DiscussMormonism.com

palerobber wrote:maklelan, have you read any of the studies cited in that chapter?

palerobber wrote:the fact that it (the chapter) was contributed by an LDS Church employee and paints quite a rosy picture of Mormon culture and its implications

palerobber wrote:makes me a little skpetical of these "positive [...] or ameliorative effects," especially when she later writes that "causal relationships in either direction have not been demonstrated." i'd like to see a little more detail.

palerobber wrote:for an example of what i mean by "rosy picture", i would submit this passage:
"In the Church's view, failure to teach commandments places responsibility for children's sins on parents, so Latter-day Saint parents often take their parental responsibilities very seriously."

that's it, full stop. no other possible implications come to mind.

Fence Sitter wrote:First of all Mak you are definitely an exception to what I said above and I expect that while your description of your experience with leaders in the Church is accurate, I think it is also the exception. I think we are talking about two different groups which have some overlap, the bulk are in one group, which is the everyday leaders of a ward or stake as opposed to the very high level of educated members/leaders with whom you come in contact.

Fence Sitter wrote:I am suggesting that the average person in leadership (bishops, stake presidents, High council members and so on, leadership at a local level, are more insular regarding the information they consume, though I suspect that this may also hold true for some of the members the 70's, I wouldn't know there since I have had very little contact with them over the years. (The one member of the 70's I did know well was my mission president under whom I served as an assistant for 6 months and he would definitely fit in the category I described - bright-sucessful- and woefully uninformed of problematic aspects of church history.)

Fence Sitter wrote:For example, and like you I realize my views here are anecdotal, I have had the opportunity to help out my former bishop a few times over the last several months while he fights Leukemia. I have found my moments with him precious and both of great comfort and difficult at the same time. Truly he is facing the battle of his life with more dignity and courage than I could ever hope to muster in such a time. During these times he and I have had brief moments to talk about books, as we both like to read. Currently he is reading RSR for the first time and he and I discuss it. In our last conversation yesterday I asked him how the reading was going, where he was in the book, and what he thought about it. He replied that he was about 300 pages in, at the Kirtland era, that he was enjoying it but that he found it "rough going at times". "Why?" I asked. "Because there is a lot about the life of Joseph Smith and the Church that I did not know." (He has been a member for roughly 45 years.) He also mentioned that RSR was probably not a book his wife would enjoy because she prefers (his words) to avoid such subjects, which is an example of how members react to such information, a common one in my experience.

Fence Sitter wrote:You and I may have quite different views here simply because of the age difference. (I am in my 50's) It may be that there is a younger generation coming of age in the Church that does not fit assesment quite as well, though when I read over at MAD, I continually see faithful members attacked for offering opinions that are outside the LDS box.

Fence Sitter wrote:(For example DBMormon and Mormonnnewb). Maybe our younger generation is better informed about our issues and I am out of touch with them, but since that is the generation with the lowest retention rate, I think that only goes to illustrate my point about a disparity between us as LDS being better educated and being better educated about our past. Maybe those that are better informed are also more likely to leave? I don't think there is any doubt that the information age is have a very direct and negative affect on the 4G generation.

Fence Sitter wrote:for what it's worth, you are an example of the kind of scholar I would like to see more of in our Church.

Fence Sitter wrote:Regarding BYU, and maybe I am misinformed, but isn't it the "Religious Education" department? And wasn't that part of the reason that Bokovoy left (or was not retained)?

maklelan wrote:

palerobber wrote:maklelan, have you read any of the studies cited in that chapter?

I have. They're mostly authored by BYU and U of U professors, which is not unexpected of research directly specifically at Latter-day Saint subjects.

palerobber wrote:the fact that it (the chapter) was contributed by an LDS Church employee and paints quite a rosy picture of Mormon culture and its implications

Well, BYU employees, but the whole book was edited by one of those BYU employees, and each of the chapters paints quite a rosy picture of all kinds of religious cultures. The point of each chapter is primarily to describe beliefs and practices and inform therapists regarding each particular religious tradition so they can better interact with patients. It's supposed to be a view of religion "from the inside out."

palerobber wrote:makes me a little skpetical of these "positive [...] or ameliorative effects," especially when she later writes that "causal relationships in either direction have not been demonstrated." i'd like to see a little more detail.

Well, some of the papers mentioned can be found here:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/1 ... 3.full.pdf

http://yas.sagepub.com/content/24/4/443.refs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1386913

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/latter-day- ... eligiosity

palerobber wrote:for an example of what i mean by "rosy picture", i would submit this passage:
"In the Church's view, failure to teach commandments places responsibility for children's sins on parents, so Latter-day Saint parents often take their parental responsibilities very seriously."

that's it, full stop. no other possible implications come to mind.

And that's because of the purpose of the book. Check out the preface for the book's goals.

Jesse Pinkman wrote:I will second that, Mak!

palerobber wrote:the book passage maklelan quoted is followed in the same paragraph by:
"These studies leave unanswered questions about negative consequences for formerly committed, now disaffected church members. Do the disaffected, for example, face greater risks for mental illness than those who never believed?"

like you, i'm not totally dismissive of the notion that Church participation has psychological benefits for some people. but the people who have left, some for the very reason of the psychological harm Church participation brought them, also need to be weighed in any accounting. otherwise, we're just saying that Mormonism works well for people whom it works well for.

EAllusion wrote:When I imagine an LDS bishop, what first comes to mind is a successful dentist. He is professionally competent and well-read in his discipline and world affairs. He is intelligent and respected by others for his judgment. He is patriarchal and socially conservative. His knowledge of Church theology and history is primarily informed by common belief and popular works in LDS culture with brief glimpses of FAIR/FARMs style apologetics for more challenging ideas. He is religiously conservative and doesn't give philosophy of religion or higher criticism much thought beyond boilerplate fundamentalist dismissals. He actively avoids "anti" material and usually only comes into contact with it via reading apologetic response.

Obviously, not everyone fits this stereotype, but I think the traits here are more commonly represented than a Mak style scholar.

DrW wrote:

maklelan wrote:No, this is just overlap with the broader right wing conservative subculture that is so prevalent in the Midwest and the west. It's not so much religion as culture. Of course, the boundaries get quite blurry at the intersection of those categories.

Come on, Mak.

The right wing conservative subculture you refer to is, in fact, a hallmark of Mormonism. Mormons practically invented it.

Mormons were the first organized group to move beyond the then reach of the US Government in the 19th Century, and have a long history of defiance of civil authority, often claiming that they answer to a "higher power".

As a Mormon kid, I grew up with it. We always had guns in the house. My parents wasted tens of thousands of dollars, that we could ill afford, on food storage and silver and other survivalist supplies and equipment at the direct behest of the leadership of the LDS Church.

Mormon discontent with the US Government is currently reflected in their expressed disdain for the first Black President of the US.

Don't try to claim that Mormonism is not a conservative right wing fundamentalist religion. Utah / Idaho Mormonism practically defines the term.

ldsfaqs wrote:It's ONLY connected to Mormonism in the sense that Mormons actually seek help for their problems instead of generally going to drugs, adultery, sex, alcohol, etc. like other states do. Then you have the fact that many non-LDS in Utah, tend to really go bad, and have lots of problems. Then you have the fact that the medical profession prescribes anti-depressants for basically everything and any problem people might have.

So, try again.