Reflecting on Mormonism and the media
I flew out to Utah at the invitation of Utah Valley University’s religious studies program, which asked me to speak about what it’s like to write about Mormonism as a religion reporter who does not live in a heavily Mormon part of the country. My talk, delivered Thursday morning, was titled, “Far from Zion: Meeting Mormonism on the Religion Beat.’’ I spoke at some length about my experience interacting with the church’s members and officials for a number of stories over the last decade, but I focused on my experience covering the controversy over the construction of a Mormon temple in Belmont, and then writing about the faith of Mitt Romney. The speech was too long to post here, but here are some of my concluding observations:
"First, and this will come as no surprise to anyone in this room, Mormonism is a subject of considerable controversy, and there is quite a bit of animosity toward Mormonism in the broader culture. This is not unique – Catholicism and Islam attract quite a bit of vitriol too – but it is striking. Blogging gives me a particularly direct read on how readers, especially those at the ideological poles, react to certain subjects, and items about Mormons reliably generate a large number of comments, many of them critical of the church. I had a recent view of this when I posted a blog item about Rachel Esplin, a 20-year-old Harvard student from Idaho who attracted a bit of attention when a video of her explaining her LDS faith went viral, as they say. The on-line discussion, as often happens, had little to do with Rachel or her video; instead, it went on for several hundred comments that, when boiled down, were basically a debate over whether Mormonism is good or bad. The criticism seems to come from two camps – ex-Mormons, who are sharply critical of the church on theological or historical grounds, and non-Mormons, who tend to be critical on political grounds. The ex-Mormons tend to dispute the plausibility of Joseph Smith’s revelations, to contest various elements of Mormon cosmology, or to cite problematic quotations from church writings over the years; the non-Mormons tend to focus on the role of the church in the public square and often cite concerns about the church’s attitudes on race, gender, and, especially in the wake of Proposition 8, sexual orientation.I know we’ll be spending a lot of time over the next day and a half talking about why there is so much antipathy toward Mormonism in the culture. Gary Lawrence seems to argue that the problem is due largely to misunderstanding, ignorance, or poor communication. But I think there are multiple other factors worth thinking about. There is the otherness of Mormons, which Mormons seem simultaneously to cherish and resent. There is the relative isolation -- Mormons are still unusually geographically concentrated for an American religious group, and the sense of tribalism runs deep, which means even in the rest of the country they can live within but apart from the broader culture. There is the fact that Mormons are competing, particularly with other Christian denominations, for new members around the world. And finally, of course, there is the most obvious, but difficult, possible explanation for the animosity, which is that it could be based on actual substantive objections to Mormon beliefs, practices, lifestyles and political behavior – not misunderstandings, but real disagreement. These are tougher to grapple with, obviously, but I think a candid assessment of how Mormons are perceived in the broad culture needs to tackle these questions head on.
OK, so my first point was that Mormons are controversial. My second point is a corollary: Mormons are unusually attentive to how they are portrayed in the news media as well as popular culture. No other faith group is as quick to respond to coverage, and some of that response, which is striking in such a top-down faith, seems to come from the bottom up. I get e-mails from random Mormons around the world about an obituary or a groundbreaking, and now, on my blog and I assume many others, there seems to be a large cadre of self-appointed Mormon cyberapologists, who inevitably show up to defend their faith against critics. You might argue that every faith group in America, with the possible exception of the mainline Protestants, has a persecution complex of sorts, but I’d say that at the moment, Mormons and Muslims are most vexed by what they believe are unfair portrayals in the media.
Third, communication strategy by the Mormon church appears to be quite centralized and controlled. It was striking, in the summer of 2007, when I started calling Mormons in France, how quickly public affairs officials in Salt Lake were notified – I think the individual Mormons asked their bishops if they could talk to an American reporter, and the bishops asked the stake presidents, and up it went. That does not happen in any other faith that I cover. Last year, when I was working on a piece exploring the degree of dissent within Mormonism over Proposition 8, I quickly got the impression that Salt Lake had discouraged some folks from talking to me because of they held some kind of official church title, although ultimately numerous Mormons were happy to talk, and Salt Lake cooperated with the story. In some ways, Mormonism resembles Catholicism, in that both are centralized, hierarchical organizations, with clearly spelled out teachings on a variety of theological and political issues. But, as I think these examples make clear, the Mormon Church is much more centralized and efficient about its messaging, and that, I think, has obvious pros and cons.
