The quest to be 'mainstream'

"A Motley Vision", among others, has discussed the recent news about Tal Bachman, an obscure (well...I'd never heard of him) LDS musician who has publicly announced he is withdrawing his name from the membership rolls of the Church. (See the above link for links to other discussions).

[Side note: I wonder how many people actually make the effort to have their names removed. Most people seem to be content just becoming 'inactive' and don't see any real difference between just not going and actually 'leaving' the Church. There probably isn't a major difference from a secular standpoint, other than the local ward will still send home teachers after you in the former case.]

Rather than discuss Tal's decision specifically, I'll join in with AMV's general discussion of Mormon celebrity.

AMV asks three good questions:
1. Why does an artist's Mormon-ness matter to members of the Church?
2: Why is an artist's official relationship to the Church a matter of speculation and gossip? Why does it even come up?
3: Should an artist's Mormon-ness be a factor when a Mormon decides on artistic products to consume?

(1)--Church members will always cheer on the inside when another Church members achieves some status in politics, entertainment, sports, or any field because it (a) often creates indirect publicity for the Church, and (b) gives common folk a person to point to as an example of Latter-Day Saints fitting in (and succeeding) in 'normal' society. The Church is in kind of a tough position: it wants to be considered ''mainstream' in the sense that society at large starts viewing being Mormon as 'normal' (fighting the stereotype of 'weird guys who live in the desert with many wives'), but do so without compromising its standards. Having public figures who are members accomplishes this goal. (This compares directly with the gay community's constant effort to identify prominent gay people in society for exactly the same goal--becoming 'mainstream' and 'normal')

Question (2) is directly related, though--to provide any benefit to the Church from a PR standpoint, the public figure in question must be a good member, which is why the question is often discussed. Judgmental, yes, but understandable because you would want to know a little bit about that person's 'worthiness' before you start pointing out that person to others as an example of a 'famous Mormon' (otherwise, you might be embarrassed later). Plus, if your son/daughter is an aspiring athlete/musician etc. you would want to know that he/she is a proper role model to discuss with your child--someone who shows that religious and secular success are not necessary contradictory. Someone who achieved fame and success and then abandoned their standards during or after certainly sends the wrong message to kids. Some famous Church members such as Steve Young and Dale Murphy have become known for their standards, while other LDS celebrities remain 'unknown quantities'--and in a sense it is natural to wonder. (Most people know TV/film actress Eliza Dushku is LDS, although I haven't the foggiest idea if she's 'active' or not--religion isn't discussed much in her interviews.)

(3)--No, it really shouldn't matter, unless an LDS musician, for example, is actually making LDS music. I've discussed before the tendency for Church members to live in a 'closed circle'--only associating themselves with other church members even in areas where Church membership has no visible advantage. You want to keep standards, of course, but there's plenty of 'Gentile' music that meets LDS standards as well. That's also part of becoming 'mainstream'--being willing to associate yourself with others in your field instead of living in isolation.

Continued another day...