True Glue
As far as I can tell, religion’s function, up until about Christianity, was basically to hold a culture together with a unified narrative. In other words, it gave meaning to workings of a group of people. No one thought to question it. That would be like questioning air. The people’s belief in the religion (or mythology if you would prefer) simply went along with being part of the group, just like the color of your skin or what you did to the tender parts of your male infants. So, just as everyone in the group shared the same air, they also shared the same religion.
In other words, religion was glue that kept people together, and that was it.
But then along comes Christianity with a completely different idea of what religion is. Religion in Christianity’s definition is something that is true. As opposed to false. And suddenly religion, which once worked invisibly in the wings, is thrust out into the spotlight and made to defend itself. It can’t get away with just being social glue anymore. Now it has to be true glue.
Religion is now something completely different. It’s something that people argue about. It travels around gathering adherents, creating a motley following of people from all kinds of backgrounds, races, and classes. A religion is now the one thing that an otherwise disparate group of people have in common, rather than being an innate part of a unified culture. I guess Karl Marx would say that at this point religion has become alienable.
Instead of being religion, it becomes a religion. And it finds itself competing in a marketplace of religions.
However, despite this completely new approach, religion manages to lure its adherents back to its original form. Roman Catholicism comes to dominate Europe. The Pope has as much power as a king. Everyone is Catholic. Religion breathes a sigh of relief and recedes to the wings. It can just be glue again.
But then along come Protestantism and the whole thing starts over; the glue has to be true. But soon enough the Lutheran Church is adopted by Sweden, or an English king institutes Anglicanism, and it’s back to glue.
This cycle interests me because it seems to have been occurring more and more frequently as the centuries pass. Religion seems to have been, for the most part, ousted from its place in the wings and forced into the marketplace.
I certainly see this conception of religion expressed often in church where we set aside one Sunday a month to remind each other that, of all the options available, this religion is the best buy, the truest of the glues.
But is that how religion is supposed to work? I mean, for millions of years, religion was simply glue. It has only been for about the past 500 years that we’ve been experimenting intensely with this new view of religion.
Have we stripped away some of religion’s main benefits by insisting that it compete? Or is this new view of religion part of what we so lovingly call progress? Or, as with so many other innovations, is it both? In which case, what have we lost and what have we gained?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Perhaps a great deal of this contrast is the Christian paradigm of salvation–that there is an inherent dualism in the cosmos. It’s certainly played into philosophy since Descartes very profoundly, although we’re still afflicted with widely-varying definitions of truth.
What are the wellsprings of this search for truth in Christian thought? I don’t recall any particulars from the New Testament, although it’s definitely a strong strain of Augustinian thought.
Furthermore, what do we see as we read back latter-day revelation (Abraham, Moses) into Hebraic religion? It seems that particularly Abraham was concerned with truth, and that that’s always been a major feature of true religion. Maybe it’s kind of like the authority question, and the closer one is to the right answer, the more emphasis one puts on that aspect of doctrine.
In any case, I note (as many others have) that we’ve shifted from a common cultural mythological narrative to more of a personal mythology. This would seem to me to allow religion to have greater power over the soul, but at the same time diluting it for those who don’t choose to operate within that schema.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Do you think the monthly truth-fest is designed to persuade? I think it serves to act as glue. So many of the social things that (I’ve heard) cemented the church in the intermountain west 40-50 years ago simply aren’t done any more – so the monthly witness becomes the only glue the culture has left.
Just thinking out loud here…
May 7th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I think you’re right, Ann. Testimony meetings act as glue. The thing I think is interesting is how much testimony meetings focus on the truth of the church. I mean, it’s pretty much the main topic. I see this focus as a result of how much religion has been turned into a commodity.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Good points, Neal.
It’s very possible that Abraham was interested in truth. But even if he was, it seems to me that he approached truth (religion) completely differently than we do these days.
As far as I remember, he never tried to convert anyone else to his religion. The only way he seemed to think his religion would grow would be through a growing family.
So as I was saying in the original post, religion, or truth, was more a function of where and to whom you were born. It wasn’t something that you could pick up and set down.
