- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I like the term “New Mormonism,” which Adam Miller refers to in Future Mormon as the future of the church if the church is to remain relevant. This was an article highlighting several of the key snippets from the interview with Greg Prince: http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/greg-prince-on-new-mormonism/ The difference between faith and a belief system:
Quote:“If you want to see what faith really is look East, he says. The Eastern religions imbue intense faith in their community of believers, but they don’t have a belief system. You don’t have to sign off on articles of faith or a catechism, if you’re Buddhist. And yet Buddhists often have enormous faith. So he says, what is faith? And he said it has nothing to do with a belief system, it has to do with, one synonym would be surrender. Your willingness to acknowledge the existence of a higher power and willingness to surrender your life course to whatever that power is.”
and
Quote:“Separate faith and belief. Because you just confused the two of them again. Faith is not adherence to a script of statements. It’s acknowledgment of a higher power to which you can relate and in essence, a willingness to surrender your life to that higher power to whatever extent that means.”
On the problem with literal belief:
Quote:“Even those who stay in but stay in at the cost of trying to convince everybody else that there’s only one way to understand all of this and it’s extreme orthodoxy. That to me is as damaging as people who leave.”
and
Quote:“The class average among Mormons is it’s all literal and that’s only going to get you into a mess, that you never get out of. It’s time to grow up.”
On exclusivity claims:
Quote:“I have interacted with enough other churches at a fairly sophisticated level… I’m not about to point fingers at them and say there is not truth there. Who’s got the most truth? I don’t know. It becomes a question of: show me the walk.”
On the necessity of moving away from the black and white viewpoint that prevails at church today:
Quote:“The problem is that people get hung up on this model, and when it caves in, they don’t have anything left. What you have to realize is that scientists make their living by constructing paradigms and then moving to new paradigms when the old ones don’t work. It doesn’t mean that there was deceit in the old paradigm and maybe, usually, it means that it’s the best we could do given the data that we had. But it’s time to move on to a new paradigm.”
The real reason people leave over historicity issues:
Quote:“The history is not damaging the church. It’s the realization that there was a betrayal of confidence that is causing the…You saw. This is the bottom line message of the survey. It wasn’t a single statement here that took them out. It was a realization that one led to another and then my Church has not trusted me with the truth. That’s what took them out. It wasn’t a simple statement of ‘the Book of Mormon is fill in the blank,’ it was the betrayal of trust. And where that betrayal has happened, yeah, it has damaged the Church and it’s a self inflicted wound.”
I really enjoyed the write up, and Greg Prince is one of my favorites. I tend to agree that this is the future of Mormonism. Literal black-and-white belief systems have usually seemed to me like seeking for a sign or relying on others’ words rather than experiencing something spiritual directly. It’s too tied up in “I’m right; you’re wrong.” To me, that’s not divine or spiritual. Unfortunately, that’s the brand of Mormonism on offer in my ward and large portions of General Conference.
Some interesting thoughts — particualarly that there has been a betrayal of trust. Full agreement. The only history I knew of the church was Truth Restored. And when I read it a couple years ago, I realized it was the most watered down, anecdotal piece of history I’d ever read — glossing over controversial items (“JS was imprisoned on a “trumped up charge”) or not mentioning any of the bad stuff at all. The part I disagree with now — or at least, am processing — is the idea of “doing God’s will”. Do we really know what God’s will is? How many times was God’s will just our own interpretation of our thoughts and feelings? And what do you do when doing “God’s will” makes you miserable over the long term? And finally, what about the abuse inherent in “God’s will” when churches, individuals and organizations seem to think they know what God’s will is for you — better than you do?
I read this from churchistrue and had it on my list to re-read. I feel like the talk on faith and belief is interesting and resonates with me right now. I like using Patrick Mason’s analogy of a truth cart overloaded by modern Mormonism’s truth to the point that it breaks. Mine broke, and the only thing I have put back in the cart is that God loves me and everyone, and I need to help others and alleviate suffering. I can’t yet put any other beliefs into my cart.
I find it interesting that Thomas McConkie is also saying that there is much to learn from eastern religions. I think Dan Witherspoon has also hinted at this.
It just seems to me that this is
SOdifferent than the current church. I guess I didn’t watch enough Barney because I can’t imagine such a change. It doesn’t feel to me like the same church. I have heard talk about “the church has to be slow to change its stance on gays and women holding the priesthood as the church membership isn’t ready for it.” To me the change described for “future mormonism” seems to be even a bigger change – like something taking 100 years. I guess I need to go listen to John Lennon a bit more. Thanks for sharing Hawkgrrrl. I don’t frequent other sites so often things like this only come to my attention if someone here shares them. Churchistrue appears to have summarized the podcast well, although I have not listened to them. I agree about faith. I think we generally misunderstand what faith is, and I don’t think Mormons are alone in that among Christians. I also really like the “it’s time to grow up” line. It’s interesting that lately that’s the approach I have taken to the more black and white or literal believers in my life – an understanding that their faith/belief is simply immature. (I don’t tell them that, it’s for my own sanity.)
