fighting against their former co-religionists.
So: 1) anti-Mormons are part of a larger anti-cult movement, and 2) the anti-Mormon part seems to be fueled in large part by ex-Mormons.
He's entirely right about that last sentence.
2) From the viewpoint of the “religious economy” model recently popularized by Stark et al. (and by Laurence Moore among historians), might we understand the strains between Mormons and Evangelicals in part as a natural result of competing for “customers” in the same market niche? The moderately educated, upwardly mobile segment of American society seems to be the main stratum from which both Mormons and Evangelicals are drawing their converts. Ultimately, how much of the tension between Mormons and Evangelicals is theological and how much is sociological?
So much for idea that the church targets converts from people with money or, conversely, the poor. On the contrary, it targets the middle class.
3) What is the impact on the Mormon leadership and grassroots of the unwillingness to accept Mormons as Christians – an issue very much highlighted for Mormons by the Romney campaign? Is the tension over this issue likely to accelerate Mormon assimilation into the American mainstream, or have the opposite effect – i. e. encourage a new retrenchment and “circling of the wagons”? Will the effect be different among U. S. Mormons than among Mormons elsewhere (who are now the majority of the world’s Mormons)?
This I found highly interesting. I think what we're seeing currently is a retrenchment, and a deep one at that.
Further:
Of course, the major symptoms of assimilation were the abandonment of polygamy, theocracy, collectivist economic experiments, the adoption of American 2-party politics, and the embrace of American patriotism. Theologically, during the first half of the 20th century, LDS leaders such as Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts undertook to codify and “Christianize” LDS theology, and to emphasize use of the King James Bible over the use of the Book of Mormon.
So all those revelations were... kicked to the curb? We should be so lucky.... (my comments in italics within the quote)
Then, after midcentury, symptoms of retrenchment were a new emphasis upon use of the Book of Mormon {Pres Benson's charge that the church was under condemnation because of the lack of emphasis on the Book of Mormon, in the early 80's}; a renewed focus on the president of the church as a prophet (with additions to the D & C for the first time in the century, recurrent slogans about following the prophet and obedience) {again, Pres Benson}; the centralization and standardization of the church program and administration known as “correlation;” {Pres Hinckley?} great expansion in such “peculiar” Mormon programs as genealogy, temple-building, missionary work, and religious education (seminary and institute programs) {Pres Hinckley's push} – all of which had languished for decades; and finally a renewal and redefinition of the LDS theology of the family, with a conservative definition of women’s roles {the subjucation of women outlined in the POTF} and an ongoing program to bolster the nuclear family institution as a bulwark against the creeping vices of sexual indulgence, substance use or abuse, and many other social ills afflicting American society since the 1960s.
Addressing Mormon culture:
For Mormons, living in a certain way is more important than believing in a certain way.
Truer words were never spoken. Amen and amen!
Ideally, people will learn both correct belief and correct behavior from membership in the LDS community, but it is the behavioral boundaries that really define the Mormon identity.
So... someone please tell me that I'm wrong when I say Mormon culture defines the church, not Mormon doctrine.
blip
blip
blip
