Status Update: I’m an individual…please don’t shun me

If you’re keeping up with the latest debates in LDS pop culture, you’ve probably come across some discussion over the new mormon.org site.  It’s fantastically imagined and executed–an amazing leap away from the stogy PR of the past and a clear leap into the iFuture, if you will.  I’ve found the stories on it personally moving and uplifting in so many ways, especially those featuring women.  Here I’m told about mayors, dentists, non-profit humanitarians, journalists, artists, doctors, lawyers, and everything in between: women who are Mormon and following their dreams in the “secular” world!  On a church-run website!  It’s a revelation! (pun may or may not be intended)

As I read along, Cassandra Barney’s profile stopped me a little short, however.  In her life, she writes, her commitment to Mormonism gives her “the freedom to be an individual.”

That is so awesome, Cassandra!  But, I must say, it did, in fact, make my heart tighten every so slightly.

The reason?   I haven’t felt that my commitment to Mormonism has given me the same freedom that Cassandra claims.  In fact, I often feel as if I’m playing the masquerade at church, showing a person who is, at least with her silence, not much different than everyone else.  And I have felt, regardless of how illogical this may sound, that everyone else at church is doing the same thing to some extent in some aspect of their lives.  That we are all playing a mask game and trying our darndest to not stand out, to actually not be an individual.

I don’t think this is some freakish, solitary occurrence.  I think it’s actually a church-wide problem, this fear, perhaps even terror, of heterogeneity.

Maybe this is one of the goals of these mormon.org profiles.  It may not actually be so much for those unfamiliar to Mormonism but rather a subtle way to change the way Mormons actually view and accept themselves!

I think this mormon.org switcharoo is only part of a larger revolution that has been underway for years.  This is the revolution of the social network–a world in which social walls are torn down and disregarded willy nilly.  It has created a world in which we have to try and be more honest with ourselves and our communities.  Subsequently, it is a world where we also have to try and be more understanding of others who trust us with their truer selves.  It’s the world, you guessed it, of Facebook.  There on facebook, your fellow congregants have the opportunity to get to know you better than you may want them to get to know you.  And herein lies my dilemma.

It has been, to some degree, a lot easier to live in the masquerade at church.  I can hold back on rocking anyone’s testimonial boat for three hours after all.  I can deeply bury any feelings of disloyalty to self by hunkering down behind a Primary room piano, biting my lips when I hear outdated doctrine or paens to the patriarchal order.  Then, I spend the rest of my week chatting with grad school friends about deasophy, old testament prophetesses, christologies through history, and endless theorizing about where the line is between cultural influence and God’s influence in the workings of our church.  Often, these conversations occur over long, pithy strings of comments on facebook with people who I know well and who know me too.   People who I know share my educational interests and general understanding of the role of theology in society.

But what does one do when the Relief Society president “friends” you?

This is a trick.  By refusing to accept, you risk losing the possible friendship and goodwill of another woman of your faith.  Yet, if you accept, you know that this woman may develop some, shall we say, negative feelings about you based on your discussions.  She’ll know that you have a mask of orthodoxy on your truly heterodox face every week.  She’ll see through your social camouflage.  Well, it’s that, or you can extend your three-hour mask to encompass your entire online presence.  Unacceptable.

I’m at a crossroads then and I hope I’m moving in the right direction–the direction that mormon.org is showing me.  I’m trying to be more honest with myself on facebook by continuing my usual discussions, even as I still feel apprehension with each status update, concerned about how my newly friended fellow ward members might see me and my little family.   And I’m hoping that they will read my self, consider themselves, treat my individual soul with a spirit of love, and know that I want to do the same with them.

Maybe, in the future, our actual weekly meetings will start to take on the tone of the social network instead of the masquerade that it is now.  I’m hoping so, and I’m peeking my head a little above the piano every week to find out.

Not a smidge o’ pink here!