I like this about the First Vision from the article as well:
Quote:My belief is that he had some authentic experience that channeled the divine…but I don’t know the details to that…. I’m trying to think of how 14-year-old or 15-year-old or whatever he was kid can digest any of this stuff and try to make sense of it. But as he comes back to it, he’s making more sense of it as a theological statement. I believe there was an encounter between him and deity. Period. Details? Stay tuned. I don’t know.
That idea that Joseph had an encounter with deity but even then saw through a glass darkly is where I have been at for awhile. I don’t know if he saw two personages, one personage, many angels, or whatever other differences there are in the accounts. But I do believe he had a profound spiritual experience and testified of it. Since these experiences are so personal, and Bushman points out in RSR that he actually didn’t talk much about it, just believing he did have such an experience is enough for me. No one else has had the same experiences as me, nor have I had the exact same experiences as anyone else.
I also liked this about the Book of Mormon:
Quote:I don’t see it is an ancient history. I just don’t see that it has a leg to stand on as being history. I’ve heard of hybrid explanations. None of them carry any water with me. I’m content to go with what Denise Hopkins the Professor of Hebrew Bible told me. It’s a book length midrash on the Bible. And I’m fine with that
Midrash, long parable, whatever. I’m fine with it too. It is a book mostly about Christ and it can bring people closer to God and increase faith. That’s great. It doesn’t need to be anything else. The problem is that we hear so much about the BoM being more than that, even in this most recent GC. I don’t dislike the BoM, but I think we need to stop the rhetoric.
SilentDawning wrote:Some interesting thoughts — particualarly that there has been a betrayal of trust. Full agreement. The only history I knew of the church was Truth Restored. And when I read it a couple years ago, I realized it was the most watered down, anecdotal piece of history I’d ever read — glossing over controversial items (“JS was imprisoned on a “trumped up charge”) or not mentioning any of the bad stuff at all.
The part I disagree with now — or at least, am processing — is the idea of “doing God’s will”. Do we really know what God’s will is? How many times was God’s will just our own interpretation of our thoughts and feelings? And what do you do when doing “God’s will” makes you miserable over the long term? And finally, what about the abuse inherent in “God’s will” when churches, individuals and organizations seem to think they know what God’s will is for you — better than you do?
Great questions, SD. I struggle with this as well. I’m not sure anyone knows the “mind and will of the Lord.” I just think we need to do our best at being nice.
I will say this — I don’t subscribe to the mystical version of God’s will — where you lay your firstborn on the altar and sacrifice him in blind obedience to God’s will. Ray has his own interpretaton of what that Abrahamic story means,and it is not an endorsement of blind obedience. When I have prayed and received nonsensical answers that I have ascribed to revelation, it rarely ever worked out when I acted on them. What worked was research, preparation, talking to people who know how to solve problems, considerable judgment, and a passion for the idea. Along with some good luck. Those things tend to effect positive change in my life and the lives of others more than blind obedience. God gave us minds, the ability to create new knowledge, to improve, to learn, why do some want us to throw all that out because someone in authority claims to have had “revelation” or an expression of God’s will for us?
Maybe I’m headed for a major humbling experience. But I guess that’s what I believe for now.
Today as I was running errands I kept thinking about Elder Ballard’s courage to use Faith Crisis over the pulpit. I didn’t love his take on it, but I appreciated the gumption it took to use the phrase. From there my mind wondered – “Fear of the name is Fear of the thing itself”. And then I wondered, “Is LDS stage 4ness around the corner?” It takes us time and alot of crap to get to personal stage 4.7/5. The organization will have the same road. No one is immune. If New Mormonism is to occur and any of these highlighted portions is to be fulfilled “The Church” and it’s membership will have to have its own crisis. There is no other way around it. It’s a Eastern Religion Principle.
Let’s say the church adapts itself to work for me. Where does that leave my presently orthodox, cart too full, friends and family? Now they are in crisis.
It’s exciting stuff to think about. And I want it to happen. But I want it to be fulfilling when it happens. I’ve hated feeling pushed off the old ship of Zion. I want to make canoes for everyone before we sink her.
