| |
|
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
|
|
 The Play's the Thing
There was an interesting discussion over at Times and Seasons a couple of months ago asking (more or less) why there aren't more Mormon superstars in the arts and sciences? Given the LDS stress on education and achievement, one might expect a bit more, although in certain fields -- business, law, sports, politics -- Mormons do seem to be well represented.
There's a nice article on this theme by John and Kirsten Rector over at Dialogue, entitled What is the Challenge for LDS Scholars and Artists? (There was a link to this in the earlier T&S post, but I missed it.) I thought the Dialogue article is a nice, balanced consideration of the question. The top three reasons they give for the alleged shortage are the LDS insistence on spending time with spouse and family; the LDS dedication to "conventionality, orthodoxy, and adherence to authority"; and the LDS weakness (not unique) for dogmatic thinking. I would add that these same factors go far toward explaining LDS success in the other areas I mentioned above. A conservative mindset stressing family, orthodoxy, deference to authority, and focused thinking will take you a long way on the road to success in business, politics, law, and sports. Nor does it hurt if you're interested in climbing the LDS priesthood leadership ladder, not generally known for elevating creative thinkers or iconoclasts.
On the other hand, how many of us would trade the average anonymous-but-happy Mormon life (first spouse and four kids in three-bedroom home with two-car garage) for one of academic or artistic celebrity (fourth spouse and one step-kid in two-bedroom condo three blocks from campus or studio)? Okay, you can fiddle with the numbers if you like, but stereotypes aside, I can't say I'd change my lifestyle choices, conventional though they may be, if some magic genie dangled before me the prospect of becoming a bona fide footnote to history. I have some sense of what one gives up to get there and I just don't think that's a choice I would make. I know where we all go in the long run, and I'm quite content to get there by my own little path. Anyway, here's a sample paragraph from the Dialogue essay:
To be sure, we as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have the market cornered on dogmatism or close-mindedness. Just as there can be dogmatic Mormons, there can be dogmatic philosophers, scientists, atheists, liberals, conservatives, and so forth. But because there is so much in the storehouse of insights the restored gospel provides, we as members of the church can easily be lulled into believing that we have all the significant answers. We may not feel any need to question or re-examine our viewpoints, nor approach the world around us in an open, self-questioning, inquisitive way. To the extent that we are dogmatic, we limit ourselves as artists and scholars.
10:35:14 PM 
|
|
|
|
Thursday, February 19, 2004
|
|
The use of the term "cult" to denigrate non-mainstream Christian denominations like Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Latter-day Saints was popularized in the 1960s. Yet when real religious cults like the People's Temple (Jonestown) and the Branch Davidians (Waco) emerged in America, they were led by Christian ministers and were populated by what can only be termed fundamentalist Christians. The irony seems lost on Christian apologists, who show a remarkable inability to draw the obvious conclusion, still thinking the term "cult" applies to everyone but themselves -- how convenient, how self-serving, how hypocritical. Since the term "cult" is here to stay, what we really need is a defensible definition and exposition of what a cult or cult behavior is, to counter the inaccurate, perjorative use perpetuated by Christian apologists.
Enter Arthur Deikman, a practicing psychiatrist and academic, who in 1990 published The Wrong Way Home: Uncovering the Patterns of Cult Behavior in American Society (my short summary and review is posted here on this site, with a permanent link on the sidebar). I stumbled across it at my local library. Wrong Way Home is the first discussion of "cults" I have encountered that succeeds in defining the phenomenon objectively and considers the degree to which it is reflected in institutions of all types in American society. Corporations, the government, the military, religious denominations or congregations -- all these groups might reflect cult behavior. Per Deikman, "cult behavior" is a particular type of group dynamic to which any group or institution may succumb, characterized by a strong emphasis on group compliance, dependence on a leader, devaluing outsiders, and avoiding dissent. Knowledge is power; understanding Deikman's discussion of cult behavior will allow you to recognize it in the institutions you affiliate with and avoid some of its deleterious effects. Go read my review, then find the book and read it too.