Fourth, it seems to me that there is, at this point, at least a cultural uncertainty within Mormonism about how far an individual Latter-day Saint can go in publicly disputing, or even questioning, a position of church officials. That uncertainty, at least in my experience, can have a chilling effect on openness, although my impression is that the conformity of political speech by Mormons is slowly lessening, either intentionally or unintentionally, in the wake of the Romney campaign and Proposition 8. But there’s clearly a tension within Mormonism about what kinds of opinions are OK to voice publicly. I have a few theories about what’s happening. It seems to me, as an outsider, that Mormonism places a fairly high premium on conformity, as well as on community. There can be religious consequences for stepping out of bounds – I’m thinking about people who have been excommunicated, or disfellowshipped, or denied that diploma at BYU – but there can also be social consequences for non-conformity, which, in a culture that places such a high premium on community, can be chilling as well. I think the lack of an ordained clergy is a complicating factor, because it seems to make it harder to define who is speaking officially for the church and who is speaking as an individual – if everyone really has a calling, and those callings constantly change, which people are speaking for themselves and which for their church? Another way of thinking about that is that there seems to be less distance between the institutional church and its members in Mormonism than in other religions, so it is harder for insiders and outsiders to distinguish the significance of actions and opinions of individual Mormons, and that’s a prickly issue at a time when there’s a sensitivity about the political involvement of churches.
Finally, there’s no question Mormons are nicer when dealing with reporters. I suppose it goes without saying that no one in public affairs for the church has sworn at me, which is a treat, but I also can’t recall anyone who has hung up on me, although I’ve certainly had some unreturned calls. But it goes beyond politeness. I’ve been at this for a decade, and the Boston area includes several stakes, so I’ve dealt with a lot of public affairs folks over the years, and to a person they’ve been warm. But it also seems to me, and I don’t know whether this reflects a change in policy or just luck of the draw, that in recent years the individuals tapped for the public affairs calling have gotten sharper and bolder, have thought more critically about the church’s engagement with the media, and have enjoyed slightly greater autonomy from Salt Lake City. Their power, of course, is limited – on anything with real policy implications, Salt Lake steps in, and people there are both sophisticated and vigilant -- generally decent and responsive, but you can sometimes feel the ways in which they are hamstrung by the conservative impulses of the bureaucracy."
After I spoke, and fielded questions, I also joined a panel discussion about Mormonism and the media with Salt Lake City-based reporters Lynn Arave of the Deseret News, Jennifer Dobner of the Associated Press, and Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune. Peggy made an obvious but important observation about my experience, noting that a religion reporter’s relationship with a religion is generally more freighted when it is more frequent. So my relationship with Mormon public affairs is arguably easier than that of the Utah-based reporters, but my relationship with Catholic communicators is considerably more complicated.
The discussions of Mormonism and the media were covered in the Deseret News, and by a handful of bloggers, including Shalyn Schumann and the MormonTimes.
By the way, UVU is an interesting story – a former community college with no on-campus housing and open enrollment, it now has 27,000 students and aspires to grow as big as 40,000 as the population in the area booms. College officials told me they are benefiting from nearby Brigham Young University’s decision to cap its enrollment – Mormon families who want their kids to have a BYU-like experience, and ideally to meet a Mormon spouse, are turning to UVU (a state school) as an alternative when BYU (which is church-owned) doesn’t work out.
Comment
Permalink
E-mail
"Cyberapologist"--is that your neologism, Michael? I think i will have that printed on my business cards, "cyberapologist extraordinaire."
I think one reason which you didn't mention for why Mormons are controversial in the US is a fair amount of envy/resentment. From the outside, and i know they are not perfect and this is a generalization, Mormons seem to live 'clean,' healthy' lives--no smoke, drink, extramarital sex, large, smiling, robust families, rarely going into debt, in fact, quite often prosperous--vid. the Romneys.
