- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
swimordie, I think it’s because (as the discussion about “doubt” illustrates) people interpret “tolerance” in so many different ways. I parse and qualify constantly, and it almost always is to try to avoid misinterpretation. It sometimes makes my sentences longer and more complex, which sometimes makes them harder to understand on first read, but it is worth it if it keeps someone from misunderstanding what I mean. I see that a lot in the statements from “the Brethren”, and I attribute it to their knowledge that others are going to dissect their words with a fine-tooth comb – both faithful members looking to understand and anti-Mormon activists looking for a fight. That’s a great burden, and most of us will never understand it on a personal level.
I like and agree with most of what John has said. I do disagree, however, with the idea that we “need” orthodox members. As–if–the Church continues to progress, orthodox members will become more and more sparse. I don’t think we need orthodox rhetoric–that is the most divisive. Orthodox rhetoric has given us the Prop 8 battle, and every other cultural divide within the mormon community. Hopefully–and most likely–the middle way will become much more common and the orthodox views will quiet down. Sure, if this kind of change takes place, the Church will change, but I don’t think it will wither. wordsleuth23 wrote:I like and agree with most of what John has said. I do disagree, however, with the idea that we “need” orthodox members. As–if–the Church continues to progress, orthodox members will become more and more sparse. I don’t think we need orthodox rhetoric–that is the most divisive. Orthodox rhetoric has given us the Prop 8 battle, and every other cultural divide within the mormon community. Hopefully–and most likely–the middle way will become much more common and the orthodox views will quiet down. Sure, if this kind of change takes place, the Church will change, but I don’t think it will wither.
Well, I wonder if you’re conflating needing orthodox members with needing a majority of close-minded orthodox members. I’m not sure John is advocating the latter, but the former is important I think. Orthodox individuals keep our society functioning in important ways. They are often the SJs in our lives and make up 50% of the population. Can you imagine what life might be like wordsleuth if no one valued statements from authority as you and I don’t? What a nightmare? As hawkgrrrl has theorized, I think SJs probably make up the bulk of the church. I suspect there is some good evolutionary reasoning for why this is so in any organization. SJs provide a foundation. They battle against folks like us who want to turn the world upside down. It’s a great balancing act in the game of life.I think we might argue that we could stand to have more openness from orthodox members, but this is largely cultural.
Quote:I do disagree, however, with the idea that we “need” orthodox members.
Only in the sense that some people “need” to be orthodox members.
jmb275 wrote:wordsleuth23 wrote:I like and agree with most of what John has said. I do disagree, however, with the idea that we “need” orthodox members. As–if–the Church continues to progress, orthodox members will become more and more sparse. I don’t think we need orthodox rhetoric–that is the most divisive. Orthodox rhetoric has given us the Prop 8 battle, and every other cultural divide within the mormon community. Hopefully–and most likely–the middle way will become much more common and the orthodox views will quiet down. Sure, if this kind of change takes place, the Church will change, but I don’t think it will wither.
Well, I wonder if you’re conflating needing orthodox members with needing a majority of close-minded orthodox members. I’m not sure John is advocating the latter, but the former is important I think. Orthodox individuals keep our society functioning in important ways. They are often the SJs in our lives and make up 50% of the population. Can you imagine what life might be like wordsleuth if no one valued statements from authority as you and I don’t? What a nightmare? As hawkgrrrl has theorized, I think SJs probably make up the bulk of the church. I suspect there is some good evolutionary reasoning for why this is so in any organization. SJs provide a foundation. They battle against folks like us who want to turn the world upside down. It’s a great balancing act in the game of life.I think we might argue that we could stand to have more openness from orthodox members, but this is largely cultural.
