quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm a product and a part of Mormon culture not an outsider. My experience in the church is not limited to Utah Valley. I've been a member of the church in wards in 4 different countries and 6 different states. I'm not criticizing a stereotype, I'm criticizing something I have observed to be prevalent among Mormons even if its not universal. It's not a monolithic criticism that implies its all bad. Its very specific criticism about a part of the culture I find to be contrary to Gospel principles and counterproductive to the mission of the church.
I don't think you are outsider. But you act like one, because you criticise "Mormon culture" as if it were a monolithic, unique, and horrible thing. I don't know why you want to cast yourself as an outsider and I don't care, and I don't know why you regularly make such scattershot insults about Mormons in general, but about that I do care. When the GAs in General Conference talk about how we should be being less judgmental and more kind to each other, don't you think they are talking to you?
If you do find specific things irritating, can you possibly imagine that such shotgun deprecations are effective in changing anything?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, I don't know why you interpret my criticism as monolithic. I criticized one specific aspect of Mormon culture. I noted that this aspect is not universal among Mormons, but is very wide spread. I'm not sure whether you disagree that this in fact a widespread aspect of Mormon culture or you simply think it isn't negative.
I'm saddened that you think I act like an outsider to the church. I'm not and don't think you know me well enough to make such a sweeping condemnation of my behavior. When the GAs in General Conference talk about how we should be being less judgmental and more kind to each other, it seems clearly you don't think they are talking to you.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like I'm missing something (which is possible, since I've been away for a while). Has The Rabbit been making a habit of criticising Mormon culture recently or something?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I first got to France as a missionary, one of the big French TV stations had just aired Witness (with Harrison Ford) and the translation had changed "Amish" to "Mormon" throughout. It seemed like every single person we met for the next 6 months had watched the movie. So everyone thought Mormons had beards, drove buggies, and eschewed modern technology. While I have nothing against the Amish, we did have to explain to a lot of people right off the bat that it had been a mistranslation, and the Mormons were in fact quite different from the Amish. At first I thought it was a big problem. As time went on, I realized that most people accepted our explanation fairly readily and were more inclined to talk to us further if we were gracious about it.
If investigators thought all Mormons dressed like we did, they quickly learned otherwise when they met local members of the Church. We never heard much comment on this.
It must be different on Trinidad. I shouldn't make assumptions for your situation. Perhaps dress rules for missionaries should be relaxed there.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are talking about only "some" Mormons and not all of them, maybe you'd be better off directing your comments in general to the human race.
It isn't like a prediliction for favoring good looks is unique among Mormons, and even you can't believe that the worst consequences are rife among Mormons. The reason I think you act like an outsider is because you attribute to Mormons and Mormons only faults that not any more prevelant among Mormons than they are anywhere else. What, outside of Utah, people don't care about appearances? Are you kidding me?
That whole thing about not being nasty to groups of people you see as other applies to Mormons as well as anyone else. Even for you.
----
My biggest problem I encounted as a missionary is not because the missionaries were all dressed alike (and as a sister missionary, I wasn't anyway) but because we were white, and the people we met didn't want to go to a "white" church. Those who ventured anyway could confirm that the missionaries were the only white people in the building, but many people didn't even consider it because we were white.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't get the impression that Rabbit was bothered by missionaries looking good or dressing well; I got the impression that she was talking about them dressing identically.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That seems related to the bigger phenomonon that "nice" clothes for American men is basically a business suit. There are a few rare exceptions, but basically "dressed" up for men means a shirt and tie. Short of wearing a tuxedo, anything else reads as more casual.
It isn't like they are all wearing robes or funny hats or head scarves. That would be SO WEIRD and definitely worth mockery.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Missionaries should all wear Lakers uniforms instead. I can only imagine what that would do for the Church's rep around the world.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many religions do adopt certain outward appearances and clothing - often in order to set themselves apart from outsiders. I didn't think that this was the goal of missionaries.
And "nice" clothes for men depends on the circumstance. A man wearing a tuxedo at a backyard picnic is not better dressed than a man wearing a polo shirt and khakis.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Missionaries are official representatives of the Church, unlike most of the Church's membership at any given time. As such, they wear nametags and conform to certain dress and grooming standards.
They do stand out fairly often--at barbecues, inside Wal-Mart, and inside homes on a Tuesday afternoon. I really do think this is deliberate. Not to set themselves apart from outsiders per se, but to signal their role as representatives of the Church. You're supposed to know who they are.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The man in a tuxedo is more dressed up, but that's bad because he is dressed inappropriately.
