,

Filet-O-Fish and Keeping Mormonism Weird

In honor of Anthropic’s collaboration with the Vatican, a ChatGPT-generated image of Dario Amodei eating a Filet-O-Fish, IYKYK. 

As a group Latter-day Saints have this psychological drive for the ever-elusive mainstream acceptance. We’re generally known for being nice and orderly, if a little weird and on the wrong side of the sociocultural elites. We have a form of hippness but deny the power thereof, and with a few tweaks we could be really cool.

Honestly, I’m ambivalent about this seemingly interminable quest. Taking a step back, in principle if God had a chosen people, I would imagine they would basically look like us: a small, somewhat quirky group that never gets popular enough for people to join en masse, or even in any significant numbers. “An holy nation; A peculiar people” who draw in those with spiritual discernment to recognize it for what it is, His sheep who hear His voice whose numbers are few (how’s that for mixing scriptural phrases). This group would be paradoxically looked down on despite being known for their kindness and wholesomeness, as if God is constantly refining them anew every generation. 

My ambivalence also stems in part from seeing what has happened to other groups that have gone through the same drive for acceptance. For example, US Catholicism went through something similar in the early 20th century (for an excellent account of this process see The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture), climaxing with the election of John F. Kennedy. While not being weird had its benefits, they traded their status as a “peculiar people” for the mess of pottage of respectability and assimilation. 

Like the German Reform, Christmas Tree Jews once they were let out of the ghettos, post-Kennedy Catholics largely divested themselves of the little behavioral markers of Catholicism. For example, the McDonald’s “Filet-O-Fish” was originally designed to appeal to the Catholic market that abstained from non-fish meat on Fridays. Although the institutional Church has since backed off the meat on Friday thing, even if they hadn’t I have a hard time seeing Catholics caring enough for it to move the needle for Friday hamburger sales in Catholic-heavy areas. (Maybe dirty sodas are our Filet-O-Fish. We can’t have a margarita so we’ll become the most skilled soda artists in the world). 

And sure, if you work in a Catholic heavy environment you see the little ash crosses on their forehead for Ash Wednesday, but even that seems rare. More to the point for growth and vibrancy, Catholic family sizes collapsed and now are no different than Protestant family sizes. So congratulations, there is very little anti-Catholic stigma as measured by feeling thermometers and the like, and they are completely mainstream. But at what cost? Ultimately, there is this tug-of-war between complete acceptance and uniqueness, and, hot take incoming, I sometimes wonder if we Latter-day Saints are actually a little too assimilated. I think we should “Keep Mormonism weird,” to crib from Austin’s unofficial slogan. In the sociology of religion there is a theory that faiths need to maintain an ideal tension with the environment: too much and they become a cult in the desert (which has definitely described our situation at points in our history), and too little and they become like everybody else and lose the purpose for even engaging in the most token of religious behaviors.

Of course, there are benefits to assimilation. The Catholics had finally arrived, and could leave the “Little Italys” and Boston tenement houses. The Jews as well could leave their own garment district tenements and settle in the suburbs. That is all great (although we are missing out on the unique food, art, and literature that ethnic and religious enclaves can produce), and biting the bullet and isolating ourselves from society completely like some religious groups (e.g. the Amish) also shuts off the benefits that the outside world can give us. 

Still, I think we’re constantly fighting against forces of assimilation, both inside and outside the Church, that want us to go the way of post-Kennedy US Catholicism. People recognize the influence and potential power of a phalanx of hard-working wholesome people in a centralized ecclesial structure that they can try to lobby or influence (and sometimes try to coopt for their own social or political purposes), but don’t recognize that the power itself comes from its uniqueness and distinctiveness, and if we too trade that for respectability and finally “make it,” then so too go our superpowers and “peculiar people” status that the scriptures have prophesied about.  


Comments

16 responses to “Filet-O-Fish and Keeping Mormonism Weird”

  1. I think we should “Keep Mormonism weird,” to crib from Austin’s unofficial slogan.

    Stephen, what rules would you want to see created to keep some tension with the larger environment?

  2. I think all the changes that the church has done in the last 7 years has been for two reasons;
    1- Help keep younger members from leaving.
    2- Make the church look more main-stream Christian to other faiths for more converts and a better convert experience. (retention)

    I am for any change that makes us act/look less cultish.

  3. Stephen C.

    Ji: I don’t even have a strong opinion about the particulars, as long as it keeps us unique.

    Rec911: But on the other hand if we look just like everybody else there’s less reason to be LDS rather than any other standard Christian option.

  4. Steven C: Are we about strict differences that really dont matter or are we about saving souls with the true gospel? Are we converting people to God and following the Savior or to a church? And, we could never look like everyone else even if we tried. We would have to get rid of 90% of what we do now.