jmb275, I should have clarified what I mean by orthodox. Granted, this only my opinion, but I view an orthodox member as one that believes in the literal truth of the gospel, disregards the contradictions found in the doctrine and the history, and in general accepts and follows the cultural norms of Mormonism. Certainly the definition of orthodox is open to debate and interpretation, but that is my view. With that definition in mind, I still go back to my original post. I don’t think that in general, the current orthodox Mormon is good for the Church. That may be offensive to some, but to me, it gives rise to the defensiveness and close-mindedness on social issues we see from the Church. You are right in pointing out that John wasn’t referencing close-minded members, so its just a difference of opinion on the term orthodox. If no one respected authority as you and I don’t, then we get the perfect form of society in my eyes–communalism/socialist libertarianism/law of consecration–all basically the same idea. There is no hierarchy of authority in groups/societies like this, so I don’t personally think that is a bad thing.
wordsleuth23 wrote:jmb275 wrote:wordsleuth23 wrote:I like and agree with most of what John has said. I do disagree, however, with the idea that we “need” orthodox members. As–if–the Church continues to progress, orthodox members will become more and more sparse. I don’t think we need orthodox rhetoric–that is the most divisive. Orthodox rhetoric has given us the Prop 8 battle, and every other cultural divide within the mormon community. Hopefully–and most likely–the middle way will become much more common and the orthodox views will quiet down. Sure, if this kind of change takes place, the Church will change, but I don’t think it will wither.
Well, I wonder if you’re conflating needing orthodox members with needing a majority of close-minded orthodox members. I’m not sure John is advocating the latter, but the former is important I think. Orthodox individuals keep our society functioning in important ways. They are often the SJs in our lives and make up 50% of the population. Can you imagine what life might be like wordsleuth if no one valued statements from authority as you and I don’t? What a nightmare? As hawkgrrrl has theorized, I think SJs probably make up the bulk of the church. I suspect there is some good evolutionary reasoning for why this is so in any organization. SJs provide a foundation. They battle against folks like us who want to turn the world upside down. It’s a great balancing act in the game of life.I think we might argue that we could stand to have more openness from orthodox members, but this is largely cultural.
jmb275, I should have clarified what I mean by orthodox. Granted, this only my opinion, but I view an orthodox member as one that believes in the literal truth of the gospel, disregards the contradictions found in the doctrine and the history, and in general accepts and follows the cultural norms of Mormonism. Certainly the definition of orthodox is open to debate and interpretation, but that is my view. With that definition in mind, I still go back to my original post. I don’t think that in general, the current orthodox Mormon is good for the Church. That may be offensive to some, but to me, it gives rise to the defensiveness and close-mindedness on social issues we see from the Church. You are right in pointing out that John wasn’t referencing close-minded members, so its just a difference of opinion on the term orthodox. If no one respected authority as you and I don’t, then we get the perfect form of society in my eyes–communalism/socialist libertarianism/law of consecration–all basically the same idea. There is no hierarchy of authority in groups/societies like this, so I don’t personally think that is a bad thing.
I see what you’re saying. I must humbly say that I am not nearly as confident in my own ideas, my own way of thinking, my own ideals to think that others should follow them or that the world would be better off. This goes back to the wisdom of crowd idea. Study after study shows that the group consensus, if the group is wise, isbettermeaning more optimal than any individual contributor. I don’t think that if everyone held to my ideas that the world would be a better place. Different yes, better in some ways, yes, but absolutely better – probably not. I do, however, agree that the incorrect cultural norms of Mormonism should absolutely be rooted out. I also agree with you that it is not in the best interests of an individual to disregard the contradictions found in history. But, I like you, admit this is only an opinion, it does not make it fact. It might be that it is only in my best interests not to ignore those contradictions. But, the fact that so many TBM Mormons can function readily, ably, and actually quite successfully in everyday life (even in scientific, philosophical, psychological, and historical vocations) tells me that the literal beliefs are not that disabling. When you contrast this with a typical case study of fundamentalist groups you get a clear picture of what that danger is really like.
Also, you mentioned that those people are not “good” for the church. “Good” according to which definition? If we look at it from the perspective of what a GA may have (I don’t know this, but am just guessing) that of preserving the church itself, and their claim to authority, then I suggest that you are exactly wrong, and orthodox members are good for the church, and we are bad for the church. Now of course you know that I don’t see it that way. I think we are very good for the church in reality despite what the Brethren may or may not think. My point is that “good” is a very subjective term.
