Mormonism, a global counter-church?


Walter E.A. van Beek
Chair Anthropology of Religion
Tilburg University
Netherlands

Draft paper

1. World religion: variety and identity

What constitutes a world religion is hard to establish, as in principle it is not an analytic but more of a public relations term. As it is the term controlling this conference, it has to be addressed, however. In order to avoid normative definitions, which easily slip in the discourse on world religions, I just want to isolate some crucial characteristics shared by a few religions which are recognised as a world religion or a world church: Islam and the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, Islam is not a church in the sense of a closed bounded organisation, has no doctrinal authority vested in someone, and Catholicism is part of a large gamma of Christian churches. What they do share, however, beyond a common region of origin, is quite impressive. Both are monotheistic, scripture as well as tradition-oriented. Both have their saints, their folk expressions of faith, both have a long history of active proselyting. Both are tied in, or have been tied in with secular dynasties and earthly realms. In both the separation of state and religion is not primarily wished for. Both have holy places, pilgrimages, and both have waged holy wars. In both, the historical connection with the land of origin or first florescence is still present, but both have grown out of an ethnic or regional definition of identity. In Islam the Arab connection is still strong, but in no way is Islam restricted to one ethnic identity or one geographic region. The same holds for Catholicism: Rome centered, historically Jerusalem interested, it has outgrown its Mediterranean orientation.

My focus here is on the variety of identification processes, and thus on internal variation. Both religions house a wide array of forms and expressions, of actual beliefs and factual rituals. Islam has, even restricting ourselves to its Sunnitic form, many law schools, cults, brotherhoods, sisterhoods, saints and a vast array of folk expression of Islam, the "popular Islam". Christianity as a whole is even more diverse, easily warranting the term "christianities" that is sometimes used. But the Catholic church itself, is the haven of a large, and probably increasing diversity. From ultra-orthodox to ultra-liberal, from charismatic to base movements, various monastic orders ranging from contemplative to secular and scientific orientations, the Catholic church is the prime example of outward unity combined with internal diversity.

The possibility to incorporate diversity does not imply that these religions have been tolerant, in the past, of diverging opinions and heteropraxis. The "Holy Office" still exists within the Roman Catholic Church, even if its function is nicely tuned down after the heydays of the Inquisition. Islam also have waged war against apostates, especially when the political situation made this expedient. Many a jihad has been fought not only against infidels, but also against Muslim nations, with at least the pretext, however flimsy - that the enemy did not heed to the doctrines and praxis of "real Islam". Yet these institutions could not curb diversity in their own ranks, and in many ways used diversity for their own purposes: the array of monastic orders is a point in question, while the tolerant attitude towards popular expressions of Islam and Catholicism, has been a definite means of penetration to the grass roots of believers.

Now, how is diversity constructed and reflected at the grass roots level? The presence of multiple forms of religious options within one religious community implies a flexibility in self definition of the individual as part of that particular religion: "all roads lead to Rome". If options and possibilities are open within one religion, then the concomitant options for the construction of individual identity are open as well. So, the question is what theological and sociological processes of a particular religion lead to identity constructions of individuals that remain within the general framework of that religion. The diversity mentioned in Islam and Catholicism allows for identification processes of the individual with that religion, that vary widely. People may define themselves as Catholic or Muslim on widely diverging grounds, ranging from full and total commitment (the literal meaning of "Islam") to identification of a very low intensity. The latter is essential: many people identify as Muslim or Catholic almost irrespective of their factual adherence to norms, rules or belief systems. The word religions seems to generate a process of identity construction that allow for wide margins. A Muslim may strictly adhere to the five pillars, pray five times a day, give alms and fly to Mecca every other year for the hadj, or drink liquor, eat - even pork - under the sun of the Ramadan; he will call himself a Muslim anyway. Of course, there is some hierarchy in adherence to rules, as some taboos are more easily broken than others, but he keeps defining himself as part of the Umma. One of the reasons for this process is exactly the diversity allowed by the religion: the others still consider him a Muslim as well. There is leeway in the self definition and the social construction of a member of that religion, the religions are inclusive, with a wide margin of people still under the general umbrella.

Another reason is of course, that these world religions do not operate in a cultural vacuum. Both Catholicism and Islam have a large imprint on the society and its culture; someone raised in a Catholic environment, who from his early years have been part and parcel of a catholic culture will always, whatever his later relation to the creed, define himself as a Catholic or as a "raised Catholic": he went to a Catholic primary school, probably a Catholic secondary school, maybe a University or College with one or two saintly names; in some countries, like Holland before the depillarization he played soccer at a catholic club, went to catholic scouting and when ill had a catholic doctor. A catholic culture raises catholic identities. The same holds for Islam, though there the political and juridical imprint of the religion is larger than the social and recreational one. A Coranic school, with its drone memorisation of sura, a childhood in the immediate vicinity of the muezzin's call, the continual presence of prayer and recitation and the feasts of the end of Ramadan, tabaski and the return of the Hadj, they all add to a powerful denominator of identity, a Muslim one.

Together, these aspects of diversity and cultural inclusion are sufficient to generate a cultural religious identity. Even bereft of any knowledge about the religion, without firm convictions or laden with heavy doubts, the people in question define themselves as part of the community, part of the religion. From the standpoint of orthodoxy, these religions have a core of firm and steadfast believers with a clear orthopraxis, plus a wide and varied margin of marginal, diverging and even non-believers, all under the umbrella of the religion in question

2. Mormonism: exclusive identity

How does Mormonism fare on the scales of diversity and variation? How diverse is Mormonism? This includes of course, the LDS and RLDS churches, plus the various splinter groups in the Deseret and Missouri zone. Even with that extension, the variation is limited: most share, on the basis of generalised Puritan Protestant theologies some "Mormon" characteristics, such as new scriptures, polygyny or prophetism. But then, most of them do not claim world-wide status, as the LDS version does. So we shall limit our discussion to the LDS Church. How diversified is it, in theologies, in expression and ritual, and in adherence?

