NOM

The title seems like an obvious statement, but there was an interesting article on Ars Technica which I think applies directly to the psychology of mormons like us. The article is here: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/ ... -in-teens/

The gist of the article is that adolescents who grow up in an environment with ongoing intergroup conflict are less able to feel empathy for those in the other group, and may feel a trained empathetic response to their group. They tested a group of young people who were on opposite sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, showing them photos of people in each group in distress and measuring the activation of the pain-empathy regions of the brain. For those on the Palestinian side their empathy response was existent and significantly similar for Palestinian's they saw, and non-existent for Israelis they saw in distress. The Israelis had empathy for Israelis without the similarity in response, but they also had non-existent empathy for Palestinians. The authors of the study suggest that the difference in response to the in-group is due to an increased level of identification with their in-group of the Palestinian teens.

This sounds like it is confirming common sense; when you are in a highly us vs. them environment you lose empathy for those in the "them" group, and if the "us" group strongly identifies and reinforces the group and how those in the group should act they feel similarly. I found it interesting that the Israelis have a very strong sense of a "them" group, but a less strong "us" group. So it seems you can have a "them" without a strong "us". Although I don't know if the reverse is possible, i.e. a strong "us" without a strong "them".

As a young mormon I was taught that we were to be a peculiar people and my "us" conditioning was strong, e.g. WoW, chastity, grooming, language, mission, temple, etc... My "them" conditioning was in the form of a strawman group called "the world", and all people not in my "us" group were placed in that group. "The world" was basically everything a mormon was not. I was taught that "the world" is an enemy and we are essentially at war with it. This made interactions with non-mormons strained, as I felt they were evil in all ways, so I avoided those interactions (I knew they were not evil based on my interactions, so this was a cognitive dissonance moment). This reinforces my views, because one great way to clearly see that "the world" is a strawman is to meet people you put in that group and get to know them and realize that they are real, complex people who may be wonderful in many ways you didn't expect and not conform to the view you had.

I digress. With regard to the study, it is possible that these us vs. them teachings to adolescent mormons cause them to lose the ability to feel empathy for non-mormons. That is a serious and real problem perpetuated by the teachings of the church.

Linked wrote:This sounds like it is confirming common sense; when you are in a highly us vs. them environment you lose empathy for those in the "them" group, and if the "us" group strongly identifies and reinforces the group and how those in the group should act they feel similarly. I found it interesting that the Israelis have a very strong sense of a "them" group, but a less strong "us" group. So it seems you can have a "them" without a strong "us". Although I don't know if the reverse is possible, i.e. a strong "us" without a strong "them".

I think a strong "us" and weak "them" is what we see within most pluralist societies with freedoms of speech and association. There are plenty of cases where people will belong to group, like Rotary for instance, and feel a strong connection with one another that doesn't alienate non-rotarians. The same could be said of a close knit extended family. They have a strong sense of "us", but that doesn't require the family to strongly identify a "them" in order to produce cohesion.

I wonder if the type of in-group / out-group dynamic being discussed here needs to be specifically rooted in life or death conflict. If we go back to tribal humanity where out-groups represented an existential threat, or even back to the days of the city state where the solidarity of a community was the only bulwark against death or slavery, then we can see the evolutionary benefit of having less empathy for an attacking enemy. But when existential threats aren't in the picture, it doesn't seem like a drop in out-group empathy would have a lot of benefit. If it were to occur in every instance where an out-group were present, even if they weren't a threat, then I think it would have been difficult for humanity to muster enough cooperation to build modern civilization, especially when it came to trade with foreign peoples.

If a lowering of empathy only occurs when the out-group is an actual threat, then it makes Mormonism's inward looking perspective seem unnecessary. It's not physical harm that causes the church to withdraw from the world, but doctrinal harm, or practices the church teaches to be taboo. It isn't that the world is dangerous, but that the world is unclean. Somehow, they've managed to ramp up their teachings and faith to the point where the fears of sex and coffee provoke the same feelings as death and injury.

"The only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth"

D&C 1:30

The LDS church maintains and honors this phrase. D&C section 1 is specifically listed to be the introduction to this collection of revelations. As a result, only marginal consideration is given to scholars, leaders, and philosophers from other religions. Certainly there are the usual pastoral apologists like Tyrell Givens who will politely give another viewpoint, but the majority of General Conference is spent quoting other faithful LDS leaders. This is the basis for the intractable conflict that the institutional LDS church locked itself inside of.

