As for martial metaphors, the reality is that such terms are part and parcel of most movements. Then opponents to such movements use the rhetoric against them, usually in a hypocritical way. (i.e. typically they themselves use the same language) This is especially common in politics. Again a whole tangent is possible here I’ll avoid.

Regarding parents forbidding playing with non-members. Again yet an other tangent but I’ll go down this one a little. I don’t want to deny it happens. However I think it’s overstated. My experience is that often what happens is some kids are engaging in behavior parents don’t like and then that gets interpreted by non-remembers as “don’t play with non-members.” I can think of several examples on my own street.

Wilfried (36) a lot of that language is due to the internet services and not Mormonism. While it would be nice to have people look past such things, the reality is that this is a polarization affecting all sorts of ideologies. Sadly. It’s very hard to have civil discussion because subgroups create taboos that often other subgroups don’t even know are there. There’s then human tendency to “police” moral boundaries that’s just part of human cognition. It’s worse on the internet I think simply because one’s able to join more diverse subgroups whereas in the past the physical subgroups tended to dominate. (With far more push for conformity on whatever markers the subgroup had)

“Belligerent rhetoric can be misinterpreted by members abroad, as well as by anticult and even antiterrorism watchers in some countries. That may happen when leaders polarize the church against “the world,” claiming that “we are at war” and need to “put on the armor of God.” Radical imams use similar language to target the “evil of the other.” Such rhetoric tends to isolate church members from the host society and feeds fundamentalism. President Gordon B. Hinckley did the opposite: he pointed to the good in others, asked us to reach out, be good neighbors, and be peacemakers.”

We’re talking post 9/11, and especially since ISIS, where “radicalization” in relation to religion has become a major issue in many countries (also in Belgium in view of many boys who left for ISIS). We know to what horrors religious radicalization in its extreme endpoint can lead. That is not a problem in Mormonism, of course. Anyone well-acquainted with Mormons and Mormonism will easily be convinced that the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints does not pose threats to security. The church itself insists that it operates openly and legally. Still, in quite a few countries, the Mormon church is on a governmental list of cults to be watched (also in Belgium), and it is even more on the websites of anticult vigilantes.

Analysts usually assess the risks of a religion (or of a particular preacher) on the basis of publications or sermons. They will find signs of alarm if texts proclaim the Kingdom of God as the form of government that will abolish earthly governments; texts that prophecy the religion’s final triumph; texts that stress the exceptionalism of its adherents (a chosen generation, a select people, a kingdom of Priests); texts that polarize us versus them (Zion versus Babylon; the faithful versus the infidels); texts that require strict obedience; texts that extol and idolize the leader(s)… If, in the context of religious radicalization, texts also proclaim that “we are at war” and the armor must be put on, I think it is good to be aware of the potential misinterpretation by outsiders in the present political context. The least conclusion is that a religion with the above characteristics is a potentially harmful cult — indeed the definition the Belgian Parliament gave to the Mormons.

But also for the insiders, our own members, a too one-sided focus on the aspects just mentioned can lead to isolation from society, to fear of others (Mormon parents who forbid their children to play with non-member neighbors, …), to obsession with commandments, to fundamentalism, even to tragedy (google Kip Eliason). Members who grew up in an overall normal Mormon multigenerational environment or in a balanced family will relativize with common sense, but readers here can no doubt point at other situations. I witness fundamentalization among members in Belgium.

So I think the suggestion I made is justified, with all needed nuances to be taken into account in order not to overdramatize either.

BTW, and this speaks to my ignorance, what cultural presentations are done at temple dedications? I’ve never seen anything like that in Canadian or US temples.

Wilfried (31) Again I’d be cautious here on intellectual vs. feeling. Evangelicals seem to be the most successful Christian group in the US and they push that non-intellectual religious engagement far, far more than Mormons do in my experience. I think what’s unique about Mormonism is that there’s that sense of figuring it out on your own. Again that might be a remnant of the rugged individualistic mythos in America within which Mormonism developed. I don’t know enough about the current lessons to say much. In the late 80’s they were simple but I thought touched on a lot of things that bothered people. I’m just not sure they fit for the changing culture. Authority and baptism for the dead fit some intellectual questions in Christianity I think. I suspect (but don’t know) that we got a lot of protestants who were unsatisfied by protestant answers there (priesthood of all believers, ordinances don’t matter). I’m just not sure that translates as well elsewhere or even here with the shifting way Americans view religion.

Regarding young adults, I just don’t think statistics show we’re hemorrhaging young adults. At least in the US. Europe may be different. Further the people most apt to go on missions are those who will have better retention. I’m not sure of the reason, but I suspect it might be tied to issues in going to college. Honestly I was pretty shocked by the change. I know I wouldn’t have been ready at 18. (Heck I was barely ready at 19) I think they’ll run into the problem that people develop at different rates and a lot of boys aren’t really mature enough at 18.

Honestly I think missionary work would be far more effective if it was done more by people over 25. But there are obvious practical problems with that. I would like to see a bigger drive for regular stake missionaries who have one evening a week to go on splits. I’d think that, if solid members are called, would have a bigger effect.

Clark (27), about folklore and cultural presentations: my initial remark in the post was only to express concern about the way the church tends to present “foreign countries” and the “natives” as touristic objects in an idyllic past. Such an approach may imply some colonial or condescending attitude, while I plead for more efforts to present “the other” as an equal on world level. The “cultural celebration” at temple dedications was only an example of that attitude, and I mentioned some drawbacks in a previous comment (17). It has nothing to do with the BYU Folk Dancers (which I mentioned because you asked “are there costumed folk dancing of non-European countries amongst US Mormons?”). Folk dancing groups and international folk dancing Festivals are cultural events in their own right and with their own purpose, pertaining to a limited number of countries (or rather regions) with such tradition. Church PR can greatly profit from BYU performing groups as they perform abroad (inasmuch as they mention their church affiliation, which is not always the case).