Which seems completely different from the way we perceive religion today.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I think we frequently oversell the benefits of being a member of the true church, to the point that many people expect all their problems to be solved by the church, and are disenchanted when a problem arises that the church can’t or won’t solve, or when a problem arises from the church itself. It would make sense to ascribe this to the pressures of the marketplace of religion; telling people that suffering is inevitable and/or increased by church membership does not make for a great sales pitch.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t know if I think of my religion as ?¢‚ǨÀúglue?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ any longer. What?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s it gluing together? I think of my religion as some kind of acetone glue remover. I want to become ?¢‚ǨÀúunglued?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ from the monotony of stereotypical (if there ever was a stereotype LDS member) membership. I am seeking for messages between the lines, and not to perpetuate the continuous mundane rhetoric of what is considered ?¢‚ǨÀúworship?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ or ?¢‚ǨÀúbearing testimony.?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ But try an find that kind of community in a ?¢‚ǨÀútypical?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ LDS ward.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Testimony meetings are becoming mind numbing, the same words over and over again.
If we repeat it enough will we believe it more. Why is incessant repetition needed if we have “the only true church”.
The lesson manuals used to have wonderful stories even if they had to be twisted a little to have a moral.
But now interesting life stories are being removed from the manuals and boredom is the result.
In testimony meeting and sacrament meeting I see people reading novels and balancing their check books and playing gameboy.
The people are BORED and this shouldn’t be the case with “the only true church”.
This doesn’t have much to do with the thread does it, Sorry! But, I do feel better.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Religion comes from religio, meaning “to bind.” In pre-Christian Rome, it meant to fulfill ritual obligations to a god or goddess. In the fifth century, it meant to take religious vows (i.e. to become a monk or a nun). And in the 17th century, it came to mean personal beliefs about ultimate truth. Protestantism’s emphasis on the individual created a snowball that, once it got rolling, became the current religious/spiritual marketplace we swim in today–especially in the United States, where we distinguish between religion (as institutionally based) and spirituality (as individual belief and practice).
Stephen, correct me if I’m off base, but I think you’re saying that for Abraham religion was *relationship.* Mormonism blended both relationship and the Protestant mandate to individual access to truth very well in the beginning, but routinization and simplification has made it less compelling to many members (like you, Gordon).
So, Gordon, Stephen, et. al., given what you’ve all shared here, where do you think LDS people are going? Or if they’re not “going” anywhere (except into Gameboys and checkbooks), what do you think they are *doing* that’s different outside of church to create meaning in their lives?
May 14th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
That’s exactly to the point, Doe! You ask about who is *doing* something to keep from being bored or “going” somewhere to “create meaning”. We LDS are incessantly taught we must *DO* something, rather than *BE* ourselves. And who in church leadership teaches members how to *be* themselves? I can’t think of anyone, can you? Or can anyone else out there? It seems easier staying asleep. Yes?
May 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t think anyone can really determine with any degree of accuracy where the LDS people are going or if anywhere different than now. First of all how do you define ?¢‚ǨÀúLDS people??¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ If you are only referring to those who come to church on a regular basis, then that leaves out a lot of others for consideration. I consider myself an LDS ?¢‚ǨÀúperson,?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ but do not go to church on a regular basis and have difficulty rationalizing other support I used to give to the church. Hence, where am I going or have gone to (other than “Straight to hell!?¢‚Ǩ¬ù as some would probably declare)? What about the LDS, say, in the African nations who have different inclinations or modalities of worship? Where are they going? I think in a different direction than the Utah Mormons, to be sure. But this begs the question: Is it the organization that takes the people, or is it the people that takes the organization? If you consider the prophet and president of the church (a person), he usually takes the church in a different direction than the previous ones, or if not in a different ?¢‚ǨÀúdirection?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ a different something (policy or policies perhaps).