    Having said all that, if our religion is JUST for getting people to the CK and the other faiths are getting people to the lessor kingdoms, then sure lets be different. But how about we get people in with the lessor law and help them go the higher law if/when they want to? We tend to be all CK or nothing and if that is not what you want, go be a Baptist your not welcome here.

    God gave the saints plenty of years to learn to live the higher laws and we now want converts to do it day one. Lets start out being more like them (Christians) and let them progress like the church had to.

    Even if we taught the WOW but did not require 100 compliance of it for baptism, that would be a good start. Our church culture has taught us that smokers and drinkers are bad people that are sinning. This is unfortunate. So there is a simple step we could take to look more like other faiths. IMO.

  5. Not a Cougar

    Stephen,

    I’m curious if you listened to the recent Mormon Stories interview with Lance Kennedy. I know a lot of folks who read, write, and post on this blog are likely not big fans of John Dehlin, but I found the interview quite interesting. Lance is the son of a very successful Evangelical pastor and joined the Church around 2008. He cited some of the unique doctrines of the Church as being the impetus for his conversion (e.g., “As God now is, man once was”; Adam-God; the Word of Wisdom, the temple endowment mirroring free masonry (he’s a mason)). The second half of his interview (he’s still active by his own account) is his perspective on the Church’s attempts to move closer to mainline and/or Evangelical Protestant churches.

    Lance explained that his experience growing up in his father’s church is, to him, instructive on why the Church is doing what it is doing. It mirrors efforts many Protestant churches made as part of the “seeker-sensitive” growth strategy of the 90s and 2000s pioneered by Bill Hybels of the Willow Creek Community Church and Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church. The focus of that strategy was (as I understand it): (1) Welcoming Environment: Use contemporary music, modern visuals, and informal dress; (2) Accessible Language: Avoid overly technical or culturally specific terms; focus on relatable, everyday issues; (3) Practical Sermons: Emphasize self-improvement, life application, and biblical principles in ways newcomers can grasp; (4) Community Services: Offer programs like ESL classes, childcare, and community outreach to attract and retain visitors; and (5) Short, Engaging Messages: Often 20 minutes or less.

    I will say that the “seeker-sensitive” focus does start to sound familiar when we look at the changes that the Church has made, especially since President Nelson took office, but you can argue that the Church has been doing some version of trying to make itself more palatable since President McKay was in office. I’d also point to the 1990 changes to the endowment and the implementation of the three-hour block in 1980 as huge initial steps in sanding down our unique practices.

  6. As long as we retain a lay clergy, assign talks to youth and congregation members, and have open-mic testimony meetings once a month, there’s going to be some tension with surrounding society. Given the opportunity, people can say some remarkable things.

    Beyond that, it’s important to retain behavioral expectations – conversions that don’t entail any particular change in one’s life are not a sign of a healthy church. Plus it’s important for the strength of relationships inside the community – one of our strengths – if everyone there has to shoulder the burden of being a bit weird in some way.

  7. This opinion piece on the Church’s “shift towards the mainstream” has stuck in my mind ever since reading it and I feel is especially relevant to this conversation: https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2022/02/07/stuart-c-reid-lds-church/
    (paywall-free link: https://archive.ph/0Ya73)

    I agree wholeheartedly that our uniqueness and peculiarity is part of the appeal (look at what mainstream acceptance has done to Mainline Protestantism over the last 100 years). But I think there needs to be a strong community to support members who might be shunned by the outside world, and it seems that a lot of changes the church has made recently weaken that community (two hour church, the emphasis on home centered church, discontinuation of Gospel Principles classes, the ending of Boy Scouts with no real replacement, etc.). If we’re going to make Mormonism weird again (which I agree we should), we should also be doing whatever we can to Mormon communities strong again.

  8. Stephen C.

    @Not a Cougar: I didn’t listen to that podcast. I have no problem with making the Church more palatable and practical as long as it doesn’t make it a glorified self-help institution that is competing with thousands of other similar institutions. The religion-specific virtues are important for their own sake.

    Jonathan Green: Amen.

    JTB: I remember that op-ed when it came out, it was a very interesting angle. I imagine the community support issue is tricky. Such support often comes from sacrifices made by families and members, and the Church has to thread the needle between building up strong communities while not asking so much of members and families that they get exhausted and see the Church as an energy drain.

  9. jader3rd

    There are a good handful of things that church leadership could do to make us different for the sake of being different. For example, shunning everything Harry Potter related. I’m glad that leadership doesn’t do that. I think that the church is overall good at picking and choosing its battles when it comes to lifestyle decisions.
    What I think makes for bad trying to fit it, is trying to identify as just one more Christian denomination. Especially when it comes to Bible literalism.
    That said, I think that the way that the church needs to push more for being seen as normal is to discourage (okay ban) home schooling and home schooling co-ops. Being scared that your kids would interact with fellow peers is not how we can be a light to those who would need us.