Though characterised as a "do-it-yourself" theology, the mainframe of Mormon theology is remarkably unified. Several processes see to that: the absence of a class of professional theologians, the dominance of management over theology( the main diversity comes from history!), and the propagation of the faith by young, well-trained but non-professional missionaries. In fact, the unity in doctrine (the word "theology" is eschewed) is a continuous point of reference, an identity marker. Discussions in church classes, though frequent and stimulated, revolve about personal experiences and preferred focus of doctrine, almost never question doctrine as such; in short, the discourse in the Church is intra-doctrinal.

In ritual and other expressions of faith the same standardisation operates. Church services are rite-poor, Protestant in kind in its heavy reliance on preaching ("talks"), listening is the number one activity. "Bearing testimony", as an expression of individual faith and experience, is more personal. Therefore, it varies more, but even here some standardisation is evident: the "testimony" should be, and most often is - personal, experiential, emotional and short; also supportive, ending on a positive note, without discussion of doctrine. Problems should be dealt with, but with a positive ending: the solution is dominant, and some degree of success story is expected. Other rituals are either sober (laying on of hands, pronouncing prayers, blessings and ordinations), or are highly formalised and should never be discussed at all, such as the temple ceremonies.

How about personal adherence? How varied are the forms of belonging or not belonging to the LDS church? This, of course, is the main factor in our argument, as it points to the ways and processes of identification of the varying members with the church. What processes of identity construction does the church generate in various types of religious adherence?

2.1. Case: inactive members in the Netherlands

In order to answer this question, I shall concentrate first on "the International" church, i.e. a part of the church outside " Deseret" as this is the main arena for the Mormon Church to become a "Church for all the World". The case is from the Netherlands.

For some context, let us visualise a mean Dutch Mormon unit, ward or branch, the mean of a 10 unit Dutch stake, half branch, half small wards. The composition of 1998 is as follows:

Members of record 198

Mean sacrament attendance 56

Families: 143 (of which 18 visited by Home Teaching)

Melchezidek Priesthood 24 (of which 10 inactive)

Non-ordained "future elders" 44 (of which 43 inactive)

Women 100 (of which 76 inactive)

Young men 7 (of which 3 inactive)

Young Women 5 (of which 2 inactive)

Children 18 (of which 4 inactive)

The activity rate of 28% is considered normal in the Netherlands, reflecting a similar reality elsewhere. This means that 72% did not attend once in the past three months, a sign of inactivity for Mormons. For the moment we assume that the 28% reflects self identifying Mormons, a reasonably safe assumption that we shall return to later anyway. But the large majority of the members, the ones who never show up, or the "Fleeing Flock" as Decoo characterises them, how about them? To what extent do these 72% define themselves as Mormons? If they consider the margin, how is this composed? The general answer to that is quite straight forward: they do not consider themselves to be Mormons; but some nuances are called for. What is the pattern of disaffiliation, and conversely, what are the strengths and weaknesses of Mormon identity construction in this area?

About a quarter of them, 20% - 30% hardly recall anything about being a member anyway: they have been blessed or baptised as a child, entering with their convert parents. When their parents opted out, often soon after baptism, they left the church, never to return again. They hardly remember, they do not know about the church, and they routinely do not want to get reacquainted with the church. It holds no interest to them. They sometimes asked to be struck from the record, but are seldom motivated enough to write an actual request.

A small fraction, 5-10% has been a "baseball baptism", during the "Dyer Days" of the European missions. They are aware of their baptism, and on the whole resent it. They do not even want to write a letter asking the removal of their names from the records. Another similar fraction, very difficult to ascertain, seems to consist of "social drifters", migrants, some psychiatric patients. They drifted into and out of the church, as a survival routine.

One sixth has a personal memory of one particular missionary; they investigated the church-cum-missionary and were baptised by that missionary, if allowed. When that missionary was transferred, they gradually, or even immediately, drifted out of the church. In some cases, they took a personal interest in more than one missionary and then stayed in longer.

One single 65 year old man had a huge collection of missionary photographs in his home, showing this only to his home teachers. He had started as a new convert with one special elder that was replaced by another one, when his "baptism -elder" left". When he grew older, his attachment to the boys did not diminish, but his resentment that they inevitably left increased, and he started complaining about unjust mission rules, transferring these "wonderful boys" ever so often (each 3-5 months). Eventually he stopped coming and left the church: the emotional strain became too much.

It is not only the converts who opt out when someone else leaves. Instances in which a second generation member leaves when a
convert leaves in whom he had put his trust, are known as well.

Another quart, 20-30% has been a full member of the church for a considerable stretch of time, but after some changes in their course of life, opted out. The majority of them married outside the church and followed their new spouses to another church, or to a secular existence. Usually the latter. The minority among them felt itself disaffiliated by the church, when they experimented with drugs, became pregnant before marriage, followed their homosexual leanings or became a single mother. Some of these disaffectations resulted from divorce, a phenomenon on which I shall return later. Not always these changes were so dramatic: when people move to another city, at a much larger distance from the chapel, they tend to lose their links with the church.

On the whole this group felt that their life course had taken them out of the church; theirs was not so much a conscious choice as a "growing away from" the church. For a few of them it was the farewell to a youth, often a very satisfying one: "I have had wonderful years as a young women in the church", one of them said, "but now I have found my husband, and I am back in my old church, together with him. But I did have a great time in the church". And in fact, she had been very active, in her ward and in the Young Women's organisation of the stake. But she never came back to the church.

The remainder, another sixth, offers the most complicated picture. This is the group of the "disenchantment". Decoo distinguishes between normal and serious disenchantment; here, the latter is meant: a thorough revision of the ideas and ideals operative at baptism. Clashes with - or between - members, some rows, conflicts or quarrels were totally unpalatable for them. Often they cited these incidents, plus some doctrinal problems, often the black prohibition on priesthood. When told that this not longer holds, they seem to be hardly interested. These people usually want out of the church, their names struck from the records. When asked, they often follow up on it. They tend to be quite unsympathetic to the church, due to bad memories or long cherished grieves against (people of) the branch they were baptised in.

The second part of this category could be classified as "overexposure": children from former leaders, returned missionaries and
leaders of small branches with too many tasks, they often have opted out. Theirs is a very definite choice, often not in pain or grudge, but a conscious choice, manifesting some anger tempered with the relief of not having to deal with the pressure. Often they do not want out, but still consider themselves nominally Mormons, or do want to remain on record as their parents would be hurt otherwise. Here, also, is the phenomenon of "leakage at the top": some of the disenchanted have held leadership positions, such as branch president, bishop, counselor of stake president and stake president.