Wearing a shirt in tie in the general population marks someone as both dressed up and still dressed appropriately. Having a set outfit that is appropriate and dressy is also cheaper than requiring a variety dressy clothes for multiple occasions. Missionaries are pretty poor, most of the time.
And yes, standing apart is part of the goal for missionaries, for the same reason clergy of other religions do it. Why are you so forgiving and apologetic for them but not for Mormons?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the goal is to set themselves apart, then it is working. If you also want to counter the stereotype of conformity, then there are some drawbacks.
I don't really know which you favor. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the missionaries are highly recognizable anywhere in the world they are seen, then the Church has succeeded in that particular purpose.
Does this mean people everywhere think the Church is a whole bunch of conformists? I don't know. In my experience, these things don't necessarily go hand in hand.
Anytime you see someone in uniform, you expect they conform to certain standards as pertains to their company, team, or religion, I guess. Does that make everyone associated with them lockstep conformists? Not necessarily.
Does the Mormon Church want to shrug off the conformity stereotype? Not in every sense, IMO. They've got ad campaigns showcasing everyday people as Mormons. They certainly tout the international and cultural diversity of the Church's membership. But they're not going for a non-conformist label, either.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever I see a couple of young men on bikes with back packs in white shirts and ties I shout out my window "Yay Mormons!" and they tend to look around with a "huh" look on their face...I guess they don't tend to draw a lot of cheers.
I can't help it, I have a soft spot in my heart for these young fellers and their friendly ways.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first time they came to my door during the year I lived in the south, I thought they were FBI or something. I hadn't ever seen white Jehovah's Witnesses before.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, around here the JWs who come to the door are almost always older African American women.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, that's an interesting perspective, and one you might consider sharing (e-mailing) with the Church. Which I say because neither I nor anyone I've talked to served in an area like that. I served state-side, and though this kind of misconception did come my way on my mission, it was only a few times over the two years. Others I've talked with have had similar levels of frequency of such experiences serving all over the world. As is pointed out, any dress-requirements would have some draw-backs, if you run into 5 people in two years for whom it creates that kind of problem it's not really a problem in my mind. It sounds like for some reason that's not the case where you are, which the Church just may not realize, I bet they'd at least appreciate hearing that even if they don't change the standard.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Whenever I see a couple of young men on bikes with back packs in white shirts and ties I shout out my window "Yay Mormons!" and they tend to look around with a "huh" look on their face...I guess they don't tend to draw a lot of cheers.
I thought I was the only person that did that. <grin>
Though I don't generally yell it, I usually just say it to myself. Which confuses my friends.
I will say, they probably don't think of it as a cheer though. They would probably interpret it as mocking. Which may explain their looks.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
I would assume that "Shaking the higher-ups" for making the missionaries wear specific clothing would constitute as implied hatred of one facet of missionary behavior. Thus, the use of "hate" doesn't seem overly radical to me in this context.
I know its the internet, but please try not to read aggression when there isn't any. I didn't say "beat some sense into them" but rather used a friendly expression like I might use for a friend who has adopted some silly ideas and may need a reality check.
As for conformity, I feel like in some areas, they may be over-conforming which makes it difficult for me to see them as genuine. I think business/business casual is great for the image they want to project of serious-minded young men. But a sense of individuality makes me feel more relaxed around a person. Even something as simple as wearing a light blue shirt would relay a sense of "I am so-and-so and I am happy to have chosen to spend my day talking to people about my faith." Two young men in matching short-sleeved white buttoned shirts with matching black ties and matching black slacks and shiny nametags...it reads like a uniform.
And to this day, I've NEVER seen a female missionary out and about in town. My female Mormon classmates in school all took their mission trips in foreign countries.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think its kind of silly and misguided in that, for the majority of people on the planet, the uniform does not convey the image that the church wants it to convey.
How did you come by this conclusion? It's fairly broad.
##
quote:If you also want to counter the stereotype of conformity, then there are some drawbacks.
How about the fact that the suit and tie encourage the perception of unity?
Anyway-- I'm much more interested in how missionaries (and members) behave than in how they dress.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for conformity, I feel like in some areas, they may be over-conforming which makes it difficult for me to see them as genuine. I think business/business casual is great for the image they want to project of serious-minded young men. But a sense of individuality makes me feel more relaxed around a person. Even something as simple as wearing a light blue shirt would relay a sense of "I am so-and-so and I am happy to have chosen to spend my day talking to people about my faith." Two young men in matching short-sleeved white buttoned shirts with matching black ties and matching black slacks and shiny nametags...it reads like a uniform.
