- Kirkstall on Pharisees and Publicans, Thespians and Jocks: “Jonathan, it’s an unfounded assumption that church is “the one place you’re going to encounter marginalized people on a regular basis.” That’s just a variation on the “where will you go” theme that discounts all the places where one can do good in the world. How about the workplace? School? Other churches? You could only argue there are more marginalized people in a sacrament meeting than a gay bar by arguing that in the gay bar, no one’s being marginalized (as opposed to at church). But you’re not only deflecting from my point, you’re reinforcing my point by assuming that people who leave have false empathy. Come on, friend. We have an entire article of faith about allowing people the dignity to worship according to their conscience. When we demonize those who leave, we fail to live up to that article of faith and create unnecessary division in the families of the church.” Oct 6, 13:50
- on Pharisees and Publicans, Thespians and Jocks: “It’s a strange sort of empathy with the marginalized that abandons the one place you’re going to encounter marginalized people on a regular basis. I don’t know about your ward, but in mine there are lots of marginalized people – however you define it, we have it. If you wanted to, you could show up and do the work of welcoming them. But after a good number of people who are outspoken about their empathy stopped showing up, the people who are left to reach out and sit in fellowship with the marginalized now skew Republican and don’t always know the latest vocabulary. But they’re willing to give rides and reach out and welcome all the people who show up, and I tend to be more persuaded by the empathy of their deeds than by the empathy of outspoken protesters.” Oct 6, 13:15
- on Pharisees and Publicans, Thespians and Jocks: “As a former theatre kid and “goodie good” Mormon who left the church, this post feels kind of bigoted. You’re basically saying that people who put a lot of energy into the church in their youth and then leave were only ever invested because they needed something to excel at. You’re saying their goodness, whether expressed through church service or activism, is all performative. It’s the no true Scotsman fallacy that gets used on exmos all the time: you were never really sincere in your testimony otherwise you wouldn’t have left. In the church, we don’t explicitly teach, “Leaving the church makes you a bad person.” But when you leave the church, you start to notice that idea expressed by church leaders, family, and friends all over the place. This post is a good example of that. Here’s an alternative explanation for your observations: theatre is a place to explore the human condition that expands your empathy. Mormon kids who become involved in the arts are going to empathize more with the marginalized, then they’re going to read the scriptures about accepting, loving, and caring for the marginalized, and then they’re going to see their church leaders castigating, expelling, and bullying the marginalized, and that cognitive dissonance might compel them to seek out more empathetic communities. Meanwhile the jocks who value the hierarchical structures of sports teams and who value manliness find in the church an unapologetically patriarchal environment that celebrates said manliness and makes them feel important. If it sounds like I’m painting jocks with straw man stereotypes and making unfounded generalizations, you should read the OP’s description of goodie good drama kids again.” Oct 6, 10:57
- on On Marion D. Hanks: “He had a unique speaking style that I enjoyed. I recall that at his funeral it was mentioned that his motto was, “Preach the gospel always. Use words when necessary.”” Oct 6, 08:38
- on Pharisees and Publicans, Thespians and Jocks: “You know it is an interesting time when the LDS call for civility when they act like terrorists. No, nobody is going to listen to the LDS anymore. We all know who you are. You are terrorists!!!!!!” Oct 5, 22:25
- on Pharisees and Publicans, Thespians and Jocks: “I second the part about more likely to ascend Church leadership if they remain, although there does also seem to be a generically accomplished class of jocks that tend to go into things like finance and do quite well who also tend to be in the leadership class (it seems like the Seventies in particular have had their fair share of college athletes). “I also think their continuing respect for the institution, even after they leave, is just indicative of the political conservatism of the class.” That’s probably true, but I would say that it’s indicative of a more general disposition that is upstream from political identity. I do think that the promotion of education and secular accomplishment is, rightly or wrongly, part of the package of overall righteousness and goodie-goodness. (Less formally, the fact that I presume it’s been a long while since a blue collar worker became an apostle is more powerful than any general conference talk on the subject). (Another aspect of this risk/reward is that I suspect people who are generically elite sometimes quietly take their foot off the pedal for Church-related stuff if it clashes with their professional aspirations or position among the cultural elite, threading the needle between ecclesiastical acceptance required for ladder climbing while trying to be one of the cool kids in certain circles). Of course I believe that both sides benefit from the stability of the gospel, but the way it’s manifested for high-testosterone/jock culture is more obvious; for example, risky, sometimes criminal behavior, drugs and drinking, whereas for the professional goodie-good class you can check all the boxes of a stable job, no criminal record, a mortgage, a long-term pet, a long-term partner, etc. (Of course, in the absence of the writing in the sky telling me otherwise I don’t see why the latter is inherently superior to a more eat, drink, and be merry lifestyle of the jock class–frankly that lifestyle seems more fun). My comment about the sacred canopy collapsing was directed towards the goodie-good class, but I do basically agree with your take on its influence on the jock class. For example, a common trope on the mission were jocks who barely made it on the mission, but once there they thrived under the structure. High school football coach-type mission presidents did wonders for these personality types. ” Oct 5, 20:37
- on Pharisees and Publicans, Thespians and Jocks: “As a middle aged man who attended a nearly all LDS high school I concur with many of your observations about retention and the reasons. I am curious if the “goodie good” kids are both more likely to leave the Church, and also more likely to ascend in Church leadership when and if they remain. My sense is that’s true as they are the types of people who end up in the professional managerial class are more likely to be represented in leadership. In that case some of the behaviors you describe are just a risk/reward proposition for the institution cultivating this class. At the very least I have to question whether some of the behaviors you ascribe to them, not incorrectly, are institutionally promoted, especially among adolescents. When you state that those from a “high testosterone jock culture” benefit from the “stability” of the “gospel,” it strikes me as a kind of moralizing that you claim the “goodie goods” stake out. Almost like the “high testosterone” folks need this gospel/church culture to tame their dispositions while the “goodie goods” don’t. That might be true, but I see it as a kind of moralizing for a class of people, not far off from what the “goodie goods” offer up. I also think their continuing respect for the institution, even after they leave, is just indicative of the political conservatism of the class. Lastly, I disagree about the consequence of the sacred canopy collapsing. I think those in the “high testosterone” camp ended up staying in the institution post adolescence because the canopy existed with a sense of rigidity or familialism that promoted retention and tradition. Once that rigidity is gone IMO this type of person is less likely to serve a mission, where they gain stability and inoculation.” Oct 5, 17:18
- on On Overreliance on Specific Bible Translations: “And yet the things President Romney and Sister Burton said are at least arguably true. They only erred in thinking that the Bible said them (and it sounds like Sister Burton probably knew that). I do think there’s great value in trying to discern the message that the author of a scriptural passage was trying to convey–without that there’s the risk of our scripture study turning into an echo chamber that only repeats what we already know. But that’s not the only way to read (la mort de l’auteur and all that). I think sometimes the Spirit takes advantage of our mis-readings to teach us truths we need to learn that don’t happen to be in the scriptures we’re reading. More often our mis-readings are nothing so profound, but basically harmless. Other than sometimes being annoying to others–I’ve definitely been there.” Oct 4, 15:31
- on On Overreliance on Specific Bible Translations: “I think even from Joseph Smith’s day to the present we are seeing semantic shift within defining doctrine, terms, etc, within our own doctrine in the church. The way we currently understand salvation has shifted. In Joseph’s day the words “saved” and “damned” as found in both the NT and BoM were understood quite differently than we use them now. This would mean that we have shifted the doctrine of Christ, not added clarity. We could be going the wrong way in some degree.” Oct 4, 15:25