Everything has its opposite ...
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:26 pm
In another thread, I said that Mormonism tends to subordinate the individual to the institution, with an individual's worth coming from participation in the institution. Droopy just about blew a gasket, saying that I was dead wrong and so on. But his reaction made me think of how ideology works. The most successful ideologies are those that convince "true believers" that they are advancing a certain cause but are in reality simply advancing the interests of those in power. Orwell understood this in his description of how "IngSoc" used the terminology of Socialism not to create an egalitarian society but rather to preserve the hierarchy entrenched in society. In essence, then, ideology is often used to get people to do the opposite of the institution's stated goals.
I think that's what is going on in Mormonism. Droopy is right that we are taught the "worth of the soul is great in the sight of God," and a lot of Evangelical anti-Mormons believe that Mormonism's exaltation of the individual is blasphemous in the extreme. Similarly, we are taught that the family is the basic unit of the church, and the church's goal is to "invite all to come unto Christ and be perfected in Him." In theory, at least, Mormonism is about individual and family salvation and exaltation.
But in practice the church puts institutional loyalty and conformity above individual exaltation. The discussion of white shirts and ties in the other thread is a fascinating object lesson in that the necessity of conforming to a rather arbitrary dress code is defended vehemently, and any questioning of it is deemed to be sign of rebellious immaturity. In my many years of experience in the church, it was obvious to me that individuals and families had worth insofar as they supported the church; the family, then, exists to support the institution, and not the other way around. All great authoritarian movements succeed because they convince their followers that true freedom and individuality come from conformity and obedience.
Another example of the disconnect between Mormon ideology and practice is seen in its charitable efforts. Charity is a virtue equated with the love of God and is so important that an affirmation of charity constitutes the Relief Society motto. But in practice, we see church leaders using charitable efforts either as PR opportunities or as carrots by which to get people to come back to church. Too often real needs are dismissed by church members who deem someone undeserving of charity. This attitude showed up in the comment the other day that Darrick Evenson would never get help until he stopped whining about being entitled to assistance. And it's not surprising that the church as a whole spends a tiny fraction of its income on charitable efforts, though it never misses an opportunity to get noticed in the press when it does something charitable.
Does this mean that the church is evil? No, but it does mean that the church works the same way every other man-made authoritarian organization does, by convincing its members that they are furthering certain values when they are really just perpetuating the institution.
I think that's what is going on in Mormonism. Droopy is right that we are taught the "worth of the soul is great in the sight of God," and a lot of Evangelical anti-Mormons believe that Mormonism's exaltation of the individual is blasphemous in the extreme. Similarly, we are taught that the family is the basic unit of the church, and the church's goal is to "invite all to come unto Christ and be perfected in Him." In theory, at least, Mormonism is about individual and family salvation and exaltation.
But in practice the church puts institutional loyalty and conformity above individual exaltation. The discussion of white shirts and ties in the other thread is a fascinating object lesson in that the necessity of conforming to a rather arbitrary dress code is defended vehemently, and any questioning of it is deemed to be sign of rebellious immaturity. In my many years of experience in the church, it was obvious to me that individuals and families had worth insofar as they supported the church; the family, then, exists to support the institution, and not the other way around. All great authoritarian movements succeed because they convince their followers that true freedom and individuality come from conformity and obedience.
Another example of the disconnect between Mormon ideology and practice is seen in its charitable efforts. Charity is a virtue equated with the love of God and is so important that an affirmation of charity constitutes the Relief Society motto. But in practice, we see church leaders using charitable efforts either as PR opportunities or as carrots by which to get people to come back to church. Too often real needs are dismissed by church members who deem someone undeserving of charity. This attitude showed up in the comment the other day that Darrick Evenson would never get help until he stopped whining about being entitled to assistance. And it's not surprising that the church as a whole spends a tiny fraction of its income on charitable efforts, though it never misses an opportunity to get noticed in the press when it does something charitable.
Does this mean that the church is evil? No, but it does mean that the church works the same way every other man-made authoritarian organization does, by convincing its members that they are furthering certain values when they are really just perpetuating the institution.