And to this day, I've NEVER seen a female missionary out and about in town. My female Mormon classmates in school all took their mission trips in foreign countries.
Much to my surprise, when searching my memory of my mission, I don't recall a single missionary wearing a black tie. Conformity is a hard thing to pin down. I imagine most of us have refrained from committing murder, does that make us conformists? Of course not. We all were clothes, does wearing different ties make us non-conformists? I wore suspenders my whole mission, am I out? Clearly the 'uniform' doesn't do it for you, but at least for the States it is the image the Church wants to convey. Personally I'm OK with it, I find almost everyone I run into who finds the dress-code too conformist doesn't want to discuss reading and praying about the Book of Mormon either. So it's not like there's a huge untapped demo of potential converts that could be reached if the missionaries switched to loafers.
As to the female missionary thing, they are significantly less common than their male counterparts and a lot of them serve missions to specific landmarks (e.g. the SLC Temple) for part of their mission, making them even less common to see walking around. However, they're harder to spot since the standards of professional dress are much ... umm, larger(?) than they are for men. Which means it's likely you saw them and didn't notice. Or maybe you never have seen any, but that's more a fluke than anything else.
On that thought, I see a lot more women walking around in the world that meet the dress standards of female missionaries as compared to men. Sister missionaries just blend in a lot easier.
posted
Nice post, Hobbes. I'm not sure I agree with this:
quote:I find almost everyone I run into who finds the dress-code too conformist doesn't want to discuss reading and praying about the Book of Mormon either. So it's not like there's a huge untapped demo of potential converts that could be reached if the missionaries switched to loafers.
...as it doesn't quite match up with my experiences. But otherwise, yep.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Scott. And that's interesting, chalk it up to lack of exposure on my part then. I had a lot of people I talked to on the mission ask about the dress-code in such a way as to directly or indirectly imply that they felt sorry for us (side note: I like wearing a suit, I never minded that aspect of the mission, but I was very much the minority on that), but none who seemed to feel uncomfortable as a result of what we wore. Or at least no one who would talk to us for a while. Same when I got off the mission and was just a guy walking around. But my guess is you interact with a lot more people than me. And of course maybe they wouldn't talk to us for a while due to the suits but I never really thought that. I guess I figured anyone with a 'coexist' bumper sticker who refused to discuss religion with us wasn't doing it because of our appearance.
ETA: My thinking on the subject from a theoretical rather than empirical view is that when it comes to direct contacting (as opposed to members introducing friends to missionaries) the ways someone's appearance/dress could keep a person from talking to them would be heavily bias professional dress as better. Meaning that sloppy or casual dress would make people less likely to talk to a person (after all, not only are they strangers, they're 20yo strangers) rather than looking too professional. An argument could made that casual dress would make the conversation more relaxed, but on the other hand white shirt and tie certainly frame the conversation in the right way. Especially with the aforementioned ages involved. The idea is for the contactee to take the missionary seriously, and as a messenger of the Lord which is very different than a guy to riff with about religion.
posted
Scott, how do you differentiate between conformity and unity? For me, unity is a broad concept that can be negative or positive depending on what we were being united about. Being united on our love for all mankind is being different than being united on how we think people should dress. Which isn't different, as far as I can tell, to conformity.
So basically, I am not sure of what you were saying.
In what behaviors do you think people should conform/be unified?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something else to consider might be the missionaries themselves. It's very hard to keep a group of 17-25 year old men on track and saying the same thing. Even with the strictest of rulesets many missionaries push boundaries and see what they can get away with. It might not be better to then take a narrow view to clothing, but it's certainly easier and one less thing to worry about. Were missionaries given the option to say where khaki pants, I'm certain you'd see some missionaries saying that they should then get to wear polo shirts, or colored shirts, and different shoes.
There's a general mindset that missionaries need to put their God and those around them before themselves, getting hung up on clothing is just one more barrier towards that mindset.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I ask you, Boots, how you differ those two? I find the distinction (not your distinction, any distinction) to be superficial and arbitrary. I'd be interested if you felt there was an objective difference rather than just what we feel to be essential points of life/membership to a group versus frivolities.
posted
Hobbes, I am not sure. That is why I am trying to understand the distinction that Scott is making.
