Written for my Practicum in Teaching English in Fall 2020, in preparation for giving the same assignment to my English 1010 students. Though it wasn't an explicit requirement, I think I did a pretty good job of being objective despite my very strong opinion on the matter, which is that certain people mentioned in the essay were and are selfish imbeciles.
"Please Join with Us Now in Common Purpose": A Discourse Analysis
By C. Randall Nicholson
I was raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a discourse community so all-encompassing that it often influences or overlaps with secular aspects of members' lives. Members often conflate it with their other discourse communities by focusing on shared goals and values, and ignoring or downplaying divergent ones. I observed this in northern New York where my small congregation was more or less evenly split between the two opposing factions of American politics, and later in Utah where one faction is clearly dominant. In both cases many church members believed (and some stated outright) that their political discourse community was the only one compatible with their religious discourse community and that members – or even leaders – who expressed differing views were in error.
Any member who provides a working email address has the option of subscribing to various official emails from the Church. Items of particular importance are both sent as emails and read aloud in congregations the following Sunday. A few emails are only sent to members living in a certain area. Most deal with matters of church administration or practice, but some, of necessity, cross over into secular topics. This artifact is one such email sent by the Utah Area Presidency (a trio of leaders with delegated authority only over members in the state of Utah) and read on Sunday, asking members to wear masks in public during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Besides the signatures of the Area Presidency members at the bottom, the Church's official letterhead at the top of the artifact denotes it as a trustworthy official communication. Its contents take the tone of a strong request, but a request nonetheless; as with many “rules” of the Church, members may disregard it without facing any ecclesiastical consequences. The Area Presidency instead seeks compliance by offering positive reinforcement and appealing to the discourse community's values. The email first expresses appreciation for members who have already been wearing masks to church (which was recommended but not required when in-person services resumed). The request is then couched in terms of being good citizens and promoting the health of those around us, alluding to the well-known Christian charge to love one's neighbor. In closing, the email expresses pre-emptive gratitude before reaffirming the request. This exemplifies the discourse community's canonized leadership principle of gentle encouragement in lieu of pulling rank.
This artifact is unique (though by no means unprecedented) in just how secular it is. It makes no claim to be divinely inspired or even spiritual in nature. Instead, it cites medical authorities as the reason for its request. This discourse community does, at least officially, place a high value on secular fields of knowledge, but typically brings them into church contexts to supplement or reinforce spiritual ones. In this case the reverse is true – the Area Presidency cites empirical facts, then appeals to religious principles to explain why members should accept these facts and respond in a certain way. The specificity of these facts is also unique, going beyond Church President Russell M. Nelson's more generalized counsel to members worldwide to follow both legal and medical authorities.
This artifact was created at a time when Covid-19 cases in Utah were skyrocketing daily with no plateau in sight. The Area Presidency acknowledges at the beginning of the email that on the very day it was sent, Utah recorded more than eight hundred new infections. In large part this problem could be traced to the unique way that mask-wearing has been politicized in the United States. Many church members in Utah belong to a political discourse community that frames mask-wearing as an attempt by the government to seize excessive power and control over their lives. Both communities share a value of individual freedom, but the political one severely downplays the Church's value of moral obligation to our neighbors. Anecdotally, I have observed scores if not hundreds of church members on social media expressing these sentiments, and around the time this email was sent I saw probably less than ten percent of people at the grocery store wearing masks – ironically, far fewer people than I saw wearing masks a month or two earlier.
Although this email makes no mention of government, I witnessed many members react defensively at another perceived attempt to take away their rights. Precisely because the request is not mandatory, and because it was sent from the Utah Area Presidency rather than leaders at the global level, many have no qualms about ignoring it. A smaller number went so far as to accuse these leaders of apostasy or call them to repentance. These members do not appear to see themselves as rebelling against their religious discourse community, but rather as upholding its most important value more faithfully than its own leadership. This artifact and the context surrounding it give me some insight into how people navigate different discourse communities simultaneously and prioritize one over another depending on the situation. Even though a discourse community is defined in part by its shared values, in practice its members may hold a range of opinions on some of those values. Even large and influential discourse communities must sometimes compete for allegiance on divisive topics, and must do so within the self-imposed limitations of their own rhetorical strategies.
Any member who provides a working email address has the option of subscribing to various official emails from the Church. Items of particular importance are both sent as emails and read aloud in congregations the following Sunday. A few emails are only sent to members living in a certain area. Most deal with matters of church administration or practice, but some, of necessity, cross over into secular topics. This artifact is one such email sent by the Utah Area Presidency (a trio of leaders with delegated authority only over members in the state of Utah) and read on Sunday, asking members to wear masks in public during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Besides the signatures of the Area Presidency members at the bottom, the Church's official letterhead at the top of the artifact denotes it as a trustworthy official communication. Its contents take the tone of a strong request, but a request nonetheless; as with many “rules” of the Church, members may disregard it without facing any ecclesiastical consequences. The Area Presidency instead seeks compliance by offering positive reinforcement and appealing to the discourse community's values. The email first expresses appreciation for members who have already been wearing masks to church (which was recommended but not required when in-person services resumed). The request is then couched in terms of being good citizens and promoting the health of those around us, alluding to the well-known Christian charge to love one's neighbor. In closing, the email expresses pre-emptive gratitude before reaffirming the request. This exemplifies the discourse community's canonized leadership principle of gentle encouragement in lieu of pulling rank.
This artifact is unique (though by no means unprecedented) in just how secular it is. It makes no claim to be divinely inspired or even spiritual in nature. Instead, it cites medical authorities as the reason for its request. This discourse community does, at least officially, place a high value on secular fields of knowledge, but typically brings them into church contexts to supplement or reinforce spiritual ones. In this case the reverse is true – the Area Presidency cites empirical facts, then appeals to religious principles to explain why members should accept these facts and respond in a certain way. The specificity of these facts is also unique, going beyond Church President Russell M. Nelson's more generalized counsel to members worldwide to follow both legal and medical authorities.
This artifact was created at a time when Covid-19 cases in Utah were skyrocketing daily with no plateau in sight. The Area Presidency acknowledges at the beginning of the email that on the very day it was sent, Utah recorded more than eight hundred new infections. In large part this problem could be traced to the unique way that mask-wearing has been politicized in the United States. Many church members in Utah belong to a political discourse community that frames mask-wearing as an attempt by the government to seize excessive power and control over their lives. Both communities share a value of individual freedom, but the political one severely downplays the Church's value of moral obligation to our neighbors. Anecdotally, I have observed scores if not hundreds of church members on social media expressing these sentiments, and around the time this email was sent I saw probably less than ten percent of people at the grocery store wearing masks – ironically, far fewer people than I saw wearing masks a month or two earlier.
Although this email makes no mention of government, I witnessed many members react defensively at another perceived attempt to take away their rights. Precisely because the request is not mandatory, and because it was sent from the Utah Area Presidency rather than leaders at the global level, many have no qualms about ignoring it. A smaller number went so far as to accuse these leaders of apostasy or call them to repentance. These members do not appear to see themselves as rebelling against their religious discourse community, but rather as upholding its most important value more faithfully than its own leadership. This artifact and the context surrounding it give me some insight into how people navigate different discourse communities simultaneously and prioritize one over another depending on the situation. Even though a discourse community is defined in part by its shared values, in practice its members may hold a range of opinions on some of those values. Even large and influential discourse communities must sometimes compete for allegiance on divisive topics, and must do so within the self-imposed limitations of their own rhetorical strategies.
Read more of my essays here.
