beastie wrote:Yes, my summary over-simplified, and his book addressed the issues you all raised. Ideas do matter in that some ideas produce more successful communities, others less so.
I'm not sure that you over simplified for the point you are making. If doctrine itself were that critical, then educated and socially balanced individuals would convert to Mormonism in this day and age. In short, they don't. Today, we only can convert the uneducated persons who are starving for positive human relationships. Friendly missionaries and member friendshipping provide this affirmative social interaction they lack. They certainly didn't lack Joseph Smith or Temple rituals in their lives.
Here is a post I made recently where a similar "social game" connection is made. For myself, I am firmly convinced it is all social, which encompasses familial relations and extended family;
" For many years I was fascinated with church history. Deducting that the church is NOT true is childs play, really. What interests me now are the social motivations within the church and their causes.
Mormonism is a heratige, it is a culture, for all practical intents it can be quite similar to an ethnicity as well. For many who live in high LDS populous regions, it is nothing short of an all encompassing life experience.
The doctrine itself serves as "rules of the game". The game, however, is completely social.
In a high LDS populous environment, a member participates in the game as a competitor, as a spectator, and most importantly, as a judge. Yes, there are all sorts of obvious and subtle clues that tell Mormons how their competition is faring within the ward. Of course, the savvy competitors put on their best poker face to obscure whatever difficulties they currently experience. What sort of poker face does the wife try to wear when it is clear that in the particular tandem race in question, the husband has stopped pedaling?
In a low LDS populous region, with no LDS family members, how often does a member get to "play the game"? Not often, obviously. When one has "few spectators", and when one is "playing the game" not often, how important are the rules(doctrine) of the game?
If reading the Book of Mormon was to be a private matter only, not to be discussed or referred to publicly, would members still read it? If paying tithing was to be done online to Salt Lake City in an anonymous fashion, with no reporting or accounting to local clergy, would members still pay?
Mormonism cannot function in a social vacuum. It needs competitors. It has to have spectators. It absolutely thrives on the fact that all get to try their hand at "Line Judge".
Stormy, what is it like for your wife when all the other competitors, spectators, and line judges are pointing at you wide eyed and all. You are the spectacle as well as her embarrassment. Its all social. The doctrine is window dressing."