John Dehlin posts some interesting thoughts/questions on “New Mormonism”. https://www.facebook.com/johndehlin/posts/994671349709https://www.facebook.com/johndehlin/posts/994671349709” class=”bbcode_url”> I think we need to come to terms with the fact that the majority of active church members believe in the exclusivity of the church, would say they have a literal belief, and would take offense if someone told them to “grow up” as regards their faith. Were I to approach a recommend interview with this sort of nuanced approach including disbelief in the historicity of the BoM, I’d be turned down and likely would be taken off the list for callings other than nursery. If I were a missionary and finessed the lessons, not only would no one see any reason to join the church but I’d likely be sent home early or spend the rest of my mission as mission mechanic. We really don’t fit and though we try to find a way to be here, we’ll always be in the minority, marginalized and if what we believe or don’t believe becomes known either tolerated or avoided. The church is not going to change as long as the version of the first vision continues to proclaim all other churches are false.
Quote:My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner therefore did I get possession of myself so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right, (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their Creeds were an abomination in his sight, that those professors were all corrupt, that “they draw near to me to with their lips but their hearts are far from me, They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of Godliness but they deny the power thereof.”10
When people stand and say that they know the church is true, it’s exclusivity and literalness they’re testifying to. That doesn’t mean they don’t love their neighbors and see the worth in other churches and religions. If the church and it’s theology “grows up” it won’t be the church anymore. It will be just another sort of mainstream to the right of center Christian denomination that will slowly fade like all the rest.I just keep scratching my head. I like some/most of what I hear about “new Mormonism”, but it seems like a different religion to me. I just can’t see a path even in my kids lifetimes to make that big of a switch. We still have not fully gotten over Polygamy and that has been one and a quarter century ago. No offense intended GBSmith, but I think you’re doing exactly what Prince was talking about – conflating faith and the church. My belief in the church certainly has changed since my own faith transition, but part of that transition has been separating the gospel, the church, and faith. The three are unarguably intricately connected, yet they are individual and separate entities. A belief in whether or not the church is true or the one true church or whatever terminology one is inclined to use is completely different from having true faith in the Divine. Testimony is related to faith but is not the same as faith. I’m certainly not meaning to demean anyone whose faith is different (or more or less mature) than mine – your testimony (or faith) doesn’t need to be this tall to enter. I understand that my faith has matured, and probably would not have done so without the faith crisis. That may have been God’s way for increasing my faith (or may not), but because that’s what it took for me does not mean it will take that for everyone. Likewise, it doesn’t really matter to me where someone else’s faith or testimony are, it only matters where mine is (I just have to keep reminding myself of that every F&TM). Everyone else’s faith is between everyone else and God.
Quote:Were I to approach a recommend interview with this sort of nuanced approach including disbelief in the historicity of the BoM, I’d be turned down and likely would be taken off the list for callings other than nursery.
Not so. The Book of Mormon isn’t included in the TR questions. I don’t recall ever being asked if I believe the BoM to be true, not have I ever been asked if I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. I do not believe the BoM is a historical text (neither is the Bible, which I do think is mostly translated correctly, for that matter). My answers to almost all of the questions (which is always a simple yes or no) is nuanced but I hold a temple recommend and a fairly substantial calling.
LookingHard wrote:I just keep scratching my head. I like some/most of what I hear about “new Mormonism”, but it seems like a different religion to me. I just can’t see a path even in my kids lifetimes to make that big of a switch. We still have not fully gotten over Polygamy and that has been one and a quarter century ago.
I agree LH. I’m not sure there really is a “new Mormonism.” There are more and more people who believe like me all the time though. I think we do (or eventually will) fit into the “old” Mormonism.
I had a few more thoughts on this idea of faith vs. belief last night as I was thinking about it. First of all, I think Prince is right that belief systems / worldviews are not the same thing at all as faith, although most members really don’t think it through that much. To them, they say “I know this church is true,” and what they mean is “I buy into this worldview,” and the worldview is stuff like the plan of salvation, our leaders being prophets, the Word of Wisdom being God’s health code, and polygamy in the eternities being a possibility. So “faith” within this context specifically means being willing to act on that worldview even though it’s an unseen or unprovable belief. In this sense, though, faith is an active way to control our destiny by obeying commandments that “bind” God’s blessings. It’s really the opposite of what’s being talked about here by Prince. Church leaders always mean “action on beliefs” when they talk about faith. It’s not passive. It’s focused on obedience. And obedience binds God’s blessings. Quid pro quo, if you will.
The eastern approach is all about detachment, recognizing that we are not and cannot be in control of things. There’s a focus on right action, right thinking, and morality (e.g. no harm to others), but even if we do those things, we don’t necessarily receive anything for it other than enlightenment and peace. And yes, there’s a strain of that within Mormonism, too, but it’s the sort of thing that Mormons continue to need reminders about because the tendency is so focused on obedience, being more right than others, and control, that we really are the opposite of humble and spiritual in most of the lessons I’m sitting in. There’s so much self-righteous self-congratulations coming from church members. It’s not encouraging.