You also remarked in comment (27):

“I’m very curious how the Church’s experiment in lowering the age of missionaries pans out. I rather suspect it’ll make missionaries less effective and not have the other effects they hope for. This may be a temporary change much like the switch to shorter missions was.”

I realize my post invites to go into all kinds of directions, and this topic is certainly a valid one as part of considerations pertaining to the international church. We don’t know yet what the long-range effect will be of the younger age, but I’ll admit I felt unsure when it was announced. I saw it as a critical move to help stop the hemorrhaging of young adults, but feared the detrimental effect on the ability to teach the kind of converts our units need foremost. I also feared much more counseling work for mission presidents, not only toward the missionaries, but also to their moms… At least that part is certain. I’m sure the research department of the church has been obtaining answers to some of these questions by now, but there is little chance reports will be released.

Your comment is particularly interesting, and my response is coming right after my previous comment. Indeed striking, and a little embarrassing in view of what Gabriel mentioned as to being thrilled about the national origin of apostles (extended to GA’s in general): yes, Europeans (and then even concentrated in four adjacent countries – the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Germany) have been “privileged” to deliver the first non-American GA’s, first apostle, and first Presiding Bishop. I don’t know how to explain it for sure. One reason could be that their church experience started in the 1950s (Caussé, born in 1963 grew up in the church), that each of these men was educated, multilingual and had broad professional and international experience, plus, of course, their faith and dedication.

But, we cannot deny it, the church, even if viewed as “American,” has a genetic European basis and therefore a historic European bias: not only were nearly all early American Mormons of English ancestry, but immigration brought tens of thousands of European converts to Zion. In 1890, two-thirds of Utah’s population consisted of white European immigrants and their children. New waves of European immigrants followed after each world war. Genetic studies illustrate the ancestry of Utah’s white Mormon residents: 61% British, 31% Scandinavian, with Swiss and German for most of the remainder. So, perhaps one should honestly admit that it takes time to view other origins as equal, even if it’s subconscious. Since 1978 I think some of us, perhaps many in the white layer, are still in that process.

I would, however, make one small reservation when you mention: “I can’t think of any active Mormon in the world (outside of the US) that wouldn’t be thrilled to see someone from their country called as an apostle.” I am not so sure that would always be the case or be desirable. First, because, given the level of maturity of the membership, to see someone close or personally known called to a high leadership position, often triggers envy and critical considerations. Second, because any “national pride” should rather be avoided in such case, precisely for the third reason you mention. Third, because it could reinforce the feeling that a country moves up a stage when they have an apostle from their own, hence expectations from others when it will be their turn. It could lead to the exact situation that was the reason for my post: the aspiration, almost petition, to have an apostle from a certain area.

However does that fit your criteria? I’m not sure clogging is necessarily a problem. Perhaps when you get a moment you could comment? I took you to be talking more about church organized pageants and centers rather than BYU dance competition teams. I’m largely ignorant of all that goes on the various pageants and was wondering if there was something beyond the Polynesian center.

This of course gets into the whole cultural appropriation debate which can be fairly tricky. I think that gets even more tricky with traditional dance done by people not of that community. I know there is a large upswell seeing any appropriation as inherently bad. With appropriation counting as anyone not of an ethnic community doing the dance regardless of context.

Regarding the Polynesian center it’s tricky and views among Polynesians vary as well. Again there’s a tendency among a certain group of the left (not meaning you) to see any appropriation as problematic. I think in practice things are much more complex. However I agree that the status of the Polynesian center is at a minimum open to debate. I’m not sure I’d call it appropriation but the way it targets white tourists with a narrow view of the cultures can be problematic.

Wilfried (25) I think you raise an important point. Teasing out causes when there are many going into particular baptism numbers is difficult at the best of times. As you suggest I suspect other more accidental effects may dwarf such effects. That said some things can be measured. I’m very curious how the Church’s experiment in lowering the age of missionaries pans out. I rather suspect it’ll make missionaries less effective and not have the other effects they hope for. This may be a temporary change much like the switch to shorter missions was.

Clark (19), back to the folklore: you asked “outside of pacific islanders are there costumed folk dancing of non-European countries amongst US Mormons?” I’m not sure how to understand the question. Among US Mormons? Like the BYU Folk Dancers? “The BYU International Folk Dance Ensemble presents a 90-minute voyage of dance and music through the heartbeat of the world’s cultures. Featuring Irish hard shoe, American clogging, Ukrainian Hopak, exotic dances from India, and many more.” One thing to notice, is that only a limited number of countries are known for a “national” folk dancing style. A few European countries are classics.

The Church Polynesian Center is certainly an interesting case which elicited critical academic interest:
– Balme, Christopher B. “Staging the Pacific: Framing Authenticity in Performances for Tourists at the Polynesian Cultural Center.” Theatre Journal 50, no. 1 (1998): 53-70.
– Webb, Terry D. “Highly Structured Tourist Art: Form and Meaning of the Polynesian Cultural Center.” The Contemporary Pacific (1994): 59-86. (Webb did his dissertation on the topic and also wrote other articles on the issues)
– Wilke, Sabine. “Staging Culture–Staging Nature: Polynesian Performance as Nature and Nature as Performance in Hawaii.” Critical Studies 33, no. 1 (2010): 131-140.
Would lead us too far to summarize now.