The LDS church, if you’re new to its intricacies, has a series of programs set up for children and youth to participate in and advance through.  For the boys, this is Boy Scouts.  For the girls, this is Achievement Days for the 8-11 year-olds and Personal Progress for the teens.

This year, a new Personal Progress book was released with a smattering of updates.  I believe that the awards were even upped a notch.  Whereas before, a young woman received a necklace medallion for completing various steps in the progress, now she can add on a worker-bee pendant as well!

The book is also notably, drastically, pink.  And this pinkness is actually an important part of the program…apparently.  At its release, President Elaine Dalton made a point of it when she said, “The new Personal Progress book is pink! [well, yes it is!] It is a reminder that you are a daughter of our Heavenly Father and have unique feminine characteristics, gifts, and roles.”

Of course, this quote sure got a whole heck of a lot of attention when it first appeared–what with all its hints at gender essentialism.   Caused quite a flurry, actually.

But, most of this discussion centered around whether actual, troops-on-the-ground young women in the church actually believed any of it.  Did young women buy into the pinkness campaign?  Did young women see themselves as pink, soft, and feminine?  Would this pink-push alienate young women who felt, well, more like a “chartruse” kind of gal?

No one really, definitively could say.  [Read more...]

Changing Racial Perceptions of the Japanese: LDS Rhetoric between 1901-1930 (Part II)

This is continued from my post on changing racial perceptions of the Chinese in LDS rhetoric at the turn of the 20th century.  Both sections here are adapted from research I conducted as a fellow during the Joseph Smith Seminar in 2007.

In 1890 there were only four documented “persons of Japanese ancestry” in the entire territory of Utah.[1] Contrasted with the Chinese, Utahns had no contact whatsoever with a significant Japanese population. Subsequently, the Japanese were easily romanticized, especially in light of the glowing reports from national newspapers about Japan’s westernization and generous trade agreements. After Admiral Perry’s opening of Japan in 1854, the United States quickly recognized that the Japanese were apparently an enlightened race to so willingly and expeditiously adopt principles of modernization into their nation. Soon, trade ambassadors from Tokyo were traveling to Washington, D.C. along the transcontinental railroad to further solidify political relations between both countries. Along the way, delegations stopped in Salt Lake City.[2] The Japanese politicians were dazzling to the Mormons. They wore fine western clothing, spoke English, and were obviously gentlemen. [Read more...]

Changing Racial Perceptions of the Chinese: LDS Rhetoric between 1880-1901

Browsing through library databases and catalogues today, it is difficult to find even a handful of hits on Mormonism and Asian race. Even Armand Mauss’ recent sweeping study, All Abraham’s Children, notably omits any specific inquiry on the subject, though he meticulously dissects an LDS understanding of Blacks, Native Americans, and Jews.[1] Yes, some inferences may be made by delving into historical studies on missionary work in the Far East, but a comprehensive look into what it meant to be Asian in Mormonism and, perhaps more importantly, how the particular theologies came to be, are disappointingly diaphanous. Happily, from what I have previewed of Reid Neilson’s recent dissertation, I suspect that this dearth in Asian-LDS race scholarship will soon have an outstanding historical foundation on which to develop. Subsequently, I will not attempt to trace every intricate historical nuance of the subject but rather focus on my own particular research into how cultural influences created and shaped Mormon conceptions of Asian Race between 1880 and 1930.

Chin Sig, one of the 271 Chinese residents of Salt Lake City in 1890

The LDS conception of Asian Race shifted dramatically at the turn of the last century. The first era, roughly from 1880 to 1905, established a rigid hierarchy clearly favoring the Japanese over the Chinese. As cultural attitudes became more entrenched through the popular media, LDS magazines soon picked up these accepted assumptions. By 1901, the concept of an Asian hierarchy was so enmeshed in Mormon thought that explanatory theologies of what was termed “believing blood” began to appear in Conference addresses and missionary work.

[Read more...]