Not on the records, evidently, are the excommunicated members, though disfellowshipped are. My impression is, conform the literature on the US, that this is but a minute fraction of the total drop out of the church. As a rule of thumb, the three Dutch stakes excommunicate not more than one person per year.

2.2. Comparison with the disaffectation in the US

Before going into the identification processes, some comparison of the Dutch/European leave-taking processes, with the US ones. Some patterns are obvious. Doctrinal matters are very secondary, conform to what Bahr & Albrecht have found for the USA. If mentioned, they seem to serve as a post hoc rationalisation. Also, very few people leave the church for one reason only; it usually is a compound of factors. What is dominant is the idea of biographical reconstruction: their lives have taken a different turn, on a course in which the church had no longer a viable part. The first variant is after a more or less involuntary membership, our first category. They, in fact, cannot be considered to have been members at all. Postulating their number against the Dutch membership, some 1800 members of record should not be there. But their names will never be removed, and they number only slightly less than the active Dutch membership! The most active and conscious reconstruction of their lives is in the second category, those who have "lived themselves" out of the church. They do include a fair number of rapid baptisms, reminiscent of the old battling point between missionaries and members: the missionaries have an interest in baptism, the receiving members in activity, in retention. Their internalisation of the norms and rules of the church has been less than complete, but more importantly, they never developed a Mormon network among their peers.

Another commonality is the difference between disbelief and rejection. Disbelief in the church teachings is often cited as a factor. In retrospect it might play a larger role than in the actual process of leave taking, and it may serve as a rationalisation. But it does fit in with common element in Dutch society, where disbelief in religious teachings is a normal phenomenon, well respected and accepted.

One inactive member of 76 years of age, told that she had been a member long ago, some thirty years ago. She had had a good time, no problems with the other members. But some of the elements of doctrine seemed not right (she had forgotten what it could have been), and as her education was above the church average (using her own words) it was hard for her to accept on authority. She then returned to her Dutch Reformed church, but not in an active way. She is interested in Evangelicals (EO), but does not attend church any longer. Maybe, when in an old age home, where she hopes to go soon, she will attend the Reformed services again.

Disbelief need not lead to a change in self definition as a Mormon, but it does block church attendance. If people disbelieve the teaching, for whatever additional reason, they stop going to church, but they sometimes want to remain on record. It is hard to assess to what extent they define themselves as Mormons vis à vis a third party; my guess would be that they will no; but faced with active members, especially the ones they know, they will still define themselves as "members of the church" (though not as Mormons, nor as "Latter Day Saints).

Rejection is different; the category of those who feel to have been "tripped into" the church is very rejective. Also some of the "bleeders at the top" or "overexposed" actively reject the church. Yet, often they do remain on record, while emphatically denying to be a member. They have a kind of "love-hate" relationship with the church, struggling with it, but never free, each with his or her own story. Like a divorce.

One returned missionary explained that the church had "destroyed him". After his - prematurely released - mission, the devil had attacked him, he explained. Christ had allowed the devil to mark him, to lay his hands on him. The brothers in the church had not given his case enough attention; they did, in fact, give him a priesthood blessing, but then did not follow it up in an intensive way. They had disappointed him. He now considered the Mormon church as "one of the schools that educate towards Christ, not the only one". In fact, though he did not come to church, he still was a missionary, teaching his people ( Surinam immigrants in the Netherlands) about the church.

What is clearly different from the US situation is the importance of family matters in church affiliation. Bahr & Albrecht note that divorce is one major motive for disaffiliation, as one of the divorcees tends to opt out of the church. This seems less the case in the Dutch church; though divorce seems on the rise, a minority of the partners takes his or her leave. Moving to another branch or ward is standard (sometimes not even that), with the concomitant irony that stake conferences become meetings places for ex-partners. In the relatively small units, a divorce in an active couple is a disaster, for which the unit has no set behaviour pattern. Nor have the unit or stake leaders.

The main difference is the non-return of the inactive member. Whereas in the US the inactive members, often dropping out at adolescence, pick up church attendance when they have to raise a family. In the US the majority of the disaffectation seems to be short term. Thus, the authors distinguish between engaged and disengaged non-believers, and between engaged and disengaged believers. In their data of 100 LDS on record 26% remain life long in the church (of which 4% as non-believers), 64% move out, of which two thirds move back in again at some time. This seems the largest part of the church actives: the people who have taken dip into the "outside".

In Europe, at least in the Netherlands, this is not the case. People do not return on their own steam, and people who move out, stay out. The "Fleeing Flock" does only with exceptionally return to the fold. Several factors account for this non-return, most having to do with the general structure of European social life. In the USA raising a family is considered the primary reason for opt for or return into a church; a church environment is considered good for bringing up children. This is not the case in the Netherlands, nor in most countries of Europe. Having children is no reason to join a church. The insistence on family values of the Mormon church is not a sales pitch in the Netherlands, neither among the members nor among the disaffiliated. In fact, it is closely associated with the Christian Democrat Party (CDA), which has moved out of power and is moving out of fashion. So the adolescents who leave the church, often as children of active parents, usually do not return. They marry someone from outside the church, sometimes from another religion, and for the great majority do not affiliate to any church. This tendency has nothing particularly Mormon: in the Netherlands people who move out of a church, do not move in again. At present, this amounts to the great majority of the population, at present more than 70% of the population does no longer count itself member of a church. So, the Dutch ex-Mormons follow the pattern of the general population. In order to assess the impact of the non-return, the drop out of children is of relevance. Our impression is that half of the children from full-member families stays active, and one third in half-member families, with a greater drop out in more socially vulnerable categories, such as minorities. Marriage is a reason to leave the church, slightly more for girls that for boys. The relatively few "returnees" in the Netherlands, is found in this category.