Let me pitch this thought about the notion of LDS people and where the church is going or headed. The latter-day declarations of the prophets have stated that this one and only true church of Christ will not fall this time, or end up in apostasy as did the Nephite church (the account states that it lasted for about 200 years), or the original primitive church just after the time of Christ. So where is it headed? I think to the ?¢‚ǨÀúcity?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ of the ?¢‚ǨÀúNew Jerusalem?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ eventually. My studies and conversations with some people have left me with this ?¢‚ǨÀúsense?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ that one day there will be an exclusive ?¢‚ǨÀúgated community?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ in Missouri and that things will be as different then from now as the church used to be from now and the pioneer days — a totally different set-up but very exclusive. By ?¢‚ǨÀúexclusive?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ I mean that it will ?¢‚ǨÀúexclude?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ many types of Mormons that are or need to be tolerated today because of the possibility of political and legal backlash, or hampering the proselytizing programs . If you were to take all the truly active, TBM members of the church out of the 13 million, on a conservative estimate you would end up with at least 3 million (or more). That?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a very large population that could make quite a sizable city (or ?¢‚ǨÀúgated community?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢). True that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a world-wide number, but why could that not be considered as part of the ?¢‚ǨÀúgathering.?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ I think we are just putting in time until the church can, or circumstances will allow it to, move in a very radical direction. And where would that leave the ?¢‚ǨÀúrest of us??¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ I will always remember what an astute high-up authority told me, ?¢‚Ǩ?ìRemember, Paul, you are *invited* to come into the kingdom.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù That left me with an uncomfortable feeling in a way. It left me with the feeling that I really had to watch my p?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s and q?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s, dot every ‘i?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢, and cross every ?¢‚ǨÀút?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ as a member; that there was very little leeway for individualism (to be ?¢‚ǨÀúme?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢) or critical thinking. I had to be one of ?¢‚ǨÀúthem?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ or I would be left out in the cold having been, as I was told further, ?¢‚Ǩ?ìtaken off the list.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù
May 15th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Ok, Eugene. Point taken. I’m not sure how to phrase the question, though. I get that Mormons are a “doing” people and that we’re perhaps “doing” ourselves to death. I guess my question would have been better framed as “If not that, then what?”
Paul, you’re absolutely correct to point out that there are lots of different ways to be Mormon and lots of different “kinds” of “LDS people”—active, inactive, and unaffiliated- (and everything in between)! I was only referring to those like Gordon and Stephen (presumably North American Mormons), who expressed their boredom and dis-ease with their church experience. I can totally picture that gated community—and I have to admit that I know many people who would welcome that kind of community! Being “invited in” as you describe it is based on the assumption that the invitation may at any time be rescinded and you will be “Left Behind.” Sounds very apocalyptic, and actually quite chilling!
So where are YOU “going” or “doing” . . . or not, as the case may be?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Looking back at my posts, I don’t read the tone I meant to convey. Therefore, I should make it clear that I myself have also rejected (or at least severely moderated) the Mormon emphasis on *doing,* and am happily meditating while also claiming an authentic Mormon identity!
May 17th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Doe, Me too! I think the churches efforts to keep people constantly employed with sometimes less than meaningful jobs has left the people vacant and looking for meaning.
The churches efforts to keep up “active” by giving us two and sometimes three church jobs is leading to a lot of frustration among the members.
I am a Mormon and I will always be a Mormon but I am not a believer.
Emptiness and dullness lead me away from the church.
The truth shouldn’t be boring!
To me the best church talks are the stories about peoples lives and struggles.
I used to love to hear the return missionaries tell the stories about their trials and tribulations and success.
But now that has stopped, no more stories, they can only teach the gospel.
But the gospel has been made dull, witless and boring.
It sometimes seems the leaders of church are trying to make the church so dull that the people will leave.
All of the enemies of the church together couldn’t make the church any more dull and lifeless than the leaders have done.
Sorry that I sound bitter! But stories make life interesting but the LDS leaders have taken the stories away and left the members with rote dull life draining dogma.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
The nice thing about you, Gordon, is that you acknowledge your current bitterness, which indicates that you’re willing to step outside of yourself. It’s a very healthy practice. I certainly remember times when I couldn’t do it.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I actually presented a paper in the 2007 symposium on just what you’re talking about, Gordon. It’s called: “Storytelling in Zion.” Eugene Woodbury presented an excellent paper on the subject in the same session.
