In Utah County Mormonism I have experienced an ultra-orthodoxy that is heavily literal in its mindset and holds to defacto positions of the inerrancy of scripture and the “Brethren” (despite theological claims to the contrary). I thought maybe this was a regional tendency, but having been to wards across the country I can say, nope, it’s not.

To your point, however, the Church is different than the culture, though even here there are fine lines of distinctions. In any case, the Church is a very flawed thing because the people in it a very flawed. There is no perfect Church, only an ideal that we ascribe to. As such, aspects of it are truly boring, tedious, exhausting, and senile. And every once and a while, odious.

And yet the Book of Mormon is a marvel. Temple theology is a thunderclap in a deaf world. And some modern revelations are truly stunning in scope and metaphysical grandeur. There is so much to wonder at in Mormondom, and that is meant in a very good way. It is human nature, however, that few ever wonder past what they are told.

I just am very skeptical of your claim.

While I agree with Nathaniel that the church is not DESIGNED to turn anyone into an unquestioning, blindly obedient automaton, there is little question in my mind that several church leaders over the years, both in Salt Lake and at the local level, have pursued that objective, to one degree or another, under the auspices of church authority.

When the Lord said that it is the nature of virtually all men in positions of authority to exercise unrighteous dominion over their fellow man, he was not talking about the Caesars, Napoleons and Mussolinis of the world since that would be stating nothing more than the obvious. Rather, when that passage is read in context, it’s clear that he was talking about both the leaders and members of his church.

And Nathaniel, please correct me if I got it wrong, but I interpreted your line about the church providing obstacles for/”breaking” its members as implying that the placing of those obstacles is well-intentioned? That the church provides obstacles that help one come closer to Christ, to be a better person, to cleave more to one’s covenants, etc.? Is that right or did I misread that?

You didn’t misread it.

I think the Church has something to attract everyone. I think the Church also has things to alienate everyone. And I think that alienation is intentional and/or unavoidable in a general sense.

It’s unavoidable (but perhaps unintended) in the sense in which (to the extent that the Church prepares us for eternal life) it is asking us to do things that run counter to our current nature. If you want to run a marathon and you’re not in shape, the training will be uncomfortable. This isn’t because it was designed to hurt, but rather because there is no way to get from couch potato to marathon runner without change, and change is uncomfortable. Most of these have to do with the fact that the Church requires us to be in proximity to, cooperation with, and sometimes even under the direction of imperfect people. This causes friction. This friction isn’t intrinsically desireable, but the only way to get ordinary people to become Zion is to put them in the rock tumbler together for a while.

To a less degree it’s intentional in the sense in which–like I mentioned above–there are irritants in the Church designed to discomfit the complacent. I think the Church contains caltrops to offset apparent strengths and prevent complacency. Having a high IQ is–in general–an advantage in life. Some of the apparently anti-intellectual aspects of the Church are intended (I think) to counter those advantages and level the playing field, as it were.

As a rule, commandments are commensurate with eternal principles of happiness. If we bridle at them, it’s just because we don’t understand the principles behind them (or reject them).

Sometimes, however, God asks us to do something just because. These can cause greater difficulty because–unlike most commandments–they are not intrinsically beneficial.

Same basic idea here.

Just for the clarity of anyone reading, your response goes quite a lot farther than what I had in mind. I find the Church can be frustrating, boring, stressful, challenging, etc. but never odious, nor do I believe that it is designed to turn anyone into the kind of unquestioning, blindly obedient automaton you suggest.

Not actually trying to rebut your points here, simply separate the kind of affliction I’m talking about when I say the church afflicts the comfortable from the kind you’re talking about.

It seems to me that you make an unsupported statement of faith when you say…

It is unsupported here, yeah, but it’s an idea I’m pretty convinced of. I think the Church–and life in general–are designed to incorporate a certain degree of stress, tension, and even pain. And that while these factors are not calibrated to any person’s life, in the Church in particular comfort is more readily accessible to those already suffering, and stress, boredom, etc are more readily apparent to those who would otherwise be complacent.