Greg Prince’s Interview & New Mormonism

[Anonymous]

ydeve wrote:

Quote:

1) Does staying in the church, whatever our reasons, make us complicit in the harm done to LGBT, women, etc.?

On the contrary, we need understanding people who remain active in their wards and branches. Being LGBT, especially when you’re still coming to terms with your sexuality, it can be very easy to internalize negative messages from church, and it helps to hear someone speak up when TBMs say hurtful things. And even after you’ve come to terms with who you are, it helps to know that you’re not alone, that there are people who care and don’t see you as diseased.

:thumbup:

[Anonymous]

My existence in the Church has helped multiple LGBTQ members directly, both in person and online.

Complicit? Hell, no.

[Anonymous]

I think you are only complicit when you apply the anti-gay attitudes you learn at church. If you reject them, you are not at all complicit – in fact, you are a force for change inside the organization. You are a friend who has a deep understanding of what it means to be Mormon when talking to other gay people in the church. As we have done on this website.

I don’t think resigning would generate much improvement for gays really.

[Anonymous]

I think there has been a constant charge for “New Mormonism” since the very beginning. “New” and “Restorationist” was what the religion was founded on, and what we seem to value.

What we are living through and seeing is not unheard of from other generations. Problems and questions on authority and disappointments in the church have always been a part of our history.

See here

One movement there was called “Church of Jesus Christ of All Latter-day Saints” [emphasis added]. Also looks like some movements were derived around the LGBT issues.

I wonder what Greg Prince would think is different now than all these other movements that have continually splintered off on various issues over every generation? I would think the motivation for many of these movements was precisely because they could not feel like staying or they would feel complicit in what they disagreed with. On matters of their conscience and on principle, they had to leave. They likely even felt God told them to.

And mormonism rolls on, with or without them. None seem to stay intact, nor rival the LDS church in time. Perhaps they bring some people some peace.

What do you all think…is this something different this time?

[Anonymous]

I think the real difference is in how some individuals approach their faith, but I will guess that many of the people they refer to as part of “New Mormonism” are simply not the binary, black & white literalists and never were. And yet, I don’t think the church has always been black-and-white, literalist, binary either. We had some fairly universalist leaning in our roots. Somewhere along the way, I’m thinking late 80s (Benson/McConkie, *cough cough*) we got in bed with the evangelicals, and we have consistently become more like them. But not everyone is like them. Those of us who aren’t, we’ve never been that way. It’s just that the others have grown to be more numerous than the rest of us, and they are loud and pushy about it.

I did a post on this today: https://wheatandtares.org/2016/10/18/new-mormonism/

[Author]

Posts