- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This post is dedicated to Bruce in Montana. 
So I just finished reading The Mysteries of Godliness by Buerger and I think that I finally understand the appeal of fundamentalism. The Mysteries of Godliness put a lot of things into historical perspective and placed the temple into the LDS theological framework. There are a lot of teachings in our church today that have been changed since they were instituted by JS and the original meaning obscurred. I am specifically thinking about the second annointing here. D&C 132 is much clearer when you realize it is referring to the second annointing when it refers to the “holy spirit of promise,” rather than some mystical seal placed and removed on you by the Holy Ghost in accordance with your faithfulness. Even the current Endowment administered in our temples still alludes to the second annointing, even though it is not widely taught or administered currently, and I suspect many people don’t understand what it is talking about. I think Adam-God doctrine also fits into this, as some of the teachings make much more sense when understood through an “Adam-God” lens. I can understand why fundamentalists feel that the mainstream LDS Church has apostasized from the church restored by Joseph Smith, and not just when it comes to polygamy, other aspects of the church have been dropped to become more mainstream. Reading Quinn’s timeline of the church in his Heirarchy books, there seems to be a shift in the early 1900’s when the church starts to feel much more familiar to what we have today, whereas the early church feels foreign in many ways. The church JS restored is not the same church that we have today. I am sure JS would be uncomfortable with the modern LDS church. The doctrine of the church actually is much clearer, less contradictory, and unified when one stops trying to reconcile it with modern teachings and instead looks through the lens of history. I think I finally understand why people turn to fundamentalism . . .
Unfortunately I can’t say I am going to join you as a fundamentalist, Bruce. I think the entire foundation is shaky, not just where the church decided to become a mainstream religion in the early 1900’s. But I think I am better able to appreciate the fundamentalists and the theology that JS established with my new understanding. It becomes something I can appreciate, like the Greek and Roman mythology, without feeling like I need to believe it or practice it.
Thanks MC…I think 
We don’t proselyte nor desire/reject membership growth…
Your certainly being more open-minded than I was in the many years that I was a mainstream member.
I certainly do not think that everyone needs to run out and embrace fundamentalistm however. The Church is a legitimate devine institution IMHO and can be a conduit to increased spirituality and family happiness. There is so much good that the small things that I would view as temporarily out of order are “small potatoes”.
I would agree that even as a mainstream member, one might understand the endowments (both of them) better when viewing them through the Adam-God doctrine. The Adam-God doctrine, plural marriage, 2nd annointing, etc. all go hand in hand. When one is omitted, things get a bit vague IMHO.
I do agree that JS would be uncomfortable in the present Church. I wonder what he would think of a modern sacrament meeting.
“The church JS restored is not the same church that we have today.”
Agreed, but most importantly…..and this is where fundamentalist views and mainstream views part… The priesthood restored is the same priesthood. That was the big hurdle for my understanding is that the priesthood exists with/without any church. Abraham, Issac, Jacob, JS, Oliver C., and many more….all priesthood holders with no church around.
Ogden Kraut (an independent fundamentalist author) published a book called, in reference to Martin Luther I guess, “95 Theses”. It’s 95 things that have changed from the restored church to the modern church. Most are superficial and not so important but some are surprising if one has never thought about it. Most of the book can be read here:
http://www.4thefamily.us/files/Kraut%20-%2095%20Theses.txt Ok, Ok, I’m off on a tangent….I’ll quit.
Wowzers, that’s a lot of stuff Kraut has given me to contemplate. I take a pretty loose view on God’s hand in guiding religion, so this isn’t very bothersome for me. But the conflict I see is this: Fundamentalists: JS was given the restored gospel and what he said was what God said, ’nuff said.
TBM: JS was given the restored gospel, all LDS prophets receive revelation, God’s will is done. Everything since JS is part of that truth.
Quote:Abraham, Issac, Jacob, JS, Oliver C., and many more….all priesthood holders with no church around
Agreed, so here’s my question about fundamentalism: If the truth has been around for so long, and laws come and go, what’s the big problem with changing some laws on polygamy and black’s with the priesthood? The truth has spanned thousands of years and fundamentalist want to preserve a such a small moment in time. But laws change, we certainly never adopted the Aaronic Priesthood solely for the blood-relatives of Aaron. We don’t drink wine for the sacrament, we don’t obey the Levitical Laws, we never received the grand godly powers promised with the endowment ect…
I can even make sense of the Adam-God doctrine, as clearly as Paul Toscano’s
Stranger’s in Paradoxargues the view of Christ-God. Compare this with the OT and LDS theology and I’m not really sure to whom I am praying. Ha Anyway, Bruce, anything thoughts on that specific moment in time?
Good points and I understand your seeing things that way SM. I guess where we would disagree is that, IMHO, eternal principles do not change…even though different peoples at different times have been required to live different degrees of them.
Here’s a link that explains better than I can:
http://mormonfundamentalism.org/guides/can-the-gospel-change/ Or John Dehlin’s interview with Anne Wilde at :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycwu6OQFHpM&feature=PlayList&p=595A2894DE7C7552&index=1 About 4 minutes into that interview, she explains it pretty well.
As we see it, the law of celestial plural marriage has not changed…indeed, the Lord said it would not until Christ returns. It simply is a Priesthood law now as opposed to a law of the Church. (and then we get back into the old “priesthood existing with/without the Church” thing
It is certainly a different way of looking at things than what we’ve been taught as TBM’s.