You may be the kind of person (and there's nothing wrong with this) who is comfortable in hierarchical organizations, who likes clear lines of authority, and who favors defined rules and clear directives. If so, this book will raise your awareness of how those exercising power in such organizations might unwittingly (or perhaps quite wittingly) lead their department, division, agency, congregation, or denomination to adopt these modes of behavior and conduct. Forewarned is forearmed; if you don't know what to look for and recognize, you are vulnerable. If you are informed, you can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem in your favorite corporate entity.
On the other hand, you may be the kind of person (and there's nothing wrong with this either) who has never been comfortable in corporate settings, whether that be in business corporations, the military, bureacracies of any sort, or corporate religions. If so, this book will help you understand why you are not comfortable in those organizations. Maybe you don't have "a problem with authority," maybe you aren't an incurable non-conformist, maybe you haven't simply succumbed to the wiles of the adversary. It is possible you simply have a naturally heightened sensitivity to the attributes of cult behavior in organizations and are uncomfortable in such settings. This book will help you understand why you are running an arts and crafts shop in Newport Beach instead of following Dad's footsteps up the corporate ladder. Or maybe why your uncle quit his Mormon mission after three months. Or maybe why you feel a little nauseous after every weekly department meeting. You could really learn something from this book.
11:35:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 09, 2004
|
|
As faithful Mormons plod dutifully through 2 Nephi this month in Sunday School (including a huge chunk of Isaiah quoted as 2 Nephi 11-25), let's take a different tack and briefly consider how one approaches the Book of Mormon as literature. FARMS lists several of its articles on the topic. I enjoyed a short piece by Sidney B. Sperry, from his Our Book of Mormon (Bookcraft, 1950). I like Sperry -- he was a gifted scholar who wrote clear expositions for general readers as well as scholars, but who did not exaggerate his claims or hype his jargon to hide the shortcomings of his argument. (Where have all the Sperries gone?) Sperry says great literature must have a great theme and be expressed beautifully. He also notes that the greater the scope of any literature—that is, the greater the number, variety, color, and complexity of the impulses it arouses in man—the better its quality. Okay, the Book of Mormon does tackle great themes and tries to generate some variety, but it employs a limited vocabulary and rarely invokes a beautiful expression that isn't borrowed from the Bible. Refreshingly, Sperry concedes this last point, but explains the book's awkward prose by reference to its status as "a translation literature" and Joseph's limitations as a translator. He concludes that though the Book of Mormon has little sustained literary beauty, it is a great literature because of the unusual religious and historical truths which it sets forth with profound spiritual fervor.
Personally, I'd make an argument (following Bloom) that great literature is built around great characters, intriguing and complex personalities that defy any simple reading. Homer, for example, offers Achilles, Agamemnon, Hector, and Odysseus. Shakespeare offers Hamlet, Macbeth, Iago, and King Lear. I don't find any of the characters in the Book of Mormon to be intriguing or complex: they are either good guys or bad guys, and that label is generally all you need to know to understand them. Laban, Laman, and Lemuel were bad guys, while Nephi, Jacob, Sam, and Joseph were good guys. Oh, and Nephi killed a man in cold blood, but he seemed strangely unaffected by that event. Well, I'm no literary critic; you can make your own judgment on the quality and depth of the book's characters.
Also online is a short but detailed Encyclopedia of Mormonism article "The Book of Mormon as Literature," by Rust and Parry (at All About Mormons -- click here, then scroll down to "Scriptural Writings," then Book of Mormon, then scroll down to "Book of Mormon Literature" (sic)). While noting the book's small working vocabulary of about 2,225 root words in English, the authors claim it exhibits a wide variety of literary forms, including intricate Hebraic poetry, memorable narratives, rhetorically effective sermons, diverse letters, allegory, figurative language, imagery, symbolic types, and wisdom literature. The article mentions chiasmus, but for once doesn't dwell on it. There's even a joke! The Book of Mormon no longer fits Mark Twain's definition of a classic essentially as a book everyone talks about but no one reads. The authors did not cite Twain's more direct comments on the Book of Mormon. Rust and Parry conclude that it is a spiritually and literarily powerful book that is direct yet complex, simple yet profound.
8:17:16 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Dave's Mormon Inquiry Weblog.
Last update: 3/3/2004; 12:38:14 AM.
|
|
|