I’m also not sure Prince, Miller, et al are correct that this is the only way for Mormonism to survive. I think what they are saying is that the church’s worldview doesn’t bear close scrutiny, and that it’s doomed to fail if it doesn’t adapt to the transparency of our day. But nearly half our country supports Donald Trump, even after everything that’s happened, so all I can say to that is that people simply aren’t that smart. People in the church reflect society at large. They really don’t know what they are talking about. The stance of loyalty over knowledge works for most people. They are emotional. They don’t care about being objective. They buy the current party line as is and this approach is far too esoteric for most of them. . .
What I keep thinking is that the parallel for church development is Catholicism. At some point, we have to become flexible in the way the Catholic church did. And that’s probably just allowing for disbelief among our congregants. But they had to go through the Inquisition to get where they are today. So that part sucks.
Quote:We really don’t fit and though we try to find a way to be here, we’ll always be in the minority, marginalized and if what we believe or don’t believe becomes known either tolerated or avoided.
I don’t know. 40 years ago my aunt divorced her non-believing husband (I believe at the instruction of a church leader). The same leader suggested she high tail it to Zion (Utah) and raise her brood among the saints. So she did. This was the 1970’s divorce was not tolerated. She talks of years of exclusion, snubbing, and rejection from the very Zion people she had hoped for. Today, every ward is full of divorced people or the children of divorced people. I have even seen divorced couples, who have remarried remain in the ward or Stake, and some how we all make it through. Less guilt and less shame.
Quote:The church is not going to change as long as the version of the first vision continues to proclaim all other churches are false.
Might do, but we still have the privilege now of “bearing witness” to the Joseph’s 1st – First Vision Account. I also believe many other churches proclaim our church is false and will do that forever, too.
Quote:I’m not sure there really is a “new Mormonism.” I think we do (or eventually will) fit into the “old” Mormonism
When did Old Mormonism start? Because we are neither Joseph Smith’s Mormonism or Brigham Young’s Mormonism. We fast on Sunday’s now, not Thursday as they did orignally. We have block meeting hours, not separate ones like I grew up with. We have one style fits everything buildings, not original creations like my parents generation had. So what define’s old and new?
Quote:There are more and more people who believe like me all the time though.
This past Sunday I cracked open my nuanced convictions in RS, and guess what some of the TBMs thanked me, nodded along, and whispered “me,too.” Yes, if we compared JS notes, we might be off, but there is plenty he said that I can bring to make a common conversation and still be at peace with my stance and theirs, too.We use the terms faith and commitment but tend to leave out the “in” and “to”. HG has referenced the “faith in” as manifested by obedience to facets of the doctrine but commitment which may seem to be something higher is still “to” something with some sort of understood behavior which can be considered obedience as well.
DarkJedi wrote:No offense intended GBSmith, but I think you’re doing exactly what Prince was talking about – conflating faith and the church.
I’m not conflating the two but on the basis of this discussion I think the majority of active members do.
Quote:My belief in the church certainly has changed since my own faith transition, but part of that transition has been separating the gospel, the church, and faith. The three are unarguably intricately connected, yet they are individual and separate entities. A belief in whether or not the church is true or the one true church or whatever terminology one is inclined to use is completely different from having true faith in the Divine. Testimony is related to faith but is not the same as faith
No argument there but true faith in the divine doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is part of who the believer is and how he/she lives their lives. Stop for a second and think where you’d be given the current state of your faith assuming the true faith you mention. If you didn’t have friends of family in the LDS church, would you still attend and actively participate?
Quote:Not so. The Book of Mormon isn’t included in the TR questions. I don’t recall ever being asked if I believe the BoM to be true, not have I ever been asked if I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. I do not believe the BoM is a historical text (neither is the Bible, which I do think is mostly translated correctly, for that matter). My answers to almost all of the questions (which is always a simple yes or no) is nuanced but I hold a temple recommend and a fairly substantial calling.
Agreed, the specific questions aren’t there but are part of the question if you have a testimony of the restored gospel. My answers are nuanced too and I have a recommend and teach GD but my point was I only have those things because leadership doesn’t know what I really believe and I’m not about to tell them. Telling my first wife that I didn’t believe the BoM was what it claimed was the next to the last nail in the coffin of our marriage and sharing my beliefs with the powers that be would only to serve to marginalize me. For me the church is my family and friends and the people like my bishop that I respect and for now I won’t do anything to jeopardize that. I just don’t believe the peculiarities of the church and the faith that most members and the leadership have it them is going to change and that means there won’t ever really be a place for me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.