NOM

1957 was a banner year. Chevrolet released the definitive Bel Air, The Viet Cong invaded South Vietnam, Arkansas used the national guard to prevent integration of schools, Sputnik circled the earth, and the LDS church decided to use this year as a benchmark for what worship should be.

I'm not being sarcastic or flip. Many religions do something similar.

I have written previously of my Amish neighbors and friends. For them worship is fixed somewhere around the year 1850. There is no instrumental music in their worship service because they likely didn't have any in 1850 (Sidebar: the LDS church likely didn't have much instrumental music in services at that time either). Services are held in each others homes with everyone taking turns, because that is how it was done in 1850 and why change? This was the case through much of early LDS church history. Any visitor to Kirtland or Nauvoo will likely have visited the temples there and some of the restored homes but they should notice a distinct absence of restored chapels. It isn't an oversight. There weren't any. Joseph's famous King Follett discourse and Sermon in the Grove were both held outside in the open air. My Amish friends come dressed for church in clothes that their forebears from the 1850's would recognize and feel comfortable in. But where The Amish held onto those traditions the LDS church continued to evolve its worship practices.

I have also been privileged to worship in some of the great cathedrals and small chapels of Europe. Perhaps my favorite chapel of all is a small stone building in St. Just Cornwall. The building dates from the 1400's, several relics contained within it date from the 400's. The worshipers bemoan the fact that the pews were replaced in the 1780's and so they lack any history. The organ dates from the early 1700's and is used each week to play many of the same hymns that people have been singing inside those walls for 100's of years. Yet the people today come dressed in everything from suits and dresses to jeans and t-shirts. They are welcomed just the same. These churches seem to be able to blend a mix of the past and the present into a seamless fabric of worship.

Recently, I attended a worship service in town with another friend, a non-denominational evangelical Christian. The service was quite different again. The meeting was held in what looked on the outside to be a pole barn. The construction was a metal building, with a nicely finished interior. While the exterior was definitely pole barnesque, the interior reminded me of a cross between a TV studio and a ultra modern hotel. The fixtures were quite nice, chandeliers, thick pile carpet, comfortable chairs (not wooden pews), and modern technology throughout. There were multiple cameras and microphones. The music (though not the lyrics) could have been written by Green Day or Nirvana. (Sidebar: The drummer was incredible!). Here too, people were dressed in very modern apparel. I saw almost every form of dress imaginable. Jeans, shorts, skirts, dresses, shirt and ties, polos, dockers, dress shoes, heels, flats, tennis shoes, you name it. I even saw a few pairs of crocs in attendance.

Then I went back to "our" church. The architecture is 1957. The dress code is straight out of a 1957 IBM manual. The music? 1957. Pianos and Organs, maybe a violin or two on a occasion as a special treat. No drums, no symbols, no trumpets (you know, the instruments that are actually named in the scriptures). I venture that if a member who died in 1961 was suddenly resurrected and attended church they wouldn't think that they had missed a single Sunday. With a few minor exceptions, nothing has really changed, and that led me to wonder why. What was so good about 1957?

For the first 10 decades of the church the LDS challenged status quos, set standard thinking on its head. Then suddenly, somewhere around 1957, that came to a halt. The Amish worship the same as when they arrived in the US. That makes sense. The Europeans state church seem to mix a blend of old and new while our Evangelical friends seem to believe that God celebrates innovation and advancement.

Us? Well, we really seem to like the 1950's and 60's (but not those crazy hippy 60's, that was a step to far). So if you are looking for some 1950's nostalgia. If you want to sing, dress, and think like it's 1957 then have we got the church for you!


-lost

lostinmiddlemormonism wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 6:33 am 1957 was a banner year. Chevrolet released the definitive Bel Air, The Viet Cong invaded South Vietnam, Arkansas used the national guard to prevent integration of schools, Sputnik circled the earth, and the LDS church decided to use this year as a benchmark for what worship should be...

Then suddenly, somewhere around 1957, that came to a halt.

I blame myself. That was the year Sputnik delivered me to the maternity ward.