There are a fair amount of people who can't stand to see other people so happy, that the Mormon happy lives seem to live in silent judgment on their lives of alcohol, drugs, casual sex, broken families, poverty
As a Catholic, the shame of it for me is that this same generalization picture i have drawn about how Mormons are seen now, was how Catholics were seen back
in the 40's and '50's, when non-Catholics may not have agreed with every Catholic teaching or practice, but many gave a grudging respect for people who actually had consistent values on anything. Now, alas, most Catholics are indistinguishable in their thoughts and practices from the general populace.
"Fourth, it seems to me that there is, at this point, at least a cultural uncertainty within Mormonism about how far an individual Latter-day Saint can go in publicly disputing, or even questioning, a position of church officials." Since the article makes many comparisons of Mormonism to Catholicism, here is one more. If the quoted sentence had been made about Catholicism, I would object to the last clause, "a position of church officials." This is often mistakenly used as in the
phrases "the pope's teaching" or "the bishop's teaching. But in Catholicism, if the matter is close enough to the heart of the faith, [e.g., the Trinity, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, etc.] then it is not merely the pope's teaching, we believe it to be Christ's teaching, anchored in Scripture, and handed down to us by the successors of the apostles, the bishops. In that case, the pope or bishop is merely the spokesman, and would have no more power to change that teaching than the chief mathematician could change 2+2 into 5.
On the other hand, although popes and bishops might have individual thoughts on the best way to improve the economy, no one way is the Catholic way, and there would be open debate, while remembering Jesus preferential attention to the poor.
I read your article in the Boston Globe.
I live in the Phoenix area where we have a fair amount of Mormons.
The Mormon Church is notorious for lying about it’s membership numbers.
I know so many people here in the Phoenix area who are ex-mormons but the Church continues to count them anyway……until the age of 115!!!
The Mormon Church claims they have 13 million members worldwide but have acknowledged to the Salt Lake City Tribune newspaper that only 5 million are active.
The Mormon Church gets a lot of criticism from other churches because they claim they are the “one true church’, that all churches are abominations of God, they are all false etc.
Yet the Mormon Church gets offended when people call them a cult who follow a false prophet.
What hypocrisy!!!
If you haven’t already done so, you can go to exmormon.org which is a site for ex-mormons.
There is so much documentation from the Church about the real teachings and history of the Church that Mormons can not refute.
Gay gay gay gay gay gay gay
its all about the gays - this whole thing is about Prop 8 and Paulson continues to feed the hysteria - get over it, Prop 8 passed, Mormons helped, get on with your life.
"Every member a missionary," having grown up LDS, served a mission and graduated from BYU, I have some 35 years experience with the Church and its members. Mormons are indeed very accommodating to reporters and those interested in the Church; it is all about giving a good impression. One is especially treated well if there is a possibility of conversion, but there is often serious disdain for liberals and gays, and up to, and through my teenage years, for Blacks and Jews. This might be part of the reason the Church is losing more members than gaining in the United States. Church members mostly accept what is told them, and some do take it with a grain of salt, so to speak, but where they get in to trouble is when they voice their disagreement or uncertainty about Church doctrine in the media, and then they quickly are disciplined. After having resigned my membership with the LDS Church for philosophical differences, I still respect Mormons' kindness and family-oriented living, while also being appalled at the Church's political involvements.
haha. Watch the south park episode on Mormonism. dum dum dum dum dum...
I am a Mormon and find this article quite thoughtful and honest. I think that allot of it is right on.
The article mentions that Mormons may be concerned about what opinions are OK to voice publicly due to religious or social consequences. I do not think that the members are very concerned with this. The church is not controlling but the organization is set up so that as far as possible, only correct principles are taught. This is very important to the church because even small misunderstandings can lead people in the wrong direction. The path is strait and narrow.
Also, we believe that only members called to a position in the church have the authority from God to act in that office. As a member who has not been called to preach or officially represent the church I am concerned that my opinion is absolutely correct. Therefore, I am careful about what I say since I do not officially represent the church.
first of all, I want to say, how refreshing the coverage of Mr. Paulsen is. It is always nice to read honest reporting that genuinely stimulates intellectual curiosity without dismissing the Church as stupid or weird just because it isn't what the reporter necessarily knows from his own life experience.