Also wordsleuth23, I have a question for you. Don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not challenging you or trying to be offensive, I just want to prod you a bit. Are the things you’re doing, the things you’re reading, the attitude you present, giving rise to defensiveness and close-mindedness? How open-minded are you toward the idea that the authors you have read don’t have the whole story? How open-minded are you that the church produces successful people in the physical and spiritual sense? I’m not claiming this is true, but I think there is a lot of evidence that suggests this. If we cannot see that thousands of people are a testament to the fact that Mormonism is good, because we are so focused on prop 8, or the psychology of literal belief, or whatever else, then how open-minded are we being?
jmb275 wrote:I see what you’re saying. I must humbly say that I am not nearly as confident in my own ideas, my own way of thinking, my own ideals to think that others should follow them or that the world would be better off. This goes back to the wisdom of crowd idea. Study after study shows that the group consensus, if the group is wise, is
bettermeaning more optimal than any individual contributor. I don’t think that if everyone held to my ideas that the world would be a better place. Different yes, better in some ways, yes, but absolutely better – probably not. I do, however, agree that the incorrect cultural norms of Mormonism should absolutely be rooted out. I also agree with you that it is not in the best interests of an individual to disregard the contradictions found in history. But, I like you, admit this is only an opinion, it does not make it fact. It might be that it is only in my best interests not to ignore those contradictions. But, the fact that so many TBM Mormons can function readily, ably, and actually quite successfully in everyday life (even in scientific, philosophical, psychological, and historical vocations) tells me that the literal beliefs are not that disabling. When you contrast this with a typical case study of fundamentalist groups you get a clear picture of what that danger is really like.
Also, you mentioned that those people are not “good” for the church. “Good” according to which definition? If we look at it from the perspective of what a GA may have (I don’t know this, but am just guessing) that of preserving the church itself, and their claim to authority, then I suggest that you are exactly wrong, and orthodox members are good for the church, and we are bad for the church. Now of course you know that I don’t see it that way. I think we are very good for the church in reality despite what the Brethren may or may not think. My point is that “good” is a very subjective term.
Also wordsleuth23, I have a question for you. Don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not challenging you or trying to be offensive, I just want to prod you a bit. Are the things you’re doing, the things you’re reading, the attitude you present, giving rise to defensiveness and close-mindedness? How open-minded are you toward the idea that the authors you have read don’t have the whole story? How open-minded are you that the church produces successful people in the physical and spiritual sense? I’m not claiming this is true, but I think there is a lot of evidence that suggests this. If we cannot see that thousands of people are a testament to the fact that Mormonism is good, because we are so focused on prop 8, or the psychology of literal belief, or whatever else, then how open-minded are we being?
You make valid points jmb275. Good is a very subjective term, and depending on the view, you’re right–we’re bad for the Church and orthodox members are good. I was using good in the sense of allowing the Church to be an open-minded, progressive, modern church, that doesn’t put members against a wall when dealing with science. You may disagree, but in many ways, the Church is tacitly hostile to science. When it benefits the Church or members, then its a good thing. Vaccines are wonderful, so are airplanes, but DNA evidence or carbon dating on Papyrus scrolls isn’t.
As for you’re statement that I’m possibly being close-minded, I’m not offended. I don’t believe I’m being close-minded because I leave open the chance that science will one day prove religious truths, like confirming their is a soul, and documenting other realms, or showing real, literal angels. I don’t think it will happen, but I’m open to the idea.
It’s interesting that you question whether I’m too trusting of the authors I read. You seem to give great credence to the “Wisdom of the Crowd” book. I would argue that the crowd is often wrong, dangerously wrong. A great majority of Americans don’t believe in evolution–that isn’t wisdom. Currently, a majority of Americans reject the idea of equal rights for gays–that isn’t wisdom. Believing that the world is going to end sometime soon, and thinking that its okay to trash the earth because of this–that isn’t wisdom. Often times, small groups of people get it right, but they aren’t part of the “wise majority” so they are branded as heretics. You may rely on evidence provided by the author of the book, but there is certainly evidence to contradict the authors views. Plenty of times, throughout history, minorities have been wise, while the crowd was being racist, extremist, hateful, and ignorant.
