Stereotypical LDS
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:29 pm
⋯Anomalous wrote in Board question #55192 that she and some of the other writers weren't "stereotypically LDS".
Whenever I read statements like that I always get my hackles up for a minute because the "typical LDS" people I know are people who are sometimes weak, but generally have a good heart and strive to make themselves and those around them better. So were someone to take pride in not being "typically LDS" that would mean to me that they were weak but felt justified in their weakness. Or felt they were privy to special insights about truth--never through the manifestations of the Spirit or obedience, but through the flawed institutions of man (e.g. journalism, science, alternative medicine, the John Birch Society, postmodernism, &c.)--that the cattle who make up the rank-and-file of the Church just don't get. For them being an outlier isn't just permissible, it makes them superior.
However, ⋯Anomalous didn't say "typically LDS". She said "stereotypically LDS". That leaves the possibility that she was referring to a type of LDS that exists but doesn't actually represent the majority of the (active)* members. So I ask you guys, what do you think is a stereotypical Latter-day Saint?
*I don't mean to construe this as a judgment. I simply mean that those who are inactive are more likely to engage in behaviors which would skew or obfuscate what we're trying to call "typical" or "stereotypical" LDS behaviors and attitudes here. For example, in one of the branches I served in on my mission, they had 1000 people on record. Only 40 to 50 came to Church regularly. If we took the average behaviors (smoking, drinking, &c.) and beliefs (Catholocism with heavy veneration of Mary and Saints with occasional worship of the Niño Fidencio) of the ~950 inactive members in the branch boundaries, we would have an inaccurate picture of true LDS behavior.
Whenever I read statements like that I always get my hackles up for a minute because the "typical LDS" people I know are people who are sometimes weak, but generally have a good heart and strive to make themselves and those around them better. So were someone to take pride in not being "typically LDS" that would mean to me that they were weak but felt justified in their weakness. Or felt they were privy to special insights about truth--never through the manifestations of the Spirit or obedience, but through the flawed institutions of man (e.g. journalism, science, alternative medicine, the John Birch Society, postmodernism, &c.)--that the cattle who make up the rank-and-file of the Church just don't get. For them being an outlier isn't just permissible, it makes them superior.
However, ⋯Anomalous didn't say "typically LDS". She said "stereotypically LDS". That leaves the possibility that she was referring to a type of LDS that exists but doesn't actually represent the majority of the (active)* members. So I ask you guys, what do you think is a stereotypical Latter-day Saint?
*I don't mean to construe this as a judgment. I simply mean that those who are inactive are more likely to engage in behaviors which would skew or obfuscate what we're trying to call "typical" or "stereotypical" LDS behaviors and attitudes here. For example, in one of the branches I served in on my mission, they had 1000 people on record. Only 40 to 50 came to Church regularly. If we took the average behaviors (smoking, drinking, &c.) and beliefs (Catholocism with heavy veneration of Mary and Saints with occasional worship of the Niño Fidencio) of the ~950 inactive members in the branch boundaries, we would have an inaccurate picture of true LDS behavior.