That being said, I don't understand these comments. Mr. Paulsen already said most comment boards he has seen generally disintegrate into ex-Mormons or non-Mormons screaming about the religious or political issues they have with the church instead of addressing the topic at hand. And what are you people doing? You are screaming about the religious or political issues you have with the church instead of addressing the topic at hand.
I find it strange that people specifically target Mormons more than any other church when it has come to "homosexual rights."
Last November, Arkansas residents put into law prohibiting child adoption to homosexuals. This followed other laws in regards to homosexual marriage. Not only does Arkansas prohibit nontraditional marriage, but it does not recognize such marriage from other states (including Mass.). THERE WAS NO LARGE PROTEST HERE! (and Mormons have little influence here) But when the law in California passed over the Title of Marriage (They have civil unions that gives the same rights), large protests erupted.
There were no large protests out of Baptist, or other churches here. But they did fund this Arkansas amendment.
People are strange in this way.
The LDS church has reported that convert baptisms in California has rose since the church got targeted by those against the proposition. One thing protesters have given them is free publicity.
David McFadden
Arkansas Resident
Very interesting article. It is fun as a devote Mormon to read how others view us. Especially the intellectual and honest. Today is the 179 th anniversay of the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Happy Birthday Church! I love my church. I feel bad for anyone who is anti or ex. Mormon and wish them the best of God's blessings. Usually the tone of their comments is bordering on bitter and downright angry at times. I can't help but wonder if there are reasons other than the Church and it's teachings that cause them to act that way. I hope someday that subsides in each of them. That's a tough way to live. If you want to learn about the Church go to mormon.org and watch some of the videos there.
There has never been a better time to be a Mormon. The future is bright. Those who fight the LDS Church are what some refer to as the Mo's;
The Ex-Mo's
The Non-Mo's
and The Homo's
Ex-Mormons can leave the Church but can't leave the Church alone.
Non-Mormons claim the Church is unbelievable based on their unbelievable claims.
Homosexuals hate the Church because the Church supposedly supports "Hate"
The irony is that if those that point a finger at the Mormons generally have three fingers pointing right back.
An attack on religion, is an attack on all religion.
An attack on religion for it's free speech, is an attack on all free speech.
Why is a Mormon's opinion any less valuable yours?
Everyday the Mormons are working to grow their Church. It keeps growing. It keeps getting stronger. The opposition only strengthens and unites the Latter-day Saints. Opposition is the catalyst for the growth of the LDS Church. For that we thank the Mo's.
Roymondo,
Are you for real? If you are, you are just plain sick sick sick.
I have generations of mormon ancestors, walked across the plains etc, etc and have been a faithful LDS but at this point I am considering leaving the church due to its repression and oppression. You got it baby--
Oppression of women
Oppressin of blacks
Oppression of gays
To those Mormons who claim that Mormons are happier than the rest of the world, I must disagree. Now, happiness is not something that is easily measured, but if the consumption per capita of anti-depressants has any correlation then Utah is No. 1!
I attribute the unhappiness of Mormons to the burden of responsibilty and guilt they carry around as God's elect and to the overall bad advice of Church leaders. I left the church very recently, and I have never been happier.
Mr. Paulson expressed confusion about which Mormons are official spokespersons and which are not. Just ask them! Local level Mormon lay leaders pretty well know the limits of their responsibilities. On the other hand, apostle Melvin Ballard has encouraged members to be active on the internet to correct false information. Any actively participating Mormon can talk about the fundamentals of LDS beliefs and practices. Almost a million living Mormons have served as missionaries so have years of practice explaining this to strangers. On the other hand, only Church HQ talks about official LDS political views (which are very limited in scope).
On the "substantive" reasons for criticism of the LDS church: Mormons do not believe that what OTHER people believe is something anyone else is entitled to attack. We offer to explain what we believe to others, but don't call you evil or stupid for believing something else. On behavior and lifestyle, the complaints are generally that we don't drink, smoke, or carouse. BYU is the most stone cold sober campus in the US. Is that news? On politics, the essence of democracy is allowing everyone to try to persuade anyone else, and then we all vote. Disagreeing with you is not a crime, it is our most basic right. If you don't like our views, feel free to try tpo persudade us otherwise.