This prime axiom of LDS doctrine colors everything else stated from the pulpit. I have heard some wonderful talks about Christ's divinity and the importance and challenge that arise out of diligently pursuing "Love one another". The central importance of the atonement and resurrection does appear in LDS doctrine. But Mormons insist that this is not enough and spend their time bolting unnecessary doctrines and scripture onto their ideas. Committed Christianity is not good enough in an LDS ward. This lack of empathy poisons the relationships an orthodox Mormon has with every non-Mormon and builds intractable expectations between believers.

oliver_denom wrote:I wonder if the type of in-group / out-group dynamic being discussed here needs to be specifically rooted in life or death conflict. If we go back to tribal humanity where out-groups represented an existential threat, or even back to the days of the city state where the solidarity of a community was the only bulwark against death or slavery, then we can see the evolutionary benefit of having less empathy for an attacking enemy. But when existential threats aren't in the picture, it doesn't seem like a drop in out-group empathy would have a lot of benefit. If it were to occur in every instance where an out-group were present, even if they weren't a threat, then I think it would have been difficult for humanity to muster enough cooperation to build modern civilization, especially when it came to trade with foreign peoples.

I agree there could certainly be an evolutionary advantage to this lack of empathy. It seems the church may be co-opting a natural tendency to serve itself, whether the leaders do it intentionally or not. And the metaphor of war is used regularly for the spiritual battles we are supposed to be in, as well as the death of the spirit by falling away.

Corsair wrote:

"The only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth"

D&C 1:30

The LDS church maintains and honors this phrase. D&C section 1 is specifically listed to be the introduction to this collection of revelations. As a result, only marginal consideration is given to scholars, leaders, and philosophers from other religions. Certainly there are the usual pastoral apologists like Tyrell Givens who will politely give another viewpoint, but the majority of General Conference is spent quoting other faithful LDS leaders. This is the basis for the intractable conflict that the institutional LDS church locked itself inside of.

This prime axiom of LDS doctrine colors everything else stated from the pulpit. I have heard some wonderful talks about Christ's divinity and the importance and challenge that arise out of diligently pursuing "Love one another". The central importance of the atonement and resurrection does appear in LDS doctrine. But Mormons insist that this is not enough and spend their time bolting unnecessary doctrines and scripture onto their ideas. Committed Christianity is not good enough in an LDS ward. This lack of empathy poisons the relationships an orthodox Mormon has with every non-Mormon and builds intractable expectations between believers.

Amen Brother Corsair. On NOM 1.0 you mentioned the axiom of "The Church is True" and it is something that I have really internalized. Many of the problems caused by the church stem from the first law of the church is that The Church is True. Like you mentioned, it creates a very clear delineation of Us and Them, and makes anything that would remove you from Us eternally dangerous, worse than physical death. A very dangerous belief.

"The world" was basically everything a mormon was not. I was taught that "the world" is an enemy and we are essentially at war with it.

This idea of "the world" being evil is one of my pet peeves. I grew up repeating the old "in the world but not of it" phrase, but finally started to question it when I realised that there are actually a lot of really great people "in the world" and most families are trying to raise their kids to be kind and happy people.

I agree that it is this mentality that fosters the "us" vs "them" attitude and makes it harder to understand why anyone would want to join "them".

I have become more aware of these old and tired phrases that everyone just parrots generation to generation and am actively trying to eradicate them when I hear my kids repeat them.

LostGirl wrote:This idea of "the world" being evil is one of my pet peeves. I grew up repeating the old "in the world but not of it" phrase, but finally started to question it when I realised that there are actually a lot of really great people "in the world" and most families are trying to raise their kids to be kind and happy people.

I agree that it is this mentality that fosters the "us" vs "them" attitude and makes it harder to understand why anyone would want to join "them".

I have become more aware of these old and tired phrases that everyone just parrots generation to generation and am actively trying to eradicate them when I hear my kids repeat them.

Yes, I hate these phrases too! And when I get frustrated when I hear them my wife tells me I am being negative. Hopefully we can teach the kids better.

I prefer the world to the Church. The world seems less fake.

Are people made better or worse by membership in a reference group? Clearly, we are made worse when it instills in us a desire to demonize others and yet it can also make us stronger when it serves as a source of mutual support. It can help society in general when beneficent actions are undertaken by the reference group.