It seems like a new church crystalized in the late '50s under David O. McKay. Up until then it had still been reeling from a loss of identity due to the end of polygamy and know knowing who was in the Godhead. Now it had settled on three strong foci to carry it forward: Families are Forever, Word of Wisdom, and for-profit enterprise. Apart from civil rights forcing SWK to open the priesthood to all men there hasn't been an innovator in the driver's seat since. Maybe an innovator will come along again eventually and Mormons can make another social leap forward, but the church will have to take a severe beating before it will be humble enough to let that happen.

I beg to differ, well not that our worship is stuck in the 50s, that I agree with. But with the idea that the church hasn’t changed much. The church I grew up in in the late 50s and 60s is gone and someone coming from 1960 would say, “what the hell!” Where’s relief society, where’s primary, and what the hell happened to ward socials, road shows, and all the fun we used to have? The sex segregated Sunday school that passes as RS would horrify someone who remembers when the women were in charge of their own program and it really was a women’s organization instead of a men’s organization for the women to attend. What passes for primary, with all the fun bled out of it because it is now on the Sabbath, would make those parents wonder why we are now babysitting kids so the adults can have their meetings instead of designing something the kids want to go to because it is fun. Now, neighbors don’t really know each other, let alone connect the children of the ward to their parents. What happened to actually LEARNING in Sunday School? Now, we go to church like a bunch of bored zombies desperately hoping for somebody with brains. Brains, intelligence, discussion. Not regurgitated, repeated conference talks that didn’t have a fresh idea in them when they were given. The parents who had just rushed happily to vaccinate their kids against polio would be aghast at the anti science anti vaccine Trumpers. The science worshipping adults of the 60s would be horrified that science has found no evidence that coffee and tea are bad, and there would be furious debates about throwing that part of the WoW out, because many of them were still coffee addicts from before WoW was important. People would simply be horrified about how bland and boring church has become under correlation and the Boyd k Packer form of “we don’t go to church to be entertained.”

alas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:24 am I beg to differ, well not that our worship is stuck in the 50s, that I agree with. But with the idea that the church hasn’t changed much. The church I grew up in in the late 50s and 60s is gone and someone coming from 1960 would say, “what the hell!” Where’s relief society, where’s primary, and what the hell happened to ward socials, road shows, and all the fun we used to have? The sex segregated Sunday school that passes as RS would horrify someone who remembers when the women were in charge of their own program and it really was a women’s organization instead of a men’s organization for the women to attend. What passes for primary, with all the fun bled out of it because it is now on the Sabbath, would make those parents wonder why we are now babysitting kids so the adults can have their meetings instead of designing something the kids want to go to because it is fun. Now, neighbors don’t really know each other, let alone connect the children of the ward to their parents. What happened to actually LEARNING in Sunday School? Now, we go to church like a bunch of bored zombies desperately hoping for somebody with brains. Brains, intelligence, discussion. Not regurgitated, repeated conference talks that didn’t have a fresh idea in them when they were given. The parents who had just rushed happily to vaccinate their kids against polio would be aghast at the anti science anti vaccine Trumpers. The science worshipping adults of the 60s would be horrified that science has found no evidence that coffee and tea are bad, and there would be furious debates about throwing that part of the WoW out, because many of them were still coffee addicts from before WoW was important. People would simply be horrified about how bland and boring church has become under correlation and the Boyd k Packer form of “we don’t go to church to be entertained.”

Hell, I was a child in the 70's and a teenager in the 80's and I can even tell a big difference from then. You can't have fun for the sake of having fun anymore. I had a really good youth experience overall with one major exception. But that's another story.

Correlation quashed the independent Relief Society in the 1960's. I think it bugged my Mom, who was about 35 years old and very active in R.S.

stealthbishop wrote: ↑
I had a really good youth experience overall with one major exception. But that's another story.

Those pesky masturbation interviews… sigh.

Ironically I would agree. Youth activities were fun and stake dances were looked forward to. EFY was ok although looking back highly manipulative.

I don’t regret my Mormon youth or mission. It defined a lot of who I am and how I still see the world.

