So whether you are Utahn first, British first, black woman first, New Yorker first, concealed weapon-carrying conservative first (or the many other zillions of possiblities), and a child of God second, how will you feel when you leave this life, and discover that those things no longer matter or even exist? (See #14) Although it is true that the church will not exist as we know it in the world to come, the lifestyle of living the gospel will probably be the most important culture.

Perhaps that was a little too serious a comment for this conversation…

Joseph Smith was in squalor in a small jail, living in refuse. His captors had tried to feed him human flesh. As I remember the incident, the guards profanity had reached fever pitch but the Prophet remained silent. The gaurds began speaking of evil deeds, and rape of the Latter-day Saints sisters in the presence of the Prophet. Finally, when he could bear it no more, he said something to the effect of “silence ye fiends…cease such talk or you or I die this instant!”. This is hardly an act of bullying (they were prisoners) or an unrighteous death threat. It has been a while since I read this story (I think in the Autobiography of P.P. Pratt) but I heard it often as a youth. Are you not aware of it? If God holds the key to death and judgment, then his sevants do also–but even so, this event is grossly misconstrued if called “bullying” and “death threats”.

I think the Pioneer ethic (which I also seperate from Mormon ethnicity) is relevant for all Latter-day Saints. Our faith is still extremely new on the world scene, and as the world’s values rapidly change, both 5th Generation Mormons and first genetion converts will find themselves “pioneering” simply by navigating through the spiritual wilderness of the “world”.

As for the particular “ethnicity” of the Mormon Colonies (Canada to Jaurez in Western N. America). I do not think that culture is dead yet! It is very strong, but continues to be influenced by outside factors such as in-migration etc. It is simply one culture (similar to the progeny of non Mormon ranchers, miners and other pioneers in the Western U.S.) who have a certain way of speaking, a “rock-ribbed” ethos of indpendance and discernable political views (all over simplifications of course, but you get the point). Of course, the ones who are Mormons have been tremendously influenced by the Church and polygamy. Similarly, I think we will find that Latin American Latter-day Saints in a generation or two will have been profoundly influenced by the Perpetual Education Fund in ways that young LDS from France or the U.K. will not. Over time, local cultures will continue to be influnced by the Church in uniqe ways and will also being influenced by Globalism in general as well as always retaining many distinct traits.

My second point suggests that, like it or not, the pioneer ethnic is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Several posts have noted that the majority of LDS are outside the U.S. That may be true in raw numbers, but it is far from true in terms of activity levels. When a missionary from South America tells me he attended a ward that had around 120 people attend each Sunday, while the membership of the ward on the records was over 1,500, he’s relating something to me that I don’t think exists in the U.S. So long as membership, in terms of actual activity, continues to center in the Western U.S. in terms of Stakes and Temples (as many temples in Utah as in all of South America), which reflect activity better than raw membership numbers, it is not surprising that the pioneer ethnic identity retains its dominance.

In my experience, the Church has made a major effort to include other cultures. Not just in magazine articles, but in reality. There is plenty of reaching out from Utah to the rest of the world, for example. I’m not aware of any population of a size comparable to Utah’s that has as many people who have lived abroad, and in as many diverse places. I’m currently a service missionary in a Spanish branch, comprised of members from many countries, but the branch exists largely to help those members preserve their local cultural identity.

What I’m interested in is the impact of RSR outside the Utah area. People in Utah deal with polygamy on a daily basis; little in RSR on that issue is “new.” But have LDS outside the U.S. been familiar with the “controversial” aspects of JS that RSR describes? I don’t know whether RSR has been translated in Spanish, for example; if it is, and if people in Latin America read it, what will their reaction be? What about the French, or Germans, or Japanese? Is RSR likely to move the LDS in other countries closer together in terms of culture? Outside the U.S., especially in non-English speaking areas, what is the “common lore” about JS that Richard referred to?

For more than fifty years prophets have been counselling members who joined the church outside the U.S. to stay in their home countries and to build up Zion. Yet it seems that more often than not, when church members are characterized, they are divided into either descendents of the pioneers or brand new converts.

This seems to be a bit of a slap in the face to those who were obedient to the prophetic counsel to stay in their homelands (as many of my relatives did), for the rest of the church to act as though they don’t exist. Not to mention not in accordance with reality. (I was grateful to Elder Uchdorf at the most recent General Conference when he put the number of Saints in Europe at close to half a million — once again, probably not all brand new converts.)

As for myself, I don’t feel a particular connection to either the culture of the intermountain west or the pioneer history. This does not keep me from having a profound sense of gratitude for the sacrifices that were made by those who laid the foundation of our faith. But when I hear people talk about how “we are all pioneers” I just want to wince. This is an example of the Utah Mormon culture being superimposed and it feels forced. I am not a pioneer. I am just living my life.

There really shouldn’t be a dominant culture. That’s not what it’s about. The things that unite us are the principles of the gospel. If you don’t believe me come to my urban ward one Sunday and see people from literally all over the world who have nothing else in common but the gospel all getting along. This is the face of the future of the church.

I agree with Nate in #40. Take the Mormon ethnic identity out behind the barn and shoot it. As far as I’m concerned, the sooner that happens the better.

Should the connections necessarily happen on the basis of white America? The majority of Latter-Day Saints are not American, do not speak English, are not white, etc. I’m not saying that you make this argument explicitly, but your comment above that you’d like to see assimilation of converts into “our people” indicates that to a degree. Well, in view of the expansion of the Church, can we say what “our people” are in any sense beyond a common doctrine? Clearly, we can all claim the pioneer myth, Church history (the faithful version), etc. Claiming that, however, does not necessarily create a common culture any more than being an Oklahoman is able to unite gay Oklahomans, straight Oklahomans, black Oklahomans, white Oklahomans, urban, rural, etc. We’ve got Alfalfa Bill, the Grapes of Wrath, the wind sweeping down the plain, et cetera. It still isn’t working. So I think it’s legitimate to ask: if you want unity as a people, why should we defer to Utah as the basis for that when it’s just not the dominant culture in the Church today? (Or, if I’m misreading your argument, what would you propose?)

Put another way: if I develop connections with fellow Saints in Oklahoma, I might be a certain way as a result of those connections. That way would be quite different if I moved to a ward in Ghana. Same interactions, different results. Simply put, I don’t see how your standard of interactions as central to righteousness leads to Church-wide unity. At best, it leads to Mormons clustering around a regional culture rather than a global model.

If my argument that a common culture can’t develop is correct, how does that apply to your answer to my second question? When will cultural allegiance, above and beyond doctrine, be pertinent to salvation? Apart from possibly the Millenium, I don’t see a problem with saying “I love you, and I’ll help you, and I’ll keep the commandments, but I’m still more at home in a non-Mormon context.”

Sorry that there are thousands of questions there, but I do think that this is a matter worth some significant exploration.

I think so. If you are really living the gospel of Christ, in a community that is doing the same, you will be making the sorts of connections with your fellow Saints that in time will transform you into a people, with culture, history, common references, etc.

Second, do you see anything particularly problematic with people who are believers that live the doctrine, but identify primarily with some other group?

Not at the present, no. The Church is content to be a church, and not a kingdom, for the forseeable future. But ultimately, yes.