A thought-provoking read. I haven't followed a lot of your writing and am not on Facebook often, but I noticed your post and this is a topic I've thought about frequently. A scriptural reference I heard often while growing up was to “be in the world but not of the world”. I’ve always considered that to be a misunderstood phrase — that we are to be separate, to exist here without participating in the world. On the contrary, I’ve always interpreted this to mean that if we believe ourselves to hold something so precious as the truth of the restored gospel that we have a commission to share that BY being active participants in the world WHILE remaining true to our covenants. In general, I think this sentiment has been reflected in the messages promoted by Church leadership to seek the good and be unified with those surrounding us. Unification and assimilation are two different outcomes.
I agree that the “blurring of the lines” you discuss has led to confusion and many leaving. I continue to wrestle with what it means myself. I think the “blurring of the lines” can be misinterpreted as a softening of the principles and that some use it as justification to lessen their commitment to certain standards. In reality, I think it introduces the expectation to live a higher law - one according to our individual ability to communicate with the Spirit rather than rely on Church leaders to do so for us.
Thanks for this reflection, Miles. Good to read your stuff here!
From my perspective, Russell M. Nelson has continued or even doubled down on the steady, decades-long approach toward assimilation. Taking the angel Moroni off of temples, trimming church to two hours, talking about Jesus more than Joseph Smith, discontinuing many of the Mormon pageants, reducing the strangeness of the endowment, removing the original artwork in the SLC temple, allowing missionaries to wear blue dress shirts without ties, and so on — it all feels like assimilation to me. Even the pivot from "Mormon" to "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" feels like an effort to assimilate (i.e., "look, we're Christian — it says so in our name!").
As I see it, the Church is sort of in a bind. Members feel increasingly uncomfortable with our past, particularly as it relates to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and want the focus to be on Jesus. But if the focus is solely on Jesus, what makes the Church distinct? Why join? It's a tough situation for the organization.
I think we have to ask what it really means to be a Latter-day Saint. Problem is, for decades the church tried this "stand out" approach. It's interesting to listen to converts of that era because they'd probably tell you they heard way more about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the Book or Mormon than they ever heard about Jesus. That's because the church was emphasizing the things that made us different over other Christian denominations. Turns out that Jesus just isn't the differentiator. Pres Nelson is trying to put focus back on Jesus, however in testimony meetings I observe a lot of declarations of Pres Nelson being a prophet and the church being true--but very little about Jesus in comparison. So I wonder if in the conversation about "standing out" we are emphasizing the wrong things. We're trying to ultimately point people to Jesus. Is the way we are "standing out" accomplishing that?
Great post! I haven't thought about the camouflage metaphor in a while. But I'm starting to see the benefit of not trying to fit in among ourselves, regardless of how outsiders see us.
I think this leads to more intellectual honesty in testimony meetings rather than grand standing.
I read somewhere that one of the main reasons people leave religion generally is intellectual dissonance. I think the dissonance is lessened when we speak with honesty about walking by faith, not knowledge.
Very well written, young Sir. In a larger sense - Christianity itself; not just a particular denomination like yours - seems to be waning in popularity in our American culture. (I’m not sure about the rest of the world - I don’t “think globally”; there’s plenty enough to be concerned, worried, and nervous about right here in this country……..)
People - youth particularly - are just not interested in “church.” I’m speaking generally, of course. And if they’ve been involved with a church, they’re dropping out, to pursue secular interests. Or even to explore “other religions,” just as the “hippies” did back in my coming-up days.
Churches are closing due to lack of attendance - and subsequent funding. There are some areas that are thriving, such as the Mega Church - evangelical - in Colorado, but honestly, that one appears to me to be more about patriotism, gun owners’ rights, and voting Republican, than it is about Jesus.
We live so well, so “easily”here in America, there’s no need for God to help us in our lives.
“I can take care of myself just fine, thank you.”
When we experience a national crisis again, like COVID, people will “come back” to Jesus. They believe they don’t need Him when things are going well. People don’t want God interfering in their lives when they’ve “got it all.” Just as so many disrespect law enforcement. But someone breaks into your house - you call the cops. Things go wrong in your life and you become destitute - you wander into a church asking for help to buy food. You look to God to intervene in your life.
