DiscussMormonism.com

An interview with Armand Mauss.

Has anyone listened to this.

What interesting view Mauss presents on the tensions new religious movements go through as an organization in walking the line between assimilation into society as a whole and maintaining enough distinctness to attract ant retain members. Moves in either direction, according to Mauss, will alienate and cause disaffection among the more conservative or more liberal members of the organization, depending on the direction of the move.

Here is a summary of the podcast:

Ever wonder why the LDS church started out so revolutionary/controversial, then made huge strides towards becoming more mainstream and even progressive, and then retrenched itself a bit into increased orthodoxy or conservatism? In this SunstonePodcast episode, we interview Armand Mauss, author of The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation.

Jason, how do i get to it???

Roger Morrison wrote:Jason, how do i get to it???

Go here:

http://www.sunstoneblog.com/?submit=Sea ... mand+mauss

Jason Bourne wrote:An interview with Armand Mauss.

Once upon a time, back in the Dark Ages (pre-1994), I took a class from Armand Mauss: Sociology and Religion. For three hours every week, I was one of 30 students who got to sit and listen to Prof Mauss. It was like being in the presence of giants, yet having so little perspective, we thought he was one of us. That's how he made us feel; like he was one of us. We spent hours speculating on what religion he belonged to (none of us thought far enough ahead to check him out on the internet). In a word, he is everything people say he is. We were privileged to hear him. (He gave me a B).

harmony wrote:

Jason Bourne wrote:An interview with Armand Mauss.

Once upon a time, back in the Dark Ages (pre-1994), I took a class from Armand Mauss: Sociology and Religion. For three hours every week, I was one of 30 students who got to sit and listen to Prof Mauss. It was like being in the presence of giants, yet having so little perspective, we thought he was one of us. That's how he made us feel; like he was one of us. We spent hours speculating on what religion he belonged to (none of us thought far enough ahead to check him out on the internet). In a word, he is everything people say he is. We were privileged to hear him. (He gave me a B).

I would love to have you listen to this podast and opine on it.

A few years ago, I got to speak with two brothers who were both sociology professors and former members of the church. Their speciality was new American religions.

One of the things they spoke about which fascinated me is the progression they all go through. They start out very liberal, try new ideas, think outside of the box, etc. But as time goes by and more members join they must have more rules, more dogma, more obedience, and the idea of free thinking diminishes or disappears.

Interesting huh?

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:A few years ago, I got to speak with two brothers who were both sociology professors and former members of the church. Their speciality was new American religions.

One of the things they spoke about which fascinated me is the progression they all go through. They start out very liberal, try new ideas, think outside of the box, etc. But as time goes by and more members join they must have more rules, more dogma, more obedience, and the idea of free thinking diminishes or disappears.

Interesting huh?

~dancer~

That's pretty common with all organizations, not just religions. As they become larger, the focus shifts to maintaining the group's growth instead of its beliefs, goals, and innovations. Simply put, the institution becomes its own reason for existence.

In the business world you see this all the time, where once vibrant companies get mired down in following the right processes.

truth dancer wrote:A few years ago, I got to speak with two brothers who were both sociology professors and former members of the church. Their speciality was new American religions.

One of the things they spoke about which fascinated me is the progression they all go through. They start out very liberal, try new ideas, think outside of the box, etc. But as time goes by and more members join they must have more rules, more dogma, more obedience, and the idea of free thinking diminishes or disappears.

Interesting huh?

~dancer~

Mauss does not see it that simple. He outlines the tension between the Church, as an organizational entity, being to different, strange,strict, etc. and then swinging to a more open liberal organization or at least closer to an acceptable societal norm, then swinging back to being more strict. He states that the Church was at odds with society through the abandonment of polygamy and then went through a period of reform and normalization up to around the 1960's, then swinging more conservative and strict. At all times when the organization changes there are casualties. Many left the Church when polygamy was abandoned. Some left when the Church started swinging more strict in the 1960's. The blip of a less conservative view in 1978 when the blacks got the priesthood caused some more conservative to leave.

He argues that the organization to service must strive to maintain a tension with society that is not to much to alienate it but enough to make the members feel unique and different as well as draw in those who want to be that way to.

This is simplifying his discussion but it is interesting.

Jason Bourne wrote:

truth dancer wrote:A few years ago, I got to speak with two brothers who were both sociology professors and former members of the church. Their speciality was new American religions.

One of the things they spoke about which fascinated me is the progression they all go through. They start out very liberal, try new ideas, think outside of the box, etc. But as time goes by and more members join they must have more rules, more dogma, more obedience, and the idea of free thinking diminishes or disappears.

Interesting huh?

~dancer~

Mauss does not see it that simple. He outlines the tension between the Church, as an organizational entity, being to different, strange,strict, etc. and then swinging to a more open liberal organization or at least closer to an acceptable societal norm, then swinging back to being more strict. He states that the Church was at odds with society through the abandonment of polygamy and then went through a period of reform and normalization up to around the 1960's, then swinging more conservative and strict. At all times when the organization changes there are casualties. Many left the Church when polygamy was abandoned. Some left when the Church started swinging more strict in the 1960's. The blip of a less conservative view in 1978 when the blacks got the priesthood caused some more conservative to leave.

He argues that the organization to service must strive to maintain a tension with society that is not to much to alienate it but enough to make the members feel unique and different as well as draw in those who want to be that way to.

This is simplifying his discussion but it is interesting.

JB, are you aware of the construct of appealing to authority?

VegasRefugee wrote:

Jason Bourne wrote:

truth dancer wrote:A few years ago, I got to speak with two brothers who were both sociology professors and former members of the church. Their speciality was new American religions.

One of the things they spoke about which fascinated me is the progression they all go through. They start out very liberal, try new ideas, think outside of the box, etc. But as time goes by and more members join they must have more rules, more dogma, more obedience, and the idea of free thinking diminishes or disappears.

Interesting huh?

~dancer~

Mauss does not see it that simple. He outlines the tension between the Church, as an organizational entity, being to different, strange,strict, etc. and then swinging to a more open liberal organization or at least closer to an acceptable societal norm, then swinging back to being more strict. He states that the Church was at odds with society through the abandonment of polygamy and then went through a period of reform and normalization up to around the 1960's, then swinging more conservative and strict. At all times when the organization changes there are casualties. Many left the Church when polygamy was abandoned. Some left when the Church started swinging more strict in the 1960's. The blip of a less conservative view in 1978 when the blacks got the priesthood caused some more conservative to leave.

He argues that the organization to service must strive to maintain a tension with society that is not to much to alienate it but enough to make the members feel unique and different as well as draw in those who want to be that way to.

This is simplifying his discussion but it is interesting.

JB, are you aware of the construct of appealing to authority?

Not really. Can you explain? Is it trying to look bright byappealing to someone who is supposed to be smart or authortive?