My first reaction was that unity was a "we are all in this together and supporting each other" kind of thing where conformity is more that there is an ideal that we should all try to be like.
I am not sure how the first is conveyed through dress but the second certainly is.
That is fine, btw. There is nothing wrong with wearing a suit. It just seems like the Church is trying to shake the "Stepford clones" rap and not doing a very good job of it. The matching outfits don't help with that.
ETA: To fix my misspelling of Hobbes's name. Sorry about that.
posted
Mormons do share a few ideals, and do try to support each other in working toward them. They don't all shop from the same rack at Penney's, however (unless there's a good sale).
I know the Church periodically gets accused of having only lockstep, smiling, brainwashed people in its ranks. It's too bad if the way missionaries dress affirms that stereotype in some people's minds. I have a feeling, however, that the benefits of having the missionaries dress in shirts and ties will outweigh the need to not look like robots.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Entirely your call. Just don't be too surprised when we tend to think of you as "lockstep, smiling, brainwashed" clones when that is what you present.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a complete side note (that's like the third time I've typed 'side note' today, I must be really fidgety!) my name is taken from Calvin and Hobbes (indirectly) and isn't my actual name (in the unlikely event that anyone cares, that's 'Andrew'). So there's an 'e' there.
Like I said I find any definition of conformity to be superficial or at least highly variable when it comes to pinning down specific things. I guess I have some idea of a difference between things done to be part of a group as opposed to things done to further the aims of the person or group. Like being baptized to be Catholic (just so I can drag another religion into this ) rather than to be saved. Which makes the definition entirely dependent on unknowable personal motivation and also means 'conformist' isn't necessarily negative. ::shrug::
I also don't have a problem with having a common ideal to strive for and wouldn't refer to it as conformist. In the context of the Church that ideal would be Christ. Again, we all agree some things are important to do for everyone, the Church adds some requirements (not smoking cigarettes for example gets added to societal standards like not stealing). I don't see that as conformist, just an expansion of standards. Same goes for a dress code on a mission. I don't see it as any different than requiring employees to wear shoes. Not fundamentally anyways.
And I'm not sure the Church is really actively implementing any policies to "shake the "Stepford clones" rap".
posted
I would be delighted to be able to base them all on Sen. Reid.
Hobbes, I rather thought that what those commercials are about.
I don't know that conformity is a bad thing for everyone. Some people like it and it could be good for some people. It gives me the creeps but I am not your target audience. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots, I really think are definitions of conformity are different enough that at least we'll keep talking past each other on this issue. I know at least I don't understand what you mean by it. I'd say the commercials were about the benefits of Mormonism in addition to showing that it's an 'everyday' kind of religion rather than something strange or of a different place. Maybe it fits into your idea of 'non-conformist' but it doesn't mine, which is why I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with your point (and thus have trouble discussing it with you ). Same for your last point, I dislike the idea that I just fit in with a conformist attitude, I don't think I do. I'm not sure it's objectively bad to (though that's certainly the connotations of it today) but I don't think it's accurate. Any more than if I had a job that required I wear a suit and thus I wore a suit.
posted
Again, Scott was the one making that distinction between unity and conformity. What the ads I have seen convey to me is, "See? All kinds of different people can be Mormon". (Of course, to my eyes, they aren't all that different. Throw in a lesbian couple and an interracial one and maybe...heck, even a middle aged spinster. )
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Entirely your call. Just don't be too surprised when we tend to think of you as "lockstep, smiling, brainwashed" clones when that is what you present.
I should think the various personalities and opinions held by Mormons on this forum and others would be more than enough to demonstrate a heterogenous culture.
In fact, considering just how different Mormons can be in other countries, and there *are* more Mormons outside the US than in, I would say the missionary uniform is an example of an exception where Mormons are similar, rather than an example that proves we are monolithic.
And just because the FBI/CIA sully the look of a white shirt, tie, and slacks doesn't mean we should surrender it to them. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. I already mentioned to Rabbit that she was a good example of diversity of thought.