To "Leza": LDS blacks are not "oppressed", they are sought out by missionaries and are leaders of congregations, not only in Africa but also in the UK and US. Gays who indulge in sexual behavior outside normal marriage are treated the same way as adulterers and fornicators and polygamists: invited to repent and change their behavior, and excommunicated if they do not. LDS women exercise significant leadership at the local and Church HQ level comparable to paid female ministerial workers in many churches. LDS male leaders don't get paid either. There is no career clergy in the LDS Church, so women are not being barred from a livelihood.
To Coltakashi: Consequences of gays who indulge in sexual behavior are absolutely more severe than for heterosexual fornication. In most heterosexual fornication cases a member is disfellowshipped. In every homosexual instance of sexual transgression a member is excommunicated. It's true. I have the priesthood manuals.
Because the LDS church claims to be the fulness of the gospel of Christ, and the only church with real authority from God, it becomes the responsibilty of members and church leaders to welcome scrutiny. If the claim is true then there will be no evidence, criticism, information or idea that will condemn the church. Then why all the censorship? Why the romanticized history? Why all the taboo topics that must never be discussed?
@coltakashi
WHEN did the LDS elders ask it's members to raise 25 million to promote an intiative against adulterers?
or against divorce?
got hypocricy?
Proposition 8 was a successful initiative by citizens of California to overturn a ruling of a 4-person majority of the 7 member California Supreme Court that claimed to find a never before seen command in the California Constitution that homosexual relationships must be recognized through legal marriage. The 3 dissenting justices stated that there was absolutely no basis in the Constitution for that ruling, and that the logic of the majority would also allow legal marriage for polygamists and adult incest. Opponents were free to spend money for advertising to oppose Proposition 8, and Hollywood donated millions. Mormons make up only a couple percent of California voters. The majority of voters agreed with the Catholic and LDS view.
To Dan Porter: I have known some people who left the LDS Church, who, when they resigned their membership, it made other Church members happier, too. The LDS religion is not for wimps. It requires a good deal of self-discipline and real sacrifice in the face of a material culture that encourages very different standards of behavior. Some people resolve that tension by giving up. There are a lot of people who have found aspects of Mormonism attractive, but doubt their ability to live the disciplines of LDS life. Mormon doctrine is that people in this category do NOT go to hell, but to a part of heaven that rewards people who are basically good people.
Mormons recognize there is a tension between following Church leaders and independent thought. The key thing to remember is that the LDS Church is a voluntary organization. Hardly anyone has a career that is based on Church membership, since there is no career path for clergy. Leadership is exercised through love, teaching and example, not coercion. That is a basic part of LDS doctrine. Both people who join the Church as adults and Mormon teenagers have to make a decision about whether they really believe in it and are willing to make the commitment to it. Obedience is voluntarily chosen.
There are two basic sources of the animosity toward Mormonism. First, Mormonism makes unique claims to authority through direct revelation from God, which all other churches must reject if they are to assert their own legitimacy. Second, Mormonism is succeeding, not only in gradual growth (at the expense of other churches) at a time when many churches are only stable or shrinking, but also in having members who are so dedicated that they advance the work of Mormon congregations and proselyting on a volunteer basis, with a higher than average economic profile. Doubling every 20 years, this success scares many professional clergy.
coltakashi1, You're my new friend.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Blogger
E-mail mpaulson@globe.com.
Articles of Faith on Twitter
views
featured comments
Faith-based gardening: A rose for the popebrowse this blog
by categoryEVENTS
CAUSES
BLOGROLL
Headlines
Media blogs
Media criticism
Politics
Catholicism
Episcopalianism
Evangelicalism
Islam
Judaism
Mormonism
Unitarian Universalism
ALSO OF INTEREST
From our archives
Ma Siss's Place
Benedict visits the US
O'Malley's elevation
The new pope
Pope John Paul II
Parish closings
Catholic church abuse
INside Boston.com