I readily accept that the books I read are ultimately philosophizing–not proving–about religion’s role in society. Plenty of smart people disagree, but when it comes to the scientific method and the ability to “prove” something, science is the best method. The preponderance of evidence is on the side of science, and if religion wants to be legitimately used in the public realm, it needs better evidence, plain and simple. We don’t consult a religious guru to find out the weather, we rely on science. We don’t give priesthood blessings to prevent the flu–maybe on the side–we get flu shots. Science has proven its reliability, making me confident that it is the best method we currently have of understanding our world.
I’m completely aware of the fact that the Church has successful members, and I don’t believe I’ve ever said otherwise. What I am saying is that for the Church to continue to work in a modern world, the orthodox–my definition of it–members need to become less orthodox; they hold the Church back. You ask me what a GA would say about this–well GA’s are orthodox members, and if they aren’t, they don’t get the opportunity to say so publicly; in my opinion, orthodox GA’s hold the Church back. I personally know lots of good, successful, orthodox members–including my parents–but their views of science and modernity are hampered by orthodox views. I’m sorry, this may be offensive, but to me its just downright crazy to try and refute evolution. It happened, no matter what the Bible or Boyd K. Packer may say, yet my intelligent, educated parents don’t believe in it. Why? Because of orthodox views. That doesn’t mean they are bad people, it just means they are hindering their understanding of the world, and it means they often have archaic views about things.
I know I said earlier in this post that I keep an open mind, but I’m am close-minded in some ways. I am close-minded to the possibility of a 6 day creation. I’m a close-minded when it comes to viewing gay relationships as bad; too me, they aren’t bad, they are perfectly legit for people that choose to live that way. I’m close-minded when it comes to the possible benefits of polygamy in the afterlife. I’m close-minded when it comes to what I read; I don’t think any science book, history book, or any other book is bad to read. Orthodox Church leaders teach me that I should avoid reading things that aren’t uplifting to my spirit, and avoid things that challenge the Church. I am not open-minded to that view, it is wrong to me.
I think the Church will become less orthodox as time passes, and as younger people become leaders, we’ll see changing views about gays, evolution, and a host of other things. They’ll probably have “revelations” to update the Church’s views. I just think that the current TBM’s aren’t good for the Church. I don’t think the criticism and negative publicity the Church has received over Prop 8 is “good” for it. We can thank orthodox members and leaders for this. I don’t think open-minded members that aren’t so orthodox hurt the Church. Maybe leaders don’t like this because they have less control, but for the good of the Church as a whole, free thinking seems better to me. Once again, these are just my opinions. I don’t expect the whole world to follow them, but its how I see it.
Quote:I think the Church will become less orthodox as time passes, and as younger people become leaders, we’ll see changing views about gays, evolution, and a host of other things.
I have mixed feelings on this, but I do agree that as time goes by, those who grew up without discrimination against gays, learning evolution in the schools, with working moms, with SAHDs, will view these things differently and the church will change. It already is changing along these lines, but more slowly than society.
But there are two things that I wonder:
– I saw a book title once that really spoke to me: “If Democrats ruled the world, they’d be republicans.” I didn’t read the book, but the point is well taken. Our views change depending on our circumstances. When we are in the minority, we feel differently than when we are in the majority. When we are old and wealthy, we feel differently than when we are young and struggling. It’s possible that as the young idealists age, they will resist change more and more because they’ve invested in the status quo in a way that you haven’t when you are young. Change brings risk of loss. When you have less, the risk is lower. The more you have, the greater the risk.
– statistics show, interestingly, that younger members are actually more orthodox in the church than older members. That seems to contradict conventional wisdom or at least is not what I would have expected (although come to think of it, I think it is right). So, does that mean that they are not yet nuanced but will be or that the younger generations in the church will protect against progressive change?