But not everyone is on a forum with a bunch of Mormons. Missionaries are - one would assume automatically as it is their function - the main contact with the rest of the world.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the white shirt, black slacks, name badge, black tie look = official. Official of the US government...or official representative of the LDS church...it works (speaking the opinion of one nonreligious person).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What the ads I have seen convey to me is, "See? All kinds of different people can be Mormon". (Of course, to my eyes, they aren't all that different. Throw in a lesbian couple and an interracial one and maybe...heck, even a middle aged spinster. )
Well I guess this is what I meant because that's what they convey to me too, yet I disagree with your initial statement about. I guess you and I just think about this issue very differently. Here's a speech by Dallin H oaks given at BYU (in note to a concurrent thread, that means it's definitively not doctrine) in which he talks about diversity. I think the Church takes a similar view, but I I know for sure that I do. Here's a relevant part:
quote:My last illustration of the bad effects of confusing means and ends, methods and goals, concerns the word diversity. Not many labels have been productive of more confused thinking in our time than this one.
...
In the scriptures, the objectives we are taught to pursue on the way to our eternal goals are ideals like love and obedience. These ideals do not accept us as we are but require each of us to make changes. Jesus did not pray that his followers would be "diverse." He prayed that they would be "one"
...
Since diversity is a condition, a method, or a short-term objective--not an ultimate goal--whenever diversity is urged it is appropriate to ask, "What kind of diversity?" or "Diversity in what circumstance or condition?" or "Diversity in furtherance of what goal?" This is especially important in our policy debates, which should be conducted not in terms of slogans but in terms of the goals we seek and the methods or shorter-term objectives that will achieve them. Diversity for its own sake is meaningless and can clearly be shown to lead to unacceptable results. For example, if diversity is the underlying goal for a neighborhood, does this mean we should take affirmative action to assure that the neighborhood includes thieves and pedophiles, slaughterhouses and water hazards? Diversity can be a good method to achieve some long-term goal, but public policy discussions need to get beyond the slogan to identify the goal, to specify the proposed diversity, and to explain how this kind of diversity will help to achieve the agreed goal.
posted
Now that I think about it, I am probably not a good example as I was more skeptical of the stereotype before I started coming to Hatrack.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the message is that all kinds of different people can be Mormon as long as they don't stay different?
Hobbes, it sounds like the diversity/conformity conversation is an ongoing one in your Church as it is for so many. What is presented by missionaries who all look alike, though, is a conformity of appearance - which lends itself to the whole "clone" thing.
Again, there are advantages to that as well as disadvantages.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Of course. I already mentioned to Rabbit that she was a good example of diversity of thought.
But not everyone is on a forum with a bunch of Mormons. Missionaries are - one would assume automatically as it is their function - the main contact with the rest of the world.
You would incorrectly. I would wager that in many places most people know a Mormon, before they come in contact with missionaries.
In fact, the overwhelming concensus in the church is that members are better missionaries than the full time missionaries. The statistics I heard as a missionary is that on the average a missionary has to speak to 2,000 people before he will find a convert. This doesn't even take into account problems with retention after baptism. One in three member referrals however result in baptism.
I'm convinced that if Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work throughout their lives, there would be no need for a full time missionary force.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I served in Brazil, and was asked every once in a while if I worked for the FBI or CIA.
I think there is a common misconception that all Mormons think the exact same way. I think this forum is a good place to see that this is not true. There are members that I disagree with on this forum on a regular basis.
The same is true for doctrine. There is a lot the Church leaves up to the individual to decide. A good example would be evolution. There have been General Authorities in the church that have disagreed with each other about it. Bruce R. McConkie said it was a "false and devlish notion that religion and organic evolution could be harmonized." James E. Talmage on the other hand believed in evolution, even going so far as to say that it would make sense that God would use evolution in the creation process.
If you were to talk to the missionaries iny our area, I am sure you would find that their beliefs on certain subjects. I knew a missionary that believed that the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms were temporary, and after a certain amount of time and repentance one could move higher and higher until they reached the Celestial Kingdom.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was going to post, but you said everything that I thought of, and better than I likely would have expressed it. Thanks.
Thank you for the wonderful compliment.
quote: To me it's a question of good versus real and good wins either way. If a religion is and promotes good, does it matter that it isn't real? And if a religion is real, but evil and does damage to the people who believe it and the world as a whole, again, does it matter that it is real?
The conversation has moved on from this, but… Matter to whom? I would say it absolutely matters to the people in the religion if it’s real regardless of the worldly affects. How many people want to knowingly embrace a falsehood? I think the vast majority of people value truth and would have troublesome cognitive dissonance from reconciling holding on to beliefs that they thought were false.
Now, what are the effects on other people not affiliated with their religion? Sure, your point stands. But what does it really matter what an outsider thinks?
Edited to Add: I'm about to head on a trip for the weekend where I won't have internet, but I'll check this on Sunday or Monday.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