3. Support culture and church margin  

What is different between mainline Christians and Mormons in the Netherlands, however, is the margin, the one of the disengaged believers and disengaged non-believers. The differences between the social function of churches in the USA and in Europe have been sketched elsewhere in detail but need to be stressed again. The social motivations for church attendance in the US are largely absent in Europe, but here other mechanisms prevail: cultural membership or individual choice. Cultural in the sense of being a "cultural catholic" or "cultural Calvinist": raised in that tradition, defining identity in terms of the tradition and recognising the traces of upbringing and values are buildings blocks of the own personality, both social and individual; but one does no longer go to church. Disengaged non-believers have become the norm in this part of Europe: raised in the shadow of some church, recognising its influence, but having moved definitely out of reach of the church bells. It is with them that the church has retreated to its most general function, that of a part in the process of identity construction. In Holland, the pattern has been clear for decades: Holland is becoming a country of "Christians without a church". Christians, yes, but cultural Christians; the simple credo is "I believe there might be something", and if I live a good life, no real harm can befall upon me later". A credo that is often voiced by inactive Mormons as well, at least in our sample. As a Catholic comedian voiced it: "O God, if you do exist, save my soul, if I happen to have one". One clear example of this cultural Christianity is the role of the Catholic Church in Belgium. Belgian Catholics, in great numbers never go to Church, the last thing is declare themselves not a Catholic. If someone of their family joins the Mormon church, theirs is a fierce reaction: becoming a Mormon is not done, not so much because one is a catholic, but one is a Belgian, and Belgium is a catholic country! In Holland reactions are less severe, because the Dutch never had a state religion or state church, but the same principle holds. Generalised Christianity, without real conviction, without church membership is quite all right, but a total allegiance to any kind of particular church - though often respected on the individual level - is thought slightly odd. The pattern of the disengaged, be they believers or not, follows these dividing lines. The Mormon church does not belong to the "generalised Christianity", neither in its own definition nor in the views of the outside society. So the disengaged routinely nestle in that comfortable definition of self, thus severing the links that they may have kept with the Mormon church. A few believers remain among them, as seen above, but they are few and far between. For most converts the separation with the old church of origin, and thus with the old identity is maximal: in fact they maximise this difference, feeding on the notions of the "great and abominable church" of the Joseph Smith story. So the dominance of converts leads to drawing the line between Mormons and others in absolute terms, enhancing the dichotomy.

So, what is missing in Europe, compared to the USA situation, is the margin. Of 100 Mormons in Holland, some 30 are engaged believers (with hardly any engaged non-believers), 70 are disengaged non-believers (with hardly any disengaged believers).

So the result is that the composition of Dutch Mormons is that of a group without a margin; almost no occasional attenders, no "Jack Mormons", and few returnees after absence. In terms of identification processes, the identification with the Mormon church is a polarised process, either in or out. Absent are processes for low intensity identification. The disaffiliated conform easily with current Dutch trends in generalised Christianity. The reasons for this polarised self definition reside, as stated, in Dutch culture, in the particular ways in which secularisation in the Netherlands has established itself and in the absence of a supporting Mormon culture. The first two might be specific for the Netherlands, though I really doubt it. The modalities of Dutch secularisation do differ from those of the neighbouring countries, England, Belgium and Germany, but not in ways deeply relevant to this notion of dual identification processes. Anyway, the supporting Mormon culture is absent in all European countries, in fact in almost all countries except the Wasatch front. So polarisation of membership indeed is to be expected in all non-Deseret stakes and missions of the Church.


4. Internal processes towards polarised identity: a counter church

This polarity is just what we did not expect in world religion or world church. But what in the Mormon church itself leads towards this polarity of identity? What processes lead towards this inclusion-exclusion dichotomy? What are the doctrinal or pseudo-doctrinal sources of polarisation? In fact, there are a lot, and on several levels. First, the notion of "the world" as something in direct opposition to the church, to Zion, a notion different, of course from the one used in this conference). Of course, this is based on New Testament teachings, but the point is how large the polarisation church-world is made in the habitual discourse of the church. In mission dominated congregations it is very large, as converts tend to overemphasise the breach with their own past. But also in official Church publications, discourse and especially the recent stream of warnings and statements from the first presidency, a clear separation between the norms of the church and whatever is happening in the world, is evident. In its discourse the church puts itself not in the world but against the world, a counter-world, by defining the world as the antithesis of good. The main discourse leads to a margin-less definition of self, a counter-definition.

Other discourses also lead to a clear-cut identification. The first is the almost total absence in discourses and teachings of marginal situations and marginal individuals. Let me explain. The church population, in the discourse, is made up of children, young men, young women, young adults, married couples, young single adults and single adults. The glaringly absent category is that of the divorced, an increasing proportion of the membership. The same holds for homosexuals. It is one thing to have clear preferences for styles of life and to hold on to family values, it is another and quite different thing to define away the existence of other types of people. Thus, church discourse leads to a polarised definition of self, one is in harmony with recognised patterns and "in", or out of harmony and has to live without recognition of identity. This may be one important factor why divorcees often disaffiliate; in the Netherlands this amounts to a "gentle bleeding", in the US it seems to be the main hemorage.

A third "discourse of separation" is the notion of Israel. Though references to "the Latter-Day Israel" seem to have diminished somewhat, the notion of the "descendants of Israel" and of Ephraim" is still around. A recent example is the brochure "De Belofte" (the promise) where the Dutch mission president rekindles the burning embers of the Israel heritage, even transfusing the notion of the "Blood of Israel". The main point is that a tribal discourse is inherently exclusive and does not lend itself to a global church.

The dominant identity discourse in the church, then , is more that of a minority, righteous, covenanted and fully dedicated, that wages battle against a large majority, a Gideons army against the hosts of the Philistines. That discourse supports and ratifies processes of identity formation that are characterised by oppositional definitions of self, polarised constructions of identity that do not fit in with the notion of a global church. Instead, it defines itself as a global counter-church, set against the world, against non-Israel, against the ones who dwell from the straight and narrow.

The only exception would be " Deseret", where mormonism is the mainline religion. There church affiliation and disaffiliation have different characteristics, due to numbers, historical presence and a general mormon culture. Those conditions will never be met in the " International Church", where Mormonism will remain, whatever its growth, a minority religion. And some retrenchment of the Church, also in Deseret has well been noted by Mauss. But my main point is that the processes of identity construction in the
Church abroad lead to the definition of the LDS church as a global counter-church, not a world religion. A church which disengages its members from the rest of the world, which opposes trends and fashions and which maintains definitions of self, both collectively and for individual members, dominated by exclusiveness and the absence of low-intensity identification.