Great discussion here! I have to say, I could have written exactly what WS23 just did (but not as eloquently, of course! 
I just mentioned this in another post, but I think the church is being forced to evolve quickly. The internet is too available to us today…and even if it is suggested that members not read “challenging” material, there’s always curiousity, and we can close the computer room door!
I think there are a few driving forces for change — one quite ironic. I believe that the worldwide missionary program is triggering change in the church. My mission to Japan was life-changing for me — and not in a way the church would like. I was able to have my eyes open to a very different way of thinking, and viewing spirituality…a way that is obviously quite peaceful and healthy. I also learned that people CAN be successful and happy without the church, or even Christianity! That wasn’t possible, in my limited, 60s and 70s Utah worldview. And having to understand how my investigators thought, I came to quite enjoy eastern ways!
Another (maybe obvious) challenge is the church emphasis on education. That includes science. “The Glory of God is Intelligence” is a phrase that most members see as consistent with learning truth.
But I do see a roadblock. The ascension to leadership process leaves an aged administration that may not be so willing to change. I know in my old age of 51, I don’t change as quickly as I did at 25. I can only imagine the response a young church historian gets when he goes to a 90 year old GA and says “we need to stop emphasizing the Joseph Smith story — a bit too inconsistent and too many versions…”
But it must change. Richard Packham estimates that there are 2 people leaving for every person joining today. That pace will demand a change that will make the church attractive to more than the less educated, third world converts they are getting today.
But that’s just my humble opinion….
wordsleuth23 wrote:It’s interesting that you question whether I’m too trusting of the authors I read. You seem to give great credence to the “Wisdom of the Crowd” book. I would argue that the crowd is often wrong, dangerously wrong.
Well, I apologize, I wasn’t trying to insult, only to prod and question. I have a background in stochastic processes, so I am very familiar with probability theory, decision making, bayesian inference, information theory, and other methods involving aggregating information in intelligent ways. So it’s not really just that book. That book just happens to be an extension of my specialty to other parts of society.jmb275 wrote:wordsleuth23 wrote:It’s interesting that you question whether I’m too trusting of the authors I read. You seem to give great credence to the “Wisdom of the Crowd” book. I would argue that the crowd is often wrong, dangerously wrong.
Well, I apologize, I wasn’t trying to insult, only to prod and question. I have a background in stochastic processes, so I am very familiar with probability theory, decision making, bayesian inference, information theory, and other methods involving aggregating information in intelligent ways. So it’s not really just that book. That book just happens to be an extension of my specialty to other parts of society.jmb, no worries, I don’t feel insulted. I took your advice and tried to space my response better; hopefully it helped. I’m sure you understand probabability theory better than me; I’m an amateur scientist.
wordsleuth23 wrote:jmb275 wrote:wordsleuth23 wrote:It’s interesting that you question whether I’m too trusting of the authors I read. You seem to give great credence to the “Wisdom of the Crowd” book. I would argue that the crowd is often wrong, dangerously wrong.
Well, I apologize, I wasn’t trying to insult, only to prod and question. I have a background in stochastic processes, so I am very familiar with probability theory, decision making, bayesian inference, information theory, and other methods involving aggregating information in intelligent ways. So it’s not really just that book. That book just happens to be an extension of my specialty to other parts of society.jmb, no worries, I don’t feel insulted. I took your advice and tried to space my response better; hopefully it helped. I’m sure you understand probabability theory better than me; I’m an amateur scientist.
