KimberlyAnn wrote:DonBradley wrote:The Mormon church hasn't been concerned with its people's health, education, healthy family life, communal bonds, freedom from economic want, etc.? What Mormon church are you talking about? I don't believe I'm familiar with this one.
They're interested in
controlling those things, Don.
First, so what if that were true? Would it change the fact that being Mormon adds about seven years to your life? That Mormons are one of the most educated religious groups in the US? That Mormonism is, in the words of the sociologists who authored the book
On Being Poor in Utah, "effectively an anti-poverty program," giving Utah one of the lowest poverty rates in the nation? That other sociological researchers (e.g., Robert Putnam) rank Utah one of the states highest in "social capital," a measure of community integration, trust, and other attributes that enhance the quality of life, governance, health, and positive emotion that people enjoy?
How do all these actual benefits cease to be benefits if derived from your hypothetical motives of control? Did the fact that Lincoln freed the slaves for military purposes make them less free? If Jonas Salk had invented the polio vaccine for self-aggrandizement, would that have made it ineffective? You're confusing causes with effects; the latter need not be tainted by the former, even assuming the former are what you assume.
Second, your assertion that the LDS church's only interest is in "controlling" these aspects of people's lives is completely untenable. The LDS Welfare program was started at the stake level to help people financially crippled by the Great Depression, and adopted by the church as a whole because it actually helped achieve that end (as also noted by the authors of
On Being Poor in Utah (which, by the way, was published by the notably and intentionally un-Mormon University of Utah). The Word of Wisdom is promoted as a health code, and other healthy practices not specified in the WoW are also encouraged, though not required. Studies have found, for instance, that Mormons are more likely to seek medical care for depression, and that Utahns exercise more than the residents of just about any other state. And examples like this could be multiplied. LDS leaders clearly don't want merely to "control" members' lives, but to actually
benefit their lives
Third, the LDS church is hardly the religious institution to try to "control" aspects of its adherents' lives. They
all do that. For instance, Jews, Muslims, Seventh-Day Adventists, and others also have dietary restrictions; and all religious faiths have behavioral requirements and expectations.
In short, your claim that the LDS church is just out to "control" its members lives is wrong; wouldn't be exceptional if it were true; and, from the standpoint of the benefits provided by the faith, wouldn't really matter if it were true.
And being told what to do in nearly every instance isn't good for people.
Quite true! As I've said, I believe the LDS church tells its members
too much how to live their lives, and should allow them to mature by making more of their own decisions.
That said, it's surely hyperbolic to say that the LDS even comes close to telling members what to do "in nearly every instance." It doesn't tell them where to get educated, what to study, what vocations to pursue, who to marry (other than to marry within the very large LDS pool of singles), what kind of house to buy, where to live, what music they should prefer, how to dress outside of church (other than "modestly"), what to eat, what to do with the great bulk of their free time, where to invest, etc., etc., etc., etc. Even on most of the
big decisions, the LDS church simply lets people do their own thing--much less on the small decisions!
Billions and billions of people have support and direction from other community or religious groups which are much less controlling and damaging than Mormonism.
What do you know about how controlling Islam, Catholicism, and Hinduism--three of the world's largest faiths--are? What comparisons have you made?
Mormonism is hardly uniquely "controlling," though, admittedly, I think it errs in this direction. Some Pentecostal denominations disallow women from cutting their hair, wearing make-up, etc. The generally very progressive Baha'I faith forbids any Baha'I to publish anything about their faith without the official approval of the leadership, requires Baha'is to keep spotless houses and to scrap and replace every piece of furniture in the house every 19 years, and other things of like specificity.
And traditional Judaism controls the lives of its adherents down to a level of minute detail undreamed of by even the most authoritarian LDS leader. Orthodox Jews--to offer two very tiny examples--may not, on the Sabbath, use a phone or car, turn on or off any piece of electronic equipment--including the lights, or even
write anything down; and they are required to keep entirely separate sets of kitchen utensils, and even refrigerators, for meat and for dairy products, which they also may not eat at the same meal.
But have you ever in your life heard Orthodox Judaism called a "cult"? Does
anyone consider them a cult? I've encountered a great deal of literature on Orthodox Judaism, but have yet to find any assertion that its level of control over the lives of its adherents makes it a cult. And if this level of control doesn't make a religion a "cult," then Mormonism's comparatively libertarian standards couldn't make it a cult either.
As for the damage Mormonism supposedly does, let's have some documentation. I've already referred to a number of the
benefits it provides its members, and some of the sources where such documentation may be found. You wave these off because of the motives you believe are behind them (which you fail to even argue for, much less prove), ignoring the fact that a benefit is a benefit, even if unintentionally granted.
As for the alleged damage, let's take the most prominent examples of it: Utah's high rate of Prozac use and high rate of suicide.
First, suicide. Suicide statistics by state are available from the US government. About five years ago I examined these statistics and found that the western states region had the highest suicide rate in the nation, and that, over the prior several years, Utah consistently ranked
lowest or
second lowest within that region (which has about ten states). In other words, Utah's high suicide rate (compared to the nation as a whole) is what would be expected from its location in the Western region. What would not be expected is that Utah would have the lowest overall rate in the region, and that the second-lowest ranking state in the region (in suicides per capita) would be the second most Mormon state in the region, Idaho. If anything, the statistics suggest that
Mormonism has protective influence against suicide.