Walter E.A. van Beek

Utrecht - The Netherlands




notes and literature: (were numbered and included in the original draft paper)

If one excludes the Arctic.

Other "world religions", such as Buddhism and Hinduism, show even larger internal variation. Buddhism shares the same characteristics of internal variation, both between major forms (tantrist, terevada, hinayana, mahayana) and minor expressions: monastic orders, local cults, with the concomitant variations in styles and belief content over the various regions it has spread over. Hinduism, as often said, is diversity per se.

M. Gilsenan Recognising Islam; Religion and Society in the Modern Arab World, New York, Pantheon 1982,

Waardenburg & Vrijhof 1979 Official and Popular Religion; Analysis of a Theme for Religious Studies, Mounton, the Hague. G.L.A.M. Mommersteeg Het Domein van de Marabout, Utrecht 1996.

C. Waddy The Muslim Mind, New York, Longman 1982.

Especially the history of African sudan empires is full of Muslim countries waging a jihad against each other on these grounds (van Beek Purity and statecraft: the Fulani jihad and its empire, in W.E.A, van Beek (ed) The Quest for Purity; Dynamics of Puritan Movements,Mouton, de Gruyter, Berlin 1988).

Cf. A.A. Elkholy The Arab Moslems in the United States New Haven UP.

W.E.A. van Beek "Ethnization and accomodation: Dutch Mormons in the twenty-first century, Dialogue, 29, 1, pp 119-139. 1997

M. Buitelaar Ramadan; Vasten en Feesten in Marokko, Amsterdam 1993.

M. Leone The Roots of Modern Mormonism, Cambridge Mass, Harvard UP.

Both the cases and the statistical data stem from personal experience, combined with focused research. The author has long first hand involvement in the units as described, in various functiosn, and has in addition done some surveys, interviews and analyses of Church statistics.

W. Decoo Feeding the fleeing flock: reflections on the struggle to retain church members in Europe, Dialogue 1996, 29, 1, pp. 97-119, Gooren "Reconsidering Mormon membership growth in Guatemala, Conference paper 1999 1999, J. Numano "Mormonism in modern Japan, Dialogue 1996, 29, 1, pp 223-236, W.H. Homer, LDS propsects in Italy for the twenty-first century", Dialogue 1996, 29, 1, pp. 139- 159, L.C. Bennion & L.A.Young "The un certain dynamics of LDS expansion, 1950-2020, Dialogue,1996, 29, 1, pp. 8-33).

H.M. Bahr & S.L. Albrecht "Strangers once more: patterns of disaffiliation from Mormonism", Journal for the Scientific Study of Mormonism, 28, 2, pp 180-200.

Ibidem p. 92.

(Albrecht, Cornwall & Cunningham 1988, "The dimensions of religiosity: a conceptual model and an empirical test", Review of Religious Research 27, 3, pp 226-234.

D. Martin A General Theory of Secularization, Blackwell, 1978

See Decoo 1996 o.c.

See van Beek 1996 o.c.

I am using the notion of "counter-" in the sense of Theodore Roszak Theory of Counter Culture", Londen 1976.

A. Mauss The Angel and the Beehive. The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation, U. of Illinois Press, 1994.




Mormoons Forum - (join this conversation in English or in Dutch!)


1 - Voice in the Wilderness?

Thanks MVG for publishing this very informative and interesting essay from Walter van Beek, and for opening your forum for this discussion. The essay - as well as my reaction - is in English, and one wonders of course how many members in Belgium and The Netherlands are actually aware of the situation in their own countries. Church members repeat the old mantra that 'the Church is the same everywhere' and while that may be true for the correlated curriculum and pictures on the wall, that certainly is not the case for the cultural surroundings of the Church abroad. The dilemma is of course: how does a discourse like this changes anything in the outlook of ordinary members? Are church leaders aware of - let alone participating in - the discussion?
Menno Feenstra in his essay 'Samuel' observed that leadership in the Church at its highest levels mainly consists of businessmen and lawyers, and thus not of social scientists. Just this Sunday at Church I was introduced to a young new member of the Church, a college student majoring in sociology, and I congratulated him for that choice. Of course he's not a General Authority yet.
But the question remains how observations by let's say cultural and religious anthropologists will ever reach our leaders.
Someone once said that when we dismiss our critics before ever listening to what they have to say, chances that things will change are slim. The fact is of course that social scientists in the Church abroad are finding themselves in the very margins they describe in their studies.
Where Christ was a clear example of a voice in the wilderness against the social and religious establishment of his days, our Church does not recognize this as such because of her emphasis on obedience. When we speak of obedience in mormon circles we almost always mean obedience to religious authority, rather than obedience to general principles of the gospel. By equating church authority with gospel principles - revealed truth - we simply avoid any possible conflict between the two.
Walter van Beek mentions the high inactivity rates in The Netherlands and Belgium, and observes that folks that stay away never come back. I'm sure that this indeed has to do with the lack of a supporting culture to sustain them as Jack Mormons like in the United States, but also with our complete lack of interest about their motives to no longer participate. We're quite concerned about their inactivity but not really curious about their reasons. Indeed, we 'counter' their inactivity with standard correlated mormonism instead of genuine dialogue. The simple argument then becomes: if the Church is true, then those who stay away must be false!

click here to join the conversation


2 - Positief Alternatief

Sorry, my English is not so good, so I will write in Dutch:
Het mormonisme als tegenbeweging i.p.v. wereldreligie hoeft toch niet noodzakelijkerwijze een negatieve betekenis te hebben?
We zullen het er over eens zijn dat het "tegen de stroom" ingaan soms juist een goede zaak is.
Naast een stuk zelfbewustzijn verschaft ze een alternatief van 'herstelling' in een wereld van afbraak en verval.
De trektocht van de pioniers naar het westen, de vestiging van Zion, als tegenbeweging t.o.v. zelfgenoegzaamheid en status quo en het ontbreken van idealen, vind ik juist heel aantrekkelijk. Een wereldreligie die zich terrecht afzet tegen het kwaad in de wereld.

click here to join the conversation


3 - Counter-definitions

Not to worry # 2, as a former missionary in Belgium my Dutch is not so good, so I will write in English!

