This is because the family presents a competing loyalty. The church requires complete dedication from the individual, not the family unit. Anyone who has had a parent or spouse have a calling of any kind knows the demands on time, talents and energy the church requires at the expense of time away from home. The church do not hide this fact. It is stated explicitly in the temple ceremony.

On my mission in Italy, I remember an area authority complaining to us about how much his travels took him away from his home and family. “And they say the church is for families, Elders,” he said sarcastically.

I completely understood his pain. After all, here I was thousands of miles away from home doing my duty for the church at the expense of time with my family.

Even Jesus agrees, and makes no bones about it: “I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. … He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.”

It is worth pointing out that the high level of loyalty the Mormon church (and all churches) demands goes against our biological hard-wiring, which inherently makes us care for kin more than any other persons or organizations.

Another revealing practice is the edict to focus on the atonement rather than the person at funerals. The church handbook says:

“When a bishop conducts a funeral, he or one of his counselors oversees the planning of the service. He considers the wishes of the family, but he ensures that the funeral is simple and dignified, with music and brief addresses and sermons centered on the gospel, including the comfort afforded by the Savior’s Atonement and Resurrection. Members of the family should not feel that they are required to speak or otherwise participate in the service.”

“Funerals provide an important opportunity to teach the gospel and testify of the plan of salvation. They also provide an opportunity to pay tribute to the deceased. However, such tributes should not dominate a funeral service. Having large numbers of people share tributes or memories can make a funeral too long and may be inappropriate for a Church service.”

Even here, the church wants to undermine the family and the celebrating and remembering of its departed members. The church wants the focus for itself. It takes the control out of the family’s hands. “Members of the family should not feel that they are required to speak or otherwise participate in the service.” In other words, don’t say anything. Just sit there passively and let us talk about Jesus and further our organizational purposes.

My grandpa died when I was active in the church and I am glad my family, to a large extent, ignored the church’s rules and remembered my grandpa for the man he was, and not put undue focus on the church and its tenets. I took little solace, even as a believer, that my grandpa was “saved.” I missed the man and to impede on my right to mourn (even publicly, at the funeral) as I see fit is a clear example of how the church is primarily concerned with its own interests and not its members, be they single or family units.

Another example is the ostracizing of family members who do not practice Mormonism. Persons who do not hold “recommends” are not allowed to see their family members wed. Oh, but they can, the believer says, they just need to abandon their beliefs and agree to ours. Then they can participate with their family in one of the most central rituals in human society.

Apostates like me become an antagonistic force in my family, even if I never say a word about my unbelief. To the church, I am the enemy. By extension, since the church is my parents’ more important family (body of Christ and all that), I am an enemy to them. This discomfit between me and my folks is evident even though I am rarely vocal about my lack of belief.

I do not think the church is good for families, or built with them in mind. The church is built with the church, and its interests, in mind. It seeks a peaceable co-existence with families because it is good for business. But should the family unit grow too strong, that would be bad for business because that would present a competing loyalty.

Well said, Placebo. I completely agree!

Makes me think of this quote from Erastus Snow:
“If any man have members in his family whom he cannot control by the principles of the Gospel, far better were it for him... to give them a good outfit and send them off, get them out of the way, and let them go their own way: far better this than to harbor them where they were like a viper in his bosom, corrupting and corroding in the midst of his family.” (Journal of Discourses 5: 290)

What a Christ-like and loving reaction... If ya can't “control” them, get rid of them. I thought that was called unrighteous dominion.

I used to think that it was neat how Mormons didn't have to pay their leaders anything to perform funerals. "They are serving the people out of the goodness of their hearts," I told myself. Uh, pushing their business model is more like it!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2011 03:26PM by raptorjesus.

It appears a journalist named Ferdinand Mount "has documented how every political and religious movement in history has sought to undermine the family".

Also, "anthropologist Nancy Thornhill has found that the incest laws of most cultures are not created to deal with the problem of brother-sister marriages (...) the real targets of the laws are marriages that threaten the interests of the lawmakers. The rules ban marriages among more distant relatives like cousins (...) to prevent wealth and power from accumulating in families".