Just regret the money given…. Sigh.

Just for fun I googled 1957 IBM dress code.

Here’s an attire web page with cool pictures.

https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibi ... ore_1.html

And here’s a picture from class 11 in 1970:
This looks specifically like all the zone conference pictures from my mission.

You can tell this is not LDS by the inscription over the door!
And the center man being darker...

lostinmiddlemormonism wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 6:33 am I even saw a few pairs of crocs in attendance.

I imagine living in close proximity to Florida Man has made them fairly religious.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 4:19 pm

Those pesky masturbation interviews… sigh.

Bishop: Do you have a problem with Masturbation

Me: Not at all. I have been diligently practicing all of the techniques.


-lost

lostinmiddlemormonism wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 5:50 am

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 4:19 pm

Those pesky masturbation interviews… sigh.

Bishop: Do you have a problem with Masturbation

Me: Not at all. I have been diligently practicing all of the techniques.


-lost

Was my experience weird? I was a teenager in the 80's and was never asked about masturbation until I was on my mission. I "knew" it was wrong, but it seemed to be a left until someone confessed. My kids were constantly asked about it. I have regrets that I didn't stop that. The kids know how I feel today, at least.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:59 am I blame myself. That was the year Sputnik delivered me to the maternity ward.

Me too.

Has anyone ever ask themselves why the church got stuck in the 50 as far as its standards and values goes?

Are other religions stuck in the 50s? Or was it “everything before the evil hippy years?” What exactly was it about the 1950s that was so good that the church just couldn’t leave it behind. I have heard people lament that President Kennedy’s assassination damaged the “innocence” of the US, and looking back, everything seemed simpler, but then I was in grade school and of course life is simpler, so really I was too young to judge what kind of difference it made.

But I remember that suddenly the new style of dancing was evil because the couple was not even touching? To me, it seemed more of something they should like. I mean they were always harping on couples touching each other and dancing too close, so the twist solved that, but church leaders hated it. And the new music was evil, but then my dad said that every generation thinks the music of the next generation was evil, so nothing new. And he also said that when women’s skirts got longer in 46, the church claimed that was immodest too, but I think he was joking. He DID claim that women in pants was so much more modest than skirts of any length and really the point of all the church’s whining was just to control people and make them clones of the 1st presidency.

So, why was McKay willing to bring the church up to date in his day, and then later leaders dug in their heals and insisted that any progress was evil?

So, that’s my thoughts on it, what are your thoughts?

A New Name wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 3:09 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:59 am I blame myself. That was the year Sputnik delivered me to the maternity ward.

Me too.

Me three. Those sneaky Russians

alas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 6:19 pm Has anyone ever ask themselves why the church got stuck in the 50 as far as its standards and values goes?

Are other religions stuck in the 50s? Or was it “everything before the evil hippy years?” What exactly was it about the 1950s that was so good that the church just couldn’t leave it behind. I have heard people lament that President Kennedy’s assassination damaged the “innocence” of the US, and looking back, everything seemed simpler, but then I was in grade school and of course life is simpler, so really I was too young to judge what kind of difference it made.

But I remember that suddenly the new style of dancing was evil because the couple was not even touching? To me, it seemed more of something they should like. I mean they were always harping on couples touching each other and dancing too close, so the twist solved that, but church leaders hated it. And the new music was evil, but then my dad said that every generation thinks the music of the next generation was evil, so nothing new. And he also said that when women’s skirts got longer in 46, the church claimed that was immodest too, but I think he was joking. He DID claim that women in pants was so much more modest than skirts of any length and really the point of all the church’s whining was just to control people and make them clones of the 1st presidency.

So, why was McKay willing to bring the church up to date in his day, and then later leaders dug in their heals and insisted that any progress was evil?

So, that’s my thoughts on it, what are your thoughts?

My sense is that it was the sexual revolution in conjunction with the hippy years. That counter culture movement shocked the hell out of them (especially the free love part) and I think we are still dealing with the counter-counter culture reaction. Just my take. Probably overly simple and I'm sure there are other ingredients as well but my take is that was the primary ingredient.