Walter van Beek wrote:
"The church puts itself not in the world but against the world, a counter-world, by defining the world as the antithesis of good.
The main discourse leads to a margin-less definition of self, a counter-definition."

and the writer of response #1 wrote:
"When we speak of obedience in mormon circles we almost always mean obedience to religious authority, rather than obedience to general principles of the gospel. By equating church authority with gospel principles - revealed truth - we simply avoid any possible conflict between the two."

The conflict between a balanced world view vs margin-less fundamentalism came to the surface in the historic October 1984 conference talk of Elder Ronald Poelman:

Poelman delivered a sermon entitled "The Gospel and the Church". Controversy ensued when the version of his sermon that was published in the November 1984 Ensign magazine differed significantly from the sermon Poelman had delivered orally. Further, the videotape copies of general conference that were included in church archives and distributed throughout the church contained Poelman delivering the revised version of his sermon. A "cough track" was included in the retaping to make it appear that the revised sermon was delivered in front of an audience.
One commentator has criticised the changes to the sermon as a dramatic shift in the meaning of Poelman's address:
"The rewriting and refilming of Elder Ronald Poelman's October 1984 Conference address, originally a rare and inspiring defense of free agency, so that it became yet another cry for obedience. His text was not edited — his ideas were turned inside out."
(Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_E._Poelman)

Elder Poelman's address was indeed a rare and inspiring defense of free agency - mind you by a Dutchman - but it was not to be.
His original ideas about the need to differentiate between the gospel and the church were stopped cold in their tracks by other general authorities who countered his speech with much more narrow definitions of their own.
How real and graphic such a "margin-less definition of self, a counter-definition" is, can be read in a comparison between the original conference talk and the later version at: http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml
Note that there's not enough margin within the Church itself to even record or discuss such an event; the Wikipedia article references http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml for a side-by-side comparison, even though I'm sure a number of other
- independent - LDS periodicals must have been writing about it as well.

One may argue that 1984 is a long time ago, but is it?


click here to join the conversation



4 - not in the spirit of antagonism

Dear friends:

Mormonartist.net is a wonderful new mormon presence on the Internet!

As I read from the editor in their first issue:

As a general philosophy for the magazine, we’re aiming for both human and heavenly—not shying away from some of the more difficult parts of life, but still completely faithful to the Lord and His Church. We’re not afraid to ask questions—the gospel is rock-solid and can certainly withstand our scrutiny—but always in a spirit of belief, not in the spirit of antagonism that sours our spirits and leaves a nasty aftertaste. We’re here to build the kingdom, not tear it down.

Amen to that!


click here to join the conversation

 

5 - self reflection and critical thought

Introduction

If the Mormon mindset precludes most Latter-Day Saints from understanding why three-quarters of their alleged membership is “inactive”, Wouter van Beek’s draft article “Mormonism, a global counter-church?” provides an eloquent illustration of the reasons why this would be so. In offering my point of view of a “disenchanted” former Mormon of over 30 years, my primary aim is not to engage in “anti-Mormonism”, although I realize that some will be quick to apply this label when confronted with factual criticisms. Rather, it is intended as an explanation of why people leave the Church, based on personal experience – an explanation not found in van Beek’s article and an experience not recognized as legitimate by believing Latter-Day Saints.

First off, I agree with van Beek’s assessement that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not really a worldwide church. Apart from its numerical insignificance (less than 0.06% of the world’s population regularly attends Mormon worship services), van Beek’s conclusion points to a fundamentalist movement rather than a mainstream church: “A church which disengages its members from the rest of the world, which opposes trends and fashions and which maintains definitions of self, both collectively and for individual members, dominated by exclusiveness and the absence of low-intensity identification” – all of these are known characteristics of cultic movements (“cultic” used here in the neutral sociological, not the pejorative theological sense).

Another characteristic of cultic movements is that from the perspective of the group, there is no legitimate reason to leave. The disengaged, commonly referred to as “apostates”, are always considered to be in the wrong. This rings true in van Beek’s analysis of the “pattern of disaffiliation” as well. Although he lists six categories of reasons to leave the Church, in reality they are only two categories: those who never actually believed in the first place and were baptized for the “wrong” reasons, and those who committed one or more of a variety of offenses that caused them to drift away from the church: marrying outside the church, experimenting with drugs, engaging in premarital sex, following homosexual leanings, clashing, rowing or quarrelling with members (or being offended by other members doing so), not being able to bear the pressure of committed church membership, and bearing grudges.

Van Beek acknowledges the possibility of having “doctrinal” reasons for leaving, but only reluctantly, offered merely as a “post hoc rationalisation”, a “secondary” phenomenon which “plays a larger role in retrospect than in the actual process of leave taking”. The reason why faithful Mormons must downplay the significance of doctrinal reasons for leaving the church, is that it is hard to simultaneously hold the belief that the church has always been led by continuing revelation on the one hand, and that there could be something wrong with the church, its teachings or practices on the other.

The two strategies most often applied by believing Latter-Day Saints to reconcile these conflicting propositions (apart from simply ignoring them while claiming this will all be sorted out in eternity) is either to attach some sort of blame to the person who struggles with doctrinal issues, or to make up excuses for the church and its leaders (e.g. “the church is perfect but the people aren’t”).

The Mormon mindset alluded to at the beginning of this article, then, is the belief that the church is true no matter what; that if somebody leaves the church, there must be something wrong with that person. Breaking this mindset with its associated feelings of fear and guilt was the hardest and scariest thing I ever did. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves…

Doctrinal matters

Ironically, my way out of the church started when I read a statement by church president Gordon B. Hinkley. Referring to the first vision as commonly taught in the church today, he said during the October 2002 General Conference: “Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens” (note the polarization in this statement, as addressed by van Beek).