Science is so often misunderstood…much like religion incidentally. People seem to think that whatever current science says is ultimately “true.” I don’t know how many scientific journal papers you’ve read but they’re not like it’s portrayed in the media that’s for sure. They are often quite modest in their claims, and universally admit error and mistake, usually quantifiably. People also seem to think science is somehow exempt from all the nonsense that exists elsewhere. But it’s not. It is subject to the same political games, the same bureaucracy, the same biases, the same kinds of people (although with a different set of problems). I don’t disparage science the method, but science the community definitely has its fair share of problems. We are human first, scientists, Mormons, etc. second.Here’s a good example, and not an altogether uncommon one. I think this might interest you. I had a professor when I was a grad student who had done a lot of research into a particular theorem about image processing. His research concluded the long held theorem was in fact wrong. He tried to publish the paper and had very convincing data to back it up. The paper was rejected. He went back, did more research, added more, tempered the paper down but still challenged the status quo. Paper still rejected. He is still trying to get the paper published, but ultimately they don’t want it. I’m not clear on the reasons why, except that it seemed to challenge the status quo and people in the community didn’t like that.
There are many ways to look at this. We could think that my professor just had crappy data, and that the crowd is correct – afterall they are scientists. In that sense my professor could be considered a nutjob for challenging the status quo. OTOH we might think that the crowd is stupid since they clearly are holding to tradition rather than following the evidence. But that’s against the nature of science, right? It’s a hard problem to solve. Without people like Einstein who thought Newton might be wrong, we still might be using Newtonian physics. But I know it wasn’t easy for him. Another really great example is our own Henry Eyring. Henry Eyring was a brilliant chemist, and should have won a nobel prize. His theories were laughed at, and scoffed by the scientific community. And you know what, he was right all along. ART has been one of the most transformative ideas in the world of chemistry and physics ever.
You might like the book Mormon Scientist which is about Henry Eyring. It helped give me a different perspective on a brilliant scientist who also considered Mormonism to be important.
johndehlin wrote:Tom,
Based on my readings from Chaim Potok….it would be bad for the church to completely lose its orthodoxed leaders and members (like the lady in the article you mentioned). They keep the church alive. If religion loses the literal strand of belief, it usually withers (in my observation).
So if we love the church and believe that it’s a good thing for the world — then we want the orthodoxed around…and we even want them spouting their rhetoric. Who else would do the callings we don’t want to do?
What we should want/strive for is a welcomed place at the table. Not agreement with our positions — but acceptance and welcoming of us as valid participants.
Plus, by having us at the table (in a non-closeted way) the dinner conversations will be all the more interesting. And we’ll get fed too (hopefully). I think the church needs orthodoxed AND liberals to stay healthy. It’s a balance.
So it will take some time — but things are moving fast now. I think that in 5-10 years we’ll be a sizable, non-closeted portion of church membership.
That is all I am asking for too, is just a welcomed place at the table. What is frustrating to me though, is that it depends on who’s house you are at that determines whether you are invited to partake or whether you are asked to wait outside. One leader or member will allow you in, while others do not. Right now my orthodox leaders are not inclined to let me partake with them at the table fully. And they most certainly aren’t happy about me being there.
I don’t want the ultra orthodox leaders and members to not be in the church, I just don’t want them to ostracize me for not subscribing to the “One and only true” belief and allow me to still participate. Maybe your right John, maybe in 5-10 years things will be better in the church for people like us. I am most certainly hopeful for that kind of future in the church. But, the real question is whether I will still feel this same way 5-10 years from now.
Tom wrote:That is all I am asking for too, is just a welcomed place at the table.
And the challenge is that it is usually the “Iron Rods” that become the leaders — that’s part of their character. So I’m not quite as optimistic as John in the “5-10 years” time frame. But with the internet and the world getting smaller, I agree that it will happen.
Sometime.
Tom said: “That is all I am asking for too, is just a welcomed place at the table.”
I have been very open to local leadership in my liberal stance toward many issues which impact us in the church. Interestingly, I have continued to be approached to take significant callings in the church. They are not of a ecclesiastical nature of course, but callings that basically place me in service locations. So far I have been asked about Family History Centers, Deseret Industries, and career counseling via the LDS Institute program. I have turned the assignments down, since I have already been recruited to secular volunteer jobs in my community and tribe. When you retire, watchful folks blow your cover, and your front door get frequently approached. I feel as though I’m still welcomed at the LDS table though, but perhaps just for the salad course. Perhaps it’s best for my diet…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.