  10. John Taber

    Which is why I do appreciate Pres. Oaks calling out members for not letting their kids play with non-member kids.

  11. “when we look at the changes that the Church has made, especially since President Nelson took office”

    I’m going to get controversial, but I’ll say it now that some time has passed. What President Nelson did will eventually be seen to be more destructive to church than anything else in the last 50-100 years.

    What is that you say? What is by far, the most successful program of the church? Not the missionary program. Not the young women’s program. Not the bishoprics, elders relief societies and stake high council’s.

    It’s the Primary.

    And the amount of time kids spend in Primary got cut in half. And they were the ones that loved it.

    That is proving and will prove to be more devastating across this rising generation then anything else.

    I’ve served in multiple wards in primary and I’ve got a front row seat to it. Kids that age are so impressionable, and we’ve cut their time in half, all in the name of fitting more people into buildings.

    There was no missionary impetus to move to 2-hr church. That’s nice, but it’s not THE reason. There was no real concern with Bishops spending too much time at church that necessitated this. The issue was not that parents need a break (so let’s put them individually in charge of teaching rother than collectively doing it as a community????) — that doesn’t even make sense from operational man hours perspective.

    President Nelson, whk never or rarely went to primary himself, doesn’t really ever have seemed to even like being a “Mormon”, cut the amount of time in half that our little ones learn about scripture stories and sing songs.

    We can tell ourselves we need to pick up the slack in the home. But what got cut isn’t truly being replaced.

    All that said, whoever is in charge, whatever decisions get made, it’s still up to us to live and teach the gospel (same thing). So the burden still falls on our shoulders. There’s just less of a community doing it and more kids are falling through the cracks. There are some GREAT outlier examples though.

  12. Not a Cougar

    Sure, thanks for your comment. I’d be hard pressed to demonstrate that more kids are falling through the cracks than in years past. Our retention rates for new converts have been dismal seemingly forever, and I personally haven’t seen evidence that the move to a 2-hour block in and of itself has accelerated the exodus of youth by themselves any more than it was previously (though perhaps the change is too new to show up yet). What I do see are long-attending adults stepping away far more often and taking their children with them (or at least their children being far less active than before the parent or parents left).

  13. jader3rd,

    not to make this about homeschooling but most homeschooling families I know do not do it because they are scared of their kids interacting with non-member peers but because they think they can do education better than public schools.

    As for this article, I think the church as institution kind of has to become less weird given the legal and cultural constraints placed on it. But that doesn’t mean that local wards and stakes have to be just as mainstream-adjacent. There is a lot of room in the doctrine and the handbook for local flavor.

  14. John Taber

    Sorry for the length here.

    Sue: Before the three-hour block was instituted in 1980, there was Junior Sunday School Sunday morning (about an hour), and Primary on a weeknight (usually an hour, longer if we had to rehearse or something).

    I remember JSS had an opening song, a prayer song, the sacrament gem, a sacrament song (I forget the order of those two) and the sacrament, along with a few other things in opening exercises, and then usually a class, but sometimes a movie – I remember “John Baker’s Last Race” among others. Primary was pre-Primary (to keep us occupied until the meeting started), then opening exercises and then class.

    Both were padded out. I remember seeing the same filmstrips over and over again. Some were entertaining, and some had a moral lesson somewhere. I also remember cultural lessons (e.g., why some days are marked red on the calendar, or how people in say, China or Japan had different cultural norms). I remember there was a great deal of material that wasn’t religious at all.

    Sunday Primary basically combined the two. The total time went from 120+ minutes to 100 minutes, but the only things really cut were the prayer song and the sacrament, and they were replaced with more singing time. There was still a lot of repetition and fluff with the material. I remember still drawing and painting and playing Hangman a lot during Primary class even when it was on Sunday.

    On my mission I came to recognize that when there was Gospel being taught, the Holy Ghost was whispering in my ear all along (even well before I was eight) confirming the truth of it. But while that extended out to all meetings (including the weeknight meetings, which continued with Scouting for me right about the same time we went to the three-hour block), only the core Gospel truth really received that confirmation.

    When I was eleven and the last one in my year to graduate from Primary, the teacher would have me run (you guessed it) the filmstrip projector, and do whatever else to help, rather than sit through closing exercises in my own row by myself week after week. She said about that time (this made it into my mother’s book Mormon Wives) that Primary with the three-hour block was way too long, especially for the kids.

    What I’m trying to say here is that fifty-five minutes of Primary is plenty, if you actually focus on the Gospel and it’s not dragged down with all the time-fillers that were in Primary and Sunday School before the three-hour block. (Many of them ended only recently.)