I’m so with you when it comes to wanting to hear stories rather than preaching. I ran across an interesting article while in grad school about how teachers tell stories. The point of the paper was that when people in authority try to persuade teachers with research and mandates, it rarely works. But when teachers tell each other stories about their own experience, without prescribing actions, the effect tends to be very strong.
Teachers like to take the stories of other teachers and mull them around. See what clicks with them and what doesn’t. Figure out what could actually benefit them. They’re much more open when they’re listening to stories.
I think it’s the same with all of us. It’s certainly true that I’m more open when someone is telling me a story (especially when they aren’t telling me the story in order to demand something of me).
May 19th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Wasn’t the telling of our personal stories the original idea behind “The New Mormon History”? Stories never seem to grow old, whether as ancient myths, personal dreams or modern yarns. I’ll not soon forget your “Story telling in Zion”, Stephen. Who we truly are, as a people, lives in our stories–*whatever* they might be.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Isn’t a testimony just a story? I think that we’ve been drilled with the “I know the _____ is true” formula to the point that we don’t tell stories anymore, just rattle off “testimonies” that have no force because there is no personal experience behind them.
It seems the only stories that are getting told in talks are the ones from which people derive strained, didactic analogies. I don’t know if that’s relevant to the conversation, but man, those bug me.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I know what you mean, Nate. When I was writing my first personal essays the biggest struggle I had was finding a way to rewire my brain so that it wouldn’t immediately go into didactic mode when I started considering the end of the essay.
It took a long time and about a thousand revisions (accompanied by the gnashing of teeth), but I eventually found a way to make a personal essay into a tool that probed my beliefs instead of merely illustrating them.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:58 am
testimony meetings cant come around fast enough for me and they’re over before they even begin it would seem , they should go for two hours.
its not as hard as you think it is to prepare spiritually for fast&test meetings,that you may feel the power and the spirit of those bearing their heart and souls in public,i hope those who dont feel this from our F&T meetings may seek the Lord and prepare yourself to receive by adjusting your attitude to one of giving therefore putting yourself in a position to receive,this is a SPIRITUAL LAW JUST LIKE THE LAW OF GRAVITY,ITS AT WORK AND EXIST WHETHER YOU OR I BELIEVE IT OR NOT.This is what is in our power and control our ability to give even if it is only a warm smile and a countenance of listening with real intent to a abrother or sister who maybe on the stand and as you say saying the same ole same ole,for without our spiritual ears we are by LAW UNABLE TO RECEIVE and this is why we come away feeling like a victim cause we haven’t been nourished.its really that simple even in application.
peace out whanau
June 14th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Gordon, you are so articulate about your experience and feelings, for which I am grateful. I am especially intrigued by your statement “I am a Mormon and I will always be a Mormon but I am not a believer” It challenges our standard understandings of “knowing” and “believing” in Mormon identity. Similarly, your idea that truth shouldn’t be “boring” and the comments it generated has been particularly rich reading! Thanks, you all!
So how do you who are active in the church subvert the dearth of personal stories? Is testimony meeting the only forum we’ve been left?
What are the most creative/exciting/astounding testimonies you’ve heard in the last ten years?