A thought-provoking read. I haven't followed a lot of your writing and am not on Facebook often, but I noticed your post and this is a topic I've thought about frequently. A scriptural reference I heard often while growing up was to “be in the world but not of the world”. I’ve always considered that to be a misunderstood phrase — that we are to be separate, to exist here without participating in the world. On the contrary, I’ve always interpreted this to mean that if we believe ourselves to hold something so precious as the truth of the restored gospel that we have a commission to share that BY being active participants in the world WHILE remaining true to our covenants. In general, I think this sentiment has been reflected in the messages promoted by Church leadership to seek the good and be unified with those surrounding us. Unification and assimilation are two different outcomes.
I agree that the “blurring of the lines” you discuss has led to confusion and many leaving. I continue to wrestle with what it means myself. I think the “blurring of the lines” can be misinterpreted as a softening of the principles and that some use it as justification to lessen their commitment to certain standards. In reality, I think it introduces the expectation to live a higher law - one according to our individual ability to communicate with the Spirit rather than rely on Church leaders to do so for us.
Thanks for this reflection, Miles. Good to read your stuff here!
From my perspective, Russell M. Nelson has continued or even doubled down on the steady, decades-long approach toward assimilation. Taking the angel Moroni off of temples, trimming church to two hours, talking about Jesus more than Joseph Smith, discontinuing many of the Mormon pageants, reducing the strangeness of the endowment, removing the original artwork in the SLC temple, allowing missionaries to wear blue dress shirts without ties, and so on — it all feels like assimilation to me. Even the pivot from "Mormon" to "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" feels like an effort to assimilate (i.e., "look, we're Christian — it says so in our name!").
As I see it, the Church is sort of in a bind. Members feel increasingly uncomfortable with our past, particularly as it relates to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and want the focus to be on Jesus. But if the focus is solely on Jesus, what makes the Church distinct? Why join? It's a tough situation for the organization.
I think we have to ask what it really means to be a Latter-day Saint. Problem is, for decades the church tried this "stand out" approach. It's interesting to listen to converts of that era because they'd probably tell you they heard way more about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the Book or Mormon than they ever heard about Jesus. That's because the church was emphasizing the things that made us different over other Christian denominations. Turns out that Jesus just isn't the differentiator. Pres Nelson is trying to put focus back on Jesus, however in testimony meetings I observe a lot of declarations of Pres Nelson being a prophet and the church being true--but very little about Jesus in comparison. So I wonder if in the conversation about "standing out" we are emphasizing the wrong things. We're trying to ultimately point people to Jesus. Is the way we are "standing out" accomplishing that?
Great post! I haven't thought about the camouflage metaphor in a while. But I'm starting to see the benefit of not trying to fit in among ourselves, regardless of how outsiders see us.
I think this leads to more intellectual honesty in testimony meetings rather than grand standing.
I read somewhere that one of the main reasons people leave religion generally is intellectual dissonance. I think the dissonance is lessened when we speak with honesty about walking by faith, not knowledge.
We still have a long way to go in my opinion
Very well written, young Sir. In a larger sense - Christianity itself; not just a particular denomination like yours - seems to be waning in popularity in our American culture. (I’m not sure about the rest of the world - I don’t “think globally”; there’s plenty enough to be concerned, worried, and nervous about right here in this country……..)
People - youth particularly - are just not interested in “church.” I’m speaking generally, of course. And if they’ve been involved with a church, they’re dropping out, to pursue secular interests. Or even to explore “other religions,” just as the “hippies” did back in my coming-up days.
Churches are closing due to lack of attendance - and subsequent funding. There are some areas that are thriving, such as the Mega Church - evangelical - in Colorado, but honestly, that one appears to me to be more about patriotism, gun owners’ rights, and voting Republican, than it is about Jesus.
We live so well, so “easily”here in America, there’s no need for God to help us in our lives.
“I can take care of myself just fine, thank you.”
When we experience a national crisis again, like COVID, people will “come back” to Jesus. They believe they don’t need Him when things are going well. People don’t want God interfering in their lives when they’ve “got it all.” Just as so many disrespect law enforcement. But someone breaks into your house - you call the cops. Things go wrong in your life and you become destitute - you wander into a church asking for help to buy food. You look to God to intervene in your life.
Such are the ways of the human animal.