    Not a Cougar: Looking back – I’ve been back in the same area I grew up in for a while now. Of those I grew up with here, a good chunk (not all of them the children of the migrating professionals who still dominate the local leadership here) of the youth went off to BYU or someplace else in the western states, and never really came back.

    I’m the exception on that, but it was basically kicking and screaming. I didn’t get a professional job here until I was almost thirty. While I resented staying here for that, I don’t think I could have been an assistant stake clerk for over twenty years anywhere else.

    Sure, at least some who stuck around are still involved, but not that many. While they wouldn’t ever deny their own Church membership, they never really passed it down to their children. One of my youth Sunday School teachers warned us that we need needed to develop our own testimonies because we wouldn’t be able to lean on our parents’ or friends’ testimonies much longer.

    Part of the problem, though, was that especially at that age and time, Church activity included a lot of hoops to jump through. Early-morning seminary was a big one. So was Scouting. The youth leaders pushed Scouting very hard – to the point that every unit in our stake had its own Varsity team – but many who were pushed through to Eagle Scout pretty much disappeared from Church after that. (I knew of at least one member who had finished the work for Eagle in a Church troop, but none of it had been properly documented, so he didn’t get the award and wound up quite bitter about the Church as a result.)

    Those who say now that seminary graduates are more likely to be actively involved as adults, mistaking correlation for causation. The same mistake was being made a few decades ago regarding Eagle Scouts. That really was not the case in my ward, though. The group a few years ahead of me produced six or seven Eagle Scouts, but the only one who actually went on a mission had found the Church through coming to Scouts with his friend and neighbor. My father was bishop around the time that group was wrapping up high school, and sat down with a couple of them – including that neighbor friend – about missions. Neither of them thought they were “good enough”. If they had gone, others from my ward might have too. Frankly, those two especially would have been better missionaries than most of the ones in my mission who grew up in someplace like Orem or Bountiful who had gone out because everyone else there did.

    A big problem through all of this was, yes, the migrating professionals in the leadership who set things up for the youth, that were really aimed just at their own children. While we were a majority of the “active” youth, in no way did we really represent the whole group. Overall, there was a cultural difference too, between those of us who on one end had been to the Church sites in and around Utah many times growing up, and the other end who had never been that far west in their lives.

    In the last couple of years, our ward (dominated by migrating corporate lawyers and their families) has had somewhere around 75-80 baptisms of new converts, mostly with a very different cultural upbringing to say the least, and a much “lower socioeconomic level”. Only about twenty of them come to church on a given Sunday, though. My wife and I are ward missionaries now, with an assignment to work with these new members, helping to plan their baptisms and trying to get up to speed with this new church they’ve joined.

    Hopefully we can get somewhere with some of them. The thing is though, even with only twenty or so coming on a given Sunday, our chapel and overflow are now packed every Sunday.

  15. Daniel H

    @sure
    Anecdotal, but as a kid I hated primary. It made me hate the church and the gospel. I’m in the primary now and I see lots of children who feel the same way. Some primaries are good and some bad but sitting a child down and telling them what they are supposed to believe does not work for these kids. Becoming converted to the church required me to first disassociate it from my primary experience.

  16. “I think we should “Keep Mormonism weird,” to crib from Austin’s unofficial slogan.”

    Have you looked at the unofficial slogan for the Sunstone Symposium??? (Hint: it’s literally “Keep Mormonism Weird.”)

    I think Armand Mauss’s 1994 book “The Angel and the Beehive” should probably be mentioned in this context as well. Mauss argues that Mormonism, like many sub-cultures, is in a cultural tension between assimilation and distinctiveness, and that its very survival rests on maintaining that tension — i.e., never assimilating completely, but also never becoming so distinctive that it becomes a threat to the main culture. Similar to Mauss’s work in sociology is a field in psychology called “Optimal Distinctiveness Theory”, which also suggests that each of us individually are in this same tension.

    I think these fields suggest that we need to worry about the overall distinctiveness of Mormonism, instead of what’s going on with individual elements of our culture. While REC911 is correct in thinking that some things are more important to our religion than others, any single item isn’t going to make the difference. AND, there are significant social and psychological forces that are pushing in each direction — we won’t completely assimilate without a large backlash towards distinctiveness. [Posts like this one might be a small part of that backlash.]

    Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s any way to really measure these shifts between distinctiveness and assimilation. I wish there were — it would be nice to be able to say “we’ve gone too far” (in either direction) and back that up with data.

    By chance I attended a session at MHA recently that talked about a group of young LDS artists who were pushing hard for distinctiveness in their art. I really liked what they were doing, even though none of their work had the importance that REC911 asks for. But maybe such cultural things ARE actually important, in a social and psychological way instead of a gospel or doctrinal way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.