At that time, I was aware of the existence of multiple versions of the first vision story but I had never bothered to investigate them. For ten years, I had had in my possession a reprint of the original 1969 BYU Studies article by Dean Jessee containing the early accounts of the first vision, but I hadn’t read it. Just having it and “knowing” that the issue had been addressed by a trusted party like BYU was enough. I was also aware of the claim that these different versions cast doubt on the veracity of the first vision; Church sources maintained, however, that this was nothing but anti-Mormon propaganda and since I had never actually studied any of these materials, this one-liner was enough to put my mind at ease on this matter.

As I had some time on my hands, I decided to look up the article. I did not do so with the purpose of finding fault, nor did I turn to “anti-Mormon” materials. I fully expected to see my testimony confirmed and strengthened. To my surprise, Joseph Smith’s first account of the first vision was nothing like anything I had ever been taught in church. Not only were the details way off, but the main thrust of this account was completely different than the version found in the Pearl of Great Price today. Moreover, when I dug a bit deeper, I found that neither account matches the historical facts as they emerge from contemporary sources such as newspapers, letters, diaries, etc.

This example illustrates that doctrinal matters are not necessarily “very secondary”, nor do they, “if mentioned, serve as a post hoc rationalisation”. In my case, it was very primary and constituted the beginning of my journey out of the church. At the outset of this journey, I was an active, temple-worthy priesthood leader without homosexual leanings, extramarital affairs or drug addictions.

Of course, one example doesn’t constitute much proof of anything but there is another, more general argument to consider, which most believing Mormons fail to understand. Once you stop believing that the church is a divine institution, you no longer need to justify or “rationalize” the decision to leave; it becomes the logical and intellectually honest thing to do. It isn’t leaving because of doctrinal problems, but staying in spite of them that needs rationalizing.

Leaving the church

Despite church president Hinckley’s brazen declaration that the church is a fraud because the first vision lacks validity, van Beek correctly observes that “very few people leave the church for one reason only”. If the church wasn’t a divine institution, then what was it?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is sometimes called a cult. I have referred to some characteristics of cultic movements earlier in this article. While a practising Latter-Day Saint, I knew from experience that being called a cult is seldom intended as a compliment. Then one day, after my studies into the first vision but before I decided to resign my church membership, I came across a list of characteristics of cults, compiled by Swiss journalist Hugo Stamm. As it turned out, the church complies with 92% of these characteristics.

I bought the book from which this list was taken, only to find out that Stamm had not researched Mormonism at all. His book does not contain a single reference to the church. Intrigued, I expanded my research. I disregarded literature by other churches because they are usually strongly biased against Mormonism in favour of their own particular brand of religion. I ended up studying another four models, none of which was targeted at (or even as much as mentioned) the Mormon church. They all confirmed my initial finding to a similar degree, varying between 85 and 100% compliance, depending of the granularity of the model.

While I was a believing Mormon, it was easy to reject the notion of the church being a cult since the term is so often abused to slander minority religions. But here were five objective researchers, sociologists, psychologists and journalists with no axe to grind regarding Mormonism, all painting a very consistent and verifiable picture. This realization allowed me to follow up the doctrinal matter of the first vision with the concrete action of leaving the church.

Two cult characteristics in particular were helpful to my decision, which I was afraid to make because I believed that I would jeopardize my eternal welfare by rejecting the one and only true church. First, the fact that all cults claim to be the “one and only” and second, the fact that this claim inspires fear of leaving the group, which can be used to manipulate members into staying, e.g. by intimating that terrible things will befall those who leave the group (general unhappiness and failure, sickness, accidents, divorce, even death, and after that eternal damnation).

Techniques such as this make leaving extremely difficult. Those who consciously reject Mormonism, therefore, do not maintain a “love-hate relationship with the church” but instead suffer the consequences of withdrawal from an abusive relationship. This is a long and painful mourning process that can last several years.

Believing Mormons, who do not acknowledge the abusive aspects of their membership but instead feel superior for “enduring” them, often mock ex-mormons’ continuing concern with Mormonism after having left the church. A well-known Mormon mantra, coined by apostle Neal A. Maxwell, is that “you can leave the church, but you can’t leave the church alone”. Apart from being smug and deeply insensitive, it is also wrong (as is van Beek’s characterization “struggling but never free”). Contrary to conventional Mormon wisdom, the urge to dwell on one’s Mormon past decreases over time and in most cases disappears completely within a few years.

Conclusion

The Mormon mindset is mired in mantras which distort and simplify reality, and perpetuate deceit and abuse. A few examples have been mentioned here. These mantras are primarily designed to keep the sheep in the fold but they also interfere with the ability to engage in self-reflection and critical thought. For this reason, it is not easy for most Latter-Day Saints to accept that people leave the church, difficult to understand why, barring the social pressure of a Mormon majority, they will never return, and impossible to admit they could have good reason to.

click here to join the conversation

6 - false dichotomy

The "either-or" - false dichotomy - in response # 5 involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.

But first, I'd like to address the claim that the Church is not really a worldwide church.
Church membership is numerical significant!
When projected on the entire world population we may seem insignificant, but not so when compared to other religions.
We have roughly about the same number of adherents as Judaism - and possibly even more in the near future - and one would hardly deny Judaism her place on the stage of world religions. So a global church we are, as well as a counter church!

"Once you stop believing that the church is a divine institution, you no longer need to justify or “rationalize” the decision to leave; it becomes the logical and intellectually honest thing to do. It isn’t leaving because of doctrinal problems, but staying in spite of them that needs rationalizing."

Define "divine institution".
Acknowledging and working on one's imperfection is divine!

"Believing Mormons, who do not acknowledge the abusive aspects of their membership but instead feel superior for “enduring” them, often mock ex-mormons’ continuing concern with Mormonism after having left the church. A well-known Mormon mantra, coined by apostle Neal A. Maxwell, is that “you can leave the church, but you can’t leave the church alone”. Apart from being smug and deeply insensitive, it is also wrong (as is van Beek’s characterization “struggling but never free”). Contrary to conventional Mormon wisdom, the urge to dwell on one’s Mormon past decreases over time and in most cases disappears completely within a few years."