June 15th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
The competitive nature of the religions of the world, especially within Christianity, has bred conflict that has spilled over to the political realm.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Hope y’all don’t mind if I insert my two cents. Paul, I don’t think your high up authority had any insidious meaning behind his comment, ?¢‚Ǩ?ìRemember, Paul, you are *invited* to come into the kingdom.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù Everyone is invited to come into the kingdom; remember that in the parable of the 10 Virgins, only 5 of them had enough oil to attend the ceremony. They prepared themselves and so they were invited the rest of the way. The thing is, the preparation is up to the individual, not to the church. The only one who can prepare you accept the invitation is you. The church is a tool and has the necessary ordinances we need even if our church meetings are mind numbingly boring and soon to become more so with the new policy on no visual aids and no congregational looking up of scripture references with the speech-giver. Now as I move on to other comments in this thread…
One thing my mom taugh me was that we might surpass the general church in knowledge of the scriptures and principles of the Gospel so that all the repetition becomes tedious, but that you always have the opportunity to teach yourself something new by writing your own speech on the same topic as the speech-giver and thus keeping your mind engaged and still able to participate in the spirit of the meeting. If not that, then some other way of staying engaged. It puts more responsibility on the individual that way, but sometimes I think we expect the church to be too much to all people. The church is adapted to the capacity of the weakest (ie: new people). Just because the Bishopric has bypassed me as Ward Music Chair on several occasions and made music decisions without even notifying me (disrespectful at the very least) doesn’t make the principles of the Gospel any less true and the irritating fact that through the scriptures we have been commanded to meet together often much as meeting together has become somewhat painful because of those who misuse their authority or blurt out thoughtless statements or teach false doctrine or bore us with lackadasical preparation (ie: reading the lesson right out of the manual). Sigh. It isn’t easy “enduring to the end.” Some speeches I’ve heard lately have given a new meaning to the word endure.
I think testimony meetings now days are ineffectual because they are not testimonies. They are thank-imonies and grati-monies. I don’t care if Mr. Brown wants to tell his wife publicly that he loves her. That is not a testimony. That belongs in the home where he not only tells her he loves her, but he shows her he loves her. Loving your parents, being thankful for President Monson, being grateful for having a testimony; none of it is a testimony and it is boring. Until the church members in general learn to bear a testimony the way the prophets have told us to by telling people what we DO know and perhaps telling the experience of how they learned it, it will continue to be an uninspiring meeting.
That being said, while I have my gripes and while I’m sure that organizationally speaking I could run things much better being a professional project manager (a grandiose and cocky notion for sure), spiritually speaking, I need the ordinances (can’t give them to myself) and the synergistic strength I get from others who are also struggling to endure.
Kind of random, but those are my thoughts. By the way, I recently heard Elder Perry tell stories about prophets he’d worked with over the years. That kept my interest. I haven’t heard any policy that said we couldn’t tell stories in our speeches. Am I wrong? Or is it just that we are too lazy (generally speaking of course) in our speech-writing to come up with some that are applicable to the topic?
June 17th, 2008 at 8:52 am
An organization is formed in it’s infancy to serve man-kind. As it serves man-kind, it begins to become institutionalized, IE; it demands that you give up all to serve it, IE; you give up aliveness which is what brought the Church forward, for survival. ALL THINGS follow this pattern! The Church is no different!
Try being a convert to the Church where it is aliveness that brought you to baptism only to find that aliveness has been stamped out by survival! What happened to angels appearing at the sacrament meetings? What happened to revelation? Perhaps we have chosen to replace revelation with personal inspiration and general consensus?
So the question is: “How do we bring aliveness back to the members?” How do we get the members to give up survival and return to aliveness? Perhaps Enoch got the distinction between aliveness and survival and that is how he got out of here? Either way, it is the meaning you give that creates the reality of our lives.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Lee, I like that. Let’s bring back the aliveness. Have we become so complacent that we don’t believe we deserve to be visited by angels in our meetings? On the other hand, I know our ward choir has had angelic intervention on its behalf when we performed a song well beyond our ability. Maybe the angels are there, but we just don’t know how to recognize them or invite them to our meetings. Maybe the angels are bored at our meetings too?!?
June 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Maybe the first step is to be totally authentic with the self, the ward, the church, the community and so on.
Perhaps if we at the fast and testimony meetings, we confess publicly our in- authenticities then we might be able to create an environment of authenticity.
It is funny being a convert and looking at the church and seeing things a little different. We always are quick to acknowledge what is wrong and rarely do we acknowledge what is great about a person. Kind of strange isn’t it?
I am totally committed to creating an environment where “aliveness” can exist in the church. Imagine not placing judgment on God’s creation and just accepting it for what is; “An unbelievable perfect creation created just for us!”
It is sad to see converts fall away from the church, but I can understand the why. Imagine coming out of the baptismal water and seeing the fine line between good and evil. How about having prophetic visions and no one to share them with? Would you be willing to share the aliveness and authenticities of your beliefs? I am willing to be alive. Are you?