I haven't read these authors myself, the quotes are from Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works" (pp. 439-440). The works he refers to are:

Ferdinand Mount, 1992, "The Subversive Family" and Nancy Thornhill, 1991, "An Evolutionary Analysis of Rules Regulating Human Inbreeding and Marriage".

What is interesting is that the Mormon church started out as a family business and still is very much regulated by kinship ties. The focus on the family, however, coincides with the reduction (however small) of kinship influence due to the internationalization of the church.

I don't know what to make of that apparent contradiction yet. Maybe it can be filed under rethoric, like oppresive states that put "people" or "democratic" in their name?

But even in the periphery of Mormondom, like Europe, you see local Mormon royalty running the show for several generations; there appears to be something innately nepotism-oriented in Mormonism - or maybe religion as a whole.

I've read Pinker's book, too, and he has had a great influence on me, evidenced in this miniature essay.

I liked your thoughts on nepotism. Kinship is good in Mormonism so long as it furthers the purposes of the church. Chief among those purposes is unyielding fealty and full payment of the 10% membership fee.

I like the phrase "local Mormon royalty."

Taking an anthropological look at Mormonism fascinates me.

Start as many threads as you like on this topic.

Any more book recommendations?

You're right about "ostracizing of family members who do not practice Mormonism." My husband was very close to his cousins growing up, but when they all converted in their late teens/early 20s they acted like he and the rest of the real family were less than dog doo. I've met them. Two are likeable enough (although one of these has that hypnotic Stepford wife look to her), but the others are sanctimonious jerks who think my husband's only value is providing genealogy information to them. He's decided not to give them any info they can use for their voodoo baptisms for dead people.

I was there in 1969-71, when there was only one mission.

A bishop told me that the church and all its programs only exist to strengthen the family.

The Church uses families to strengthen the hold of the cult on the members. Family Home Evening is when church lessons are given as a family at home. Parents (who made no vows of love to each other in their temple marriage ceremony but did vow to keep all covenants to the Church) are instructed to point boys toward missions and girls toward temple marriage from infancy.

The Church doesn't strengthen the family, it hijacks the family to strengthen itself.

The church feeds off families like a parasite. It demands loyalty to itself before family, but needs people to breed up more members so it can feed off them.

that the church can hold against you if you don't follow it's rules. For example, the bishop asked me if my questions about the church were worth losing my family forever. WTF? When did I join the mafia. "Shut up and don't ask questions or you'll never see your family again." And, I think a lot of women think their husbands will cheat and their kids will become druggies if the gospel isn't there, watching her back and raising her kids with the fear of God for her. So Mormonism uses the family as leverage.

After watching my TBM brother and his wife have as many children as it was physically possible for her to have, I see this "Plan of Happiness" is not good for women or children.

She was so exhausted all the time, that the kids had to basically raise themselves. My brother works night and day to support his family and get away from the chaos and disorder of the house.

It's horrible for everybody.

I actually like raisins.

Just sayin'...

Ron

Cognitive dissonance at work again. "Families: it's about time" vs. endless busy work and "callings" that give you no time to be with those supposedly most imprtant to you. "Families Are Forever"........unless you're a non-member, an ex-member/evil apostate, gay or lesbian, single (ministering angel, anyone?), etc.
It also reminds me of the temple. You know, how it's the holiest place to be (outside of Kolob) and everything there teaches you about the sacred mysteries of God and brings you closer to him. And then you go there and have old people smearing oil on you, forgetting their lines and continually referring to the handy cue cards now on the walls, you have aprons and sashes and handshakes, oh my! Evil throat-slitting gestures (back in the day), Simon Says raise your hands, sisters will now veil themselves, repeat after me, obey, obey, obey, do the hokey-pokey and turn yourself around, bow your head and say yes, 'cause that's what it's all about. Yeah, families are "honored" just like the temple is "sacred", women are "respected" and gays are "loved".

intellectualfeminist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simon Says raise your hands, sisters will now veil
> themselves, repeat after me, obey, obey, obey, do
> the hokey-pokey and turn yourself around, bow your
> head and say yes, 'cause that's what it's all
> about. Yeah, families are "honored" just like the
> temple is "sacred", women are "respected" and gays
> are "loved".


AMAZING! Don't think it can be better said.