Second, antidepressant use. A large number of studies demonstrate Mormonism's generally benign emotional effects, and yet studies show that Utah County in particular has a high rate of antidepressant use. It's possible that Mormons, perhaps particularly in Utah County, have a higher rate of depression than the US as a whole. This would actually be expected
even if Mormonism itself were a net emotional benefit to adherents because the group with the highest rate of depression is
women with children under the age of five. This effect is temporary, and occurs in the general population as well. Fortunately, if Mormon women do disproportionally suffer depression because of their disproportional likelihood of having children under the age of five, they are also disproportionally likely to seek temporary medical help in coping.
However, this gives too much credit to the claim that Mormons are more likely to be depressed than members of the general population. What has been shown is not that Utahns have a higher rate of depression, but that they have a higher rate of seeking medical help for depression. This could indicate
either a high rate of depression or a disproportional likelihood of seeking medical treatment when depression is present. And, in fact, it has been documented that Latter-day Saints are much more likely to seek medical treatment for depression than are members of the population as a whole. This alone might acount for the high rate of antidepressant use in Utah. It should also be noted that Mormons are less prone to self-medicate for depression, since most of the substances available for self-medication are forbidden by their religion.
So, even these most commonly adduced, and strongest, examples of documented "damage" inflicted by Mormonism fail to demonstrate any damage at all.
Mormonism, in my opinion, is concerned with power, growth and control, and if getting involved in the minutia of people's lives is conducive to it's ultimate, nefarious goals, then that's what it's going to do.
It's nefarious goals? Like what? Saving humankind in the celestial kingdom?
You must not be able to see very far at all, because the assertion that boys not be forced into scouts is NOT an objection of having a norm or default expectation at all!
Of course it is, because no one is "forced" to be in Boy Scouts at all. The LDS church can't
make anyone a Scout. The individual boy or his parents have to sign him up, placing the initial decision with them. The next decision, whether to
participate in Scouts, is also left to the boy and/or his parents. He's certainly encouraged, and even expected, to participate, and will be reminded of Scout meetings; but that's the extent of the "forcing." (by the way, just what does the word "force" mean to you? Expect?)
Here's what I think should be held to a norm or default expectation: The Mormon church. I think it should be held to being honest about it's history. I think it should be held to the default expectation of honesty, don't you Don?
I don't chase red herrings, KA. I eat them.
I think it should be held to the default expectation of respect for it's members by not prying into and attempting to control nearly every aspect of their lives, including whether or not boys should join Scouts. Is it not enough that they're expected to submit to interviews wherein they're asked if they masturbate? Is it not enough that they're expected to spend two years of their lives on missions? Is it not enough that they're expected date and marry only other Mormons? Is it not enough that they're expected to attend church every Sunday for three hours and then go on home teaching assignments with older partners? Just how many norm or default expectations do you support, Don? How many are too many?
While I don't believe there's likely to be a magical number dividing "too many" expectations from "just right," I do agree that the LDS church overdoes it. Since that has been a point of agreement all along, the above is a straw man argument.
As for what's "fair" or "enough" to expect of LDS boys, you shown no evidence of having a reasonable standard for assessing this, or, indeed, of having any standard at all. I won't defend the restriction on masturbation, since it is nearly impossible to consistently obey, is unhealthy, and is contrary to even the church's goal of preventing premarital sex. But outside of that clearly misguided expectation, what would make any of the other expectations you cite, or all of them together, "too much"? They are certainly doable, not terribly difficult, and tend to have benefits for the doer. Besides, why should a communities expectations be few and easy? From what premise do you derive that? Rugged individualism? Sheer arbitrariness? Personal whimsy?
Just because you're sold on a particular book and philosophy doesn't mean it's right.
And just because you're entirely uninformed about the numerous studies demonstrating the ill effects of overabundant choice doesn't mean they haven't been demonstrated. Even the cumulative burden of choosing in various areas of life adds to these ill effects, which means that having norms, defaults, rules, and expectations in
some areas of life decreases the overall burden and tends to have a net
positive effect in today's society of seemingly limitless options.
And no one said Mormonism needs to offer a plethora of different electives. What don't you understand about "limited range of appropriate choices"?
And what don't you understand about the idea of a social
norm?
Perhaps that range is only two choices sometimes, but with all the other expectations of Mormonism, do boys not deserve any choice about the scouting program? I say they do.
They have choices. They don't have to register as a scout in the first place. They don't have to participate once registered, and can choose the level of their participation. That they will usually follow the expectation is not surprising, but hardly means that they lack legitimate choice. They can choose how ambitiously to pursue ranks and awards, or whether to pursue them at all. They can choose
which merit badges and other awards to pursue, tailoring their path to their own interests.
Even if it doesn't concur with your preferences, what makes this level of choice unreasonable or "too" restrictive?
You may think differently. I allow you that choice. :)
So you would allow choice for individuals, but lay down "the right way" for communities?
You've offered little evidence, documentation, or even reasoning for your points, KA. You've mainly just asserted them, as, for instance, you've repeatedly asserted that the LDS church is a damaging cult. If you wanted to find out
whether, rather than simply "know"
that, the LDS church causes more harm for its members than benefit, you could look into this on a meaningful level, looking at the results of large-scale studies of Mormonism's effects, in sources like
The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. But it appears that you would rather pit your subjective assessment against the objective evidence that you won't bother yourself with. How, exactly, is this different from the approach of the religion you left? You effectively have a "testimony" based on your experience and the anecdotes of others that Mormonism is a damaging cult; but your own experience
with Mormonism should have shown you what a flimsy and unreliable thing that is in the face of objective evidence gathered systematically and with an eye to the big picture.
I'm worn out with posting so much of late, KA; and already worn out with this thread and topic as well. I need a vacation from this stuff, and am going to take one now.
So, just admit you've been spanked! And that it was fun. ;-)
Don