However, I think we can get bogged down in the “mysteries” and forget the basics of repentance, etc…..at least I know that I tend to.
thanks for the link, Bruce, checked some of it out, her explanations are pretty sound, good explanations Bruce, thanks for the link, that text file was interesting to read through. I’m not sure I still get it…do fundamentalists believe the LDS church has gone astray, becoming more mainstream christian and worldly, departing from the truths that were restored through early latter day prophets, and so have become an apostate church?
Bruce in Montana wrote:http://www.4thefamily.us/files/Kraut%20 … Theses.txtThe link only has the first half of the differences. Is there a link for the last half? I was interested in reading about particularly some of the later points.
MC said: “The link only has the first half of the differences. Is there a link for the last half? I was interested in reading about particularly some of the later points.”
It used to be on ogdenkraut.com but the website is down for construction right now…I’m not sure if there is another link or not…if I find one, I’ll pm you.
Heber said:
“I’m not sure I still get it…do fundamentalists believe the LDS church has gone astray, becoming more mainstream christian and worldly, departing from the truths that were restored through early latter day prophets, and so have become an apostate church?”
Some groups and individuals, the FLDS for example, look at it that way. Others, like the AUB see it a bit differently.
From Wikipedia:
“Members of the AUB do not refer to their organization as a “church” and, unlike nearly all other Mormon fundamentalist groups, regard the LDS Church as a legitimate, if wayward and diminished, divine institution…….They believe the LDS Church is still fulfilling a divine role in spreading the Book of Mormon and other basic doctrines of Mormonism, and in doing genealogy.”
In other words, the Church is still the Church…whether or not it’s a bit out of order. Most fundamentalist look forward to the day that the “one mightly and strong” will set things back in order as mentioned in D&C 85: 7.
But just because the Church may/may not be a bit out of order, does not mean that it can’t be a tremendous blessisng to individuals and families. Some chose to be cafeteria mormons and use what they can. IMHO that beats the heck out of just becoming totally secular.
Hey Bruce, I’ve been wondering. Do fundamentalists keep the whole law of Moses? Or, does your particular faith (not sure the right word here)? Bruce in Montana wrote:It used to be on ogdenkraut.com but the website is down for construction right now…I’m not sure if there is another link or not…if I find one, I’ll pm you.
Thanks. One question on this topic. You said:
Bruce in Montana wrote:We don’t proselyte nor desire/reject membership growth…
Given the listing of 95 differences between the early church and the current LDS church, how do you reconcile the early church’s focus on proselytizing with your group not proselytizing now?
I hope I’m not threadjacking here, but I also understand the alure of fundamentalism. Unfortunately I just don’t understand how women fit into the whole thing. I like to think of myself as a feminist. How does fundamentalism appeal to women? I really don’t see how things like polygamy can exalt women. Wouldn’t it tend to make women more of a possession than not? Perhaps I am wanting more revealed doctrine on what a woman’s real portion in the eternities will be, and I don’t mean an eternally pregnant sister-wife. That sounds completely horrible to me. I do like the idea of Mother in Heaven. Does she have a place in fundamentalism? I feel lost in the church as it is. Looking back to Kirtland and Nauvoo it seems women had a completely different experience with, perhaps, a more full understanding of women’s place in the gospel that has been lost. I noticed in the Kraut link you sent there were a few entries on women that I couldn’t see since it cut off. Could you post those or PM me? Great question MC… First of all…I’m not officially a member of a group but do associate and go to meetings…that may change soon.
Let me try to explain it this way:
We view the restoration sort of like a family that was broken for a long time. Since the 1st manifesto the “Father” priesthood and the “Mother” Church are once again, in our view, temporarily out of order. The Church is still taking care of what it has been commissioned to do (missionaries presenting the “milk” of the gospel to the world) and the priesthood is taking care of keeping the higher laws.
Those seeking “further light and knowledge” seem to find their way to it without any proselyting. I know that sounds a bit pompous but that’s not the attitude. The Church is loved and revered as are our fellow mormons.
JM said:
“Hey Bruce, I’ve been wondering. Do fundamentalists keep the whole law of Moses? Or, does your particular faith (not sure the right word here)?”
No JM…like the mainstream Church, fundamentalists view the law of Moses as being “fullfilled” in Christ.
Ella,
Sorry, I haven’t been able to find a link to the full version of “95 Theses” as ogdenkraut.com is down for construction.
Just a quick contribution for now: After studying Church history a lot, I also feel a much larger sense of camaraderie and understanding for the fundamentalist groups of Mormons out there. Only in my past ignorance could I think that we have nothing in common. I think a lot of claims are very plausible, like John Taylor telling a group of men they had celestial sealing powers and sending them off separate from the main body of the Church, in anticipation of apostasy. I also feel a LOT more excitement about the Church and connect with ideas and events in the early Church. Some of that stuff is truly inspiring to me. We are very watered down and plain vanilla today 
I’m not really drawn to going deep down that road of fundamentalism personally, but I can totally see it as a plausible reconciliation strategy. I like the idea of the LDS Church being challenged and made a little uneasy by our fundamentalist brothers and sisters (in the sense of losing the fire, and some uniqueness). That kind of “reality check” is healthy in my experience.
So what do you think Pres Hinckley meant when he said:
Quote:There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.
Heber, I think he doesn’t approve of fundamentalism and doesn’t want others to view “fundamentalists” as Mormons. I also think he might be talking about the stereotype of “fundamentalists” being people who aren’t open to continuing revelation – those who are “stuck in the past”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.