Ryan Reeder
History 390R
Derr and Esplin
March 19, 2001
1. How does the development of the Church in the 1920s parallel the development of the United States during that period? It seems that much of what is commonly associated with the Church and what it means to be a Church member has its origins in this period; likewise, much of modern American society can trace its roots to the 1920s. Following the 20s, the process seems to have been interrupted by the Great Depression and World War II, then to have picked up again during the last fifty years or so. However, many institutions commonly accepted as regular worship patterns seems to originate here; there's a sense of the Church becoming what it is today.
2. What is the role of modern American Mormon popular culture? How much gets picked up or translated into other cultures? There are many LDS artists who are well-known among members of the Church in the United States, particularly in Utah, but who are unknown either outside the Church or within the Church outside the United States. One article mentions some of the first to enter the mainstream, such as the Osmonds and Lex de Azevedo, and while there are a few mainstream LDS artists, such as Orson Scott Card, there seem to be many more that are well accepted in the LDS community-Michael McLean, Janice Kapp Perry, Gerald N. Lund, Blaine and Brenton Yorgason, John Bytheway, Richard Dutcher (though his film(s) have been released widely, they seem to have found an audience mainly among Church members), Robert Kirby, Pat Bagley, Eric D. Snider (maybe), Julie de Azevedo, Jon Schmidt, Chris Heimerdinger, Jenny Oaks Baker, Kenneth Cope, Kurt Bestor, Jack Weyland, and Brad Wilcox, to name a few off the top of my head. Is their limited appeal generally a result of audience targeting, work quality, or something else? Rags to Rock discusses issues some people have with the merging of LDS values and doctrines with mainstream media, yet tying into the previous question, much of what is seen as acceptable modes were developed at a time that the Church collectively chose to adopt. Perhaps an analogy could be made to groups like the Amish, who shun 20th century technological advances, yet employ 19th century technology, which was mainstream at the time of their founding and creation of an identity. But the mainstream and traditional culture varies from region to region-the Congo, Cambodia, and Colombia traditional popular values differ as much from each other as they do from 19th century American midwestern popular values, which were adopted as the mainstream in worship patterns.
3. How do faith-promoting stories and rumors promote our collective identity? How do these diffuse across various cultures? Is the transformation of a story to a rumor merely the result of faulty oral transmission, or is something else involved?
Back to Questions