The responder: "a “disenchanted” former Mormon of over 30 years", has apparently not quite lost the urge to dwell on his Mormon past, and rightly so!
Admitted, the saying “you can leave the church, but you can’t leave the church alone” is somewhat insensitive, but true nevertheless. Mormonism intends to leave us with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and that's not something that can or should easily be discarded.

But back to my "either-or" objection.
In LiberalMormon.net, John-Charles Duffy writes:

"Conservatives who maintain that Mormonism is the only religion authorized to provide access to the blessings of exaltation must, by extension, insist on the literal reality of the Fall and the Atonement, the Restoration, and the future resurrection and judgment. In this view, if LDS claims are not historically true, then the religion is an illusion or a fraud. This "either/or" perspective is held not only by conservative Mormons but also by many disillusioned Mormons.
This website testifies that the Spirit can touch lives through Mormon teachings (as well as through teachings of other faiths) even if those teachings are not historically true. As it happens, there are liberal Mormons who believe in the historicity of many LDS claims. Still, the premise of this website is that the question, "Is Mormonism historically true?" is unimportant for the purposes of spirituality. For those purposes, the essential question is: "Does the Spirit speak to me, and move me to holier living, through Mormonism?" If the answer is yes, then Mormonism is a spiritual tradition worth committing to. A person who has committed to Mormon spirituality on those grounds can decide later what to believe about historicity."

So, in a margin-less global counter-church, it becomes very important to create some margins!
In my opinion John-Charles Duffy has done just that.
If based on the presence of historical falsehoods, institutional and individual imperfections, people decide to leave the church, they'll probably find out that these things cannot be avoided in life. These days one could speak of institutionalized atheism in Western Europe; just about every church ends up in the margins of a secular society.
We are also citizens of a certain nation, and that too comes with all sorts of historical falsehoods, institutional and individual imperfections. Both in a spiritual and political sense we need to become global citizens; a worthwhile counter-movement!


click here to join the conversation

 

7 - Being divided into classes

Grass roots believers

In Wouter van Beek’s comparing different social groups from within modern Mormonism with those of Catholicism and Islam, the group of “grass roots of believers” is mentioned as a group that is “penetrated” by the religion they adhere to. The question comes to mind of which people the LDS grass roots of believers consists. For that matter, we could consider the distinction between “converts”, i.e. those who join the LDS Church after intervention of “missionaries”, and “second generation Mormons”, being those who join at around the age of eight years old, through the intervention of one or more parents; can these LDS grass roots of believers be found amongst either one, or both of these groups? Or would it be more discerning to distinguish between those LDS who are currently “active” (i.e. regularly attending Church services and participating in other Church activities) and those who aren’t?

Book of Mormon perspective on LDS sociology

Before deciding on this question, maybe the purpose of the answer to it should be considered: What about the relation between the current social composition of LDS, and its future perspectives? From an LDS perspective, we could consider previous circumstances as described in the Book of Mormon:

For the larger part of the Book of Mormon history, the righteous groups of people are depicted as close knit and loving, whereas the wicked groups are describes as merely seeking the fulfillment of their selfish purposes, e.g.:

Jacob 3:5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, … are more righteous than you; …

7 Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; …

To the contrary, during their days of wickedness, the covenant people are described as being divided in classes, e.g.:

Alma 32:2 And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel—

3 Therefore they were … esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; …

4 Ne 1:26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.

From an LDS perspective, where on this time line of social evolution does the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints find itself today? By the very existence of websites such as these, we can discern between groups such as those “anxiously engaged”; the orthodox or conservative membership; the disenchanted, and the disengaged – for not necessarily the disenchanted are also disengaged. Within and besides these groups, we can find the “intellectuals” and those who choose to just “follow suit”, thus “giving in to the very human - and tragic - tendency to let others do the thinking for us”, as Rob Poort points out in his book report on "Samuel". By the existence of all such groups which will often disagree amongst each other, we can hardly conclude that the worldwide LDS community, however big or small it may be, still is giving heed to the commandment in D&C 38:27: “… I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.” In the aforementioned essay "Samuel", developments within the Church are described which may have contributed to – or even caused these divisions:

Causes of modern social LDS divisions

Whereas the late James E. Faust has stated that “The principal qualifications of a prophet in any age are not wealth, title, position, physical stature, scholarship, or intellectual attainment”, in a chapter on “The glory and honor of the world” it is pointed out that most if not all current General Authorities meet with such qualifications – and they are also proud to show it on official LDS websites. And although LDS are expected to sustain these General Authorities as “prophets, seers and revelators” to qualify for saving ordinances such as baptism and those ordinances in the LDS Temples, a chapter titled “Thus Saith the Lord” gives cause to the question in what manner or degree they still meet with the expectations such claims do raise – particularly when compared with the prophets, seers and revelators as described in LDS scriptures.

Further contradictions in modern LDS culture on the one hand, and LDS Scripture on the other, may add explanations to the questions of why these divisions have occurred in the LDS Church: Although LDS doctrine teaches that …

D&C 130:18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

on the other hand, in an article “Problems of the Mormon Intellectual” by Bill Mulder, he points out how it is “A continuing problem of the Mormon intellectual … to remain both Mormon and intellectual.”

Future expectations

This being the state of affairs, from an LDS perspective, what should we expect of future developments within the LDS community? Can we expect an even further division, in which the “faithful” part of this community is led by these allegedly divinely guided leaders, allowing these to “do the thinking for them”, even though Brigham Young warned against this very attitude (see §“Continuing Revelation”) – a warning which was resounded by Elders Ezra Taft Benson and James E. Faust – and the “intellectual” part of this membership disenchanted and disengaged – thus developing in an even more obscure cult, very remote from the original Church of Christ? Maybe we can find a clue in Jacob 5:43-68 of the Book of Mormon, as described in a paragraph titled “The New Restoration”.

The challenge

Time will tell; the challenge to those who consider themselves as “intellectual” will be to "hearken unto the counsels of God" and to "consider themselves fools before God," (see 2 Ne 9:28-29, 42), and at the same time to remain “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world”; to let their “light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (see Matt 5:13-16).

It is my hope and desire that discussions like these, through world wide media such as the Internet, will help us to do so, and that in so doing we will build the kingdom of God on the Earth, and only tear down all that distracts from that divine aim.

 

click here to join the conversation