- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My latest blog post has kicked up quite a storm. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/new-mormonism/ On the Mormon discussions board they were talking about this idea of New Mormonism, where historical claims are deemphasized and talking about whether it was viable or not. This is my thing right now, so I put up a summary of the discussion and my points to address the issues.
What do you guys think?
And a question. I was invited to do an interview for the podcast naked Mormonism. The creator Bryce Blankenagel seems like a decent guy, but his podcasts are not LDS friendly and one is named “Special Edition Episode 10 – ROT IN HELL Boyd K. Packer!!!”. Not really something I want to be associated with. Good or bad idea? churchistrue wrote:And a question. I was invited to do an interview for the podcast naked Mormonism. The creator Bryce Blankenagel seems like a decent guy, but his podcasts are not LDS friendly and one is named “Special Edition Episode 10 – ROT IN HELL Boyd K. Packer!!!”. Not really something I want to be associated with. Good or bad idea?
Just looked briefly at the site, and I would say: bad idea. I assume you’re trying to reach a large audience and any podcast that talks about “Joe” isn’t going to do that.This next is truly friendly (there are so many ways in which I hope the church will change) advice. In your blog post you’ve labeled a picture of Terryl Givens as the “Godfather” of New Mormonism. I don’t think that’s a great idea. Anything that sets someone up as a leader is going to get negative attention, I think. Now, if Terryl Givens (or you, or anybody) writes a book or a blog that creates incredible response and discussion, I think that’s a little different. The ideas are out in front. But I don’t think others should call
hima leader. Maybe that’s splitting hairs. This is my gut reaction. I’m opened to being disagreed with.
🙂 Quote:In your blog post you’ve labeled a picture of Terryl Givens as the “Godfather” of New Mormonism. I don’t think that’s a great idea.
I agree Ann. I also don’t think Terryl Givens see himself as changing the religion. At best I think they see themselves as demonstrating how they navigate their life in the faith and are willing to be support or assistance to others who are working in the nuanced areas. Terryl would not want to be seen as The Godfather of New Mormonism.
Having met Terryl and Fiona, they are delightful people. I don’t think they see themselves as changing the religion nor do I think they see themselves as reformers. They are faithful, believing members whose message is that we can be faithful and believing and fully active while not necessarily having the same point of view as our neighbor. I also looked at the site your referenced CIT, and I guess it all depends on what you want to accomplish. My brief first impression is that the site is not a site for believers who want to be a part of the church, rather there seems to be a fair amount of negativity and mockery there.
I’m frankly not sure there is a “new Mormonism.” I think as the church matures there is and will be more room for diversity of opinion and thought, but I think that just part of the maturation and evolution of the church. I’ve been trying hard lately not to label myself and others as conservative, old school, hardline, progressive, orthodox, unorthodox, etc. (I’m finding it difficult quite honestly.) I think we should follow the example of Judaism – in the end we’re all Jews (or all Mormons in our case) regardless of our bent toward orthodoxy, reform, conservative, or whatever.
Ann wrote:churchistrue wrote:And a question. I was invited to do an interview for the podcast naked Mormonism. The creator Bryce Blankenagel seems like a decent guy, but his podcasts are not LDS friendly and one is named “Special Edition Episode 10 – ROT IN HELL Boyd K. Packer!!!”. Not really something I want to be associated with. Good or bad idea?
Just looked briefly at the site, and I would say: bad idea. I assume you’re trying to reach a large audience and any podcast that talks about “Joe” isn’t going to do that.This next is truly friendly (there are so many ways in which I hope the church will change) advice. In your blog post you’ve labeled a picture of Terryl Givens as the “Godfather” of New Mormonism. I don’t think that’s a great idea. Anything that sets someone up as a leader is going to get negative attention, I think. Now, if Terryl Givens (or you, or anybody) writes a book or a blog that creates incredible response and discussion, I think that’s a little different. The ideas are out in front. But I don’t think others should call
hima leader. Maybe that’s splitting hairs. This is my gut reaction. I’m opened to being disagreed with.
🙂
The Godfather bit is meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, humorous. But I think it’s also a bit observational. He is a thought leader in this post information era of Mormonism.DarkJedi wrote:I also looked at the site your referenced CIT, and I guess it all depends on what you want to accomplish. My brief first impression is that the site is not a site for believers who want to be a part of the church, rather there seems to be a fair amount of negativity and mockery there.
What do you think is negative and mocking there? That’s my site, and everything there I wrote. And I wouldn’t want to come across as mocking Mormonism at all.churchistrue wrote:
The Godfather bit is meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, humorous. But I think it’s also a bit observational. He is a thought leader in this post information era of Mormonism.
I really hesitated to say anything, CIT, because I knew that that was one way to take it. Maybe I’m too sensitive because I so badly want the Givenses’ approach to take hold in the church. I’m nervous about anything that could diminish their influence.(I’m guessing DJ meant the Naked Mormonism site, not yours.)
I agree with what has been already said about the Terryl Givens. You mention avoiding the JD trap. I suggest that making such a claim about Terryl makes it seem (erroneously) like he is at the head of a movement. Your blog post is interesting. it makes me think of this classic article by Eugene England :
http://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel I like your proposition that the church brings us closer to God – even through imperfect and man made ways. On the other hand, there are things in the church that seem to encourage unnecessary division, judgment, and clannishness. Are we really any closer to God or are we just really good at climbing the social ladder of our club/religion? I read a quote that seems to apply here, “There are few things that people/groups will tolerate less than loving their enemies.” On the other hand, a good portion of that division and arrogance might melt away if we were to remove the sense of exclusive access to God and understanding of His will.
Finally, I think that this approach can be successful on an individual level – particularly for someone that is permitted to reduce or regulate the level that they contribute to the church at whatever level is sustainable for them.
In your sacramental/metaphorical paradigm (as I understand it) the religion represents the collective expression of the community in trying to draw closer to God. I believe that to be good and true but I also believe in the value of the individual offering/journey/sacrament. The individual path or sacrament is where the individual brings/builds his or her offering and tries to draw closer to God. This offering can be independent of any communal worship or it might dovetail/overlap to various degrees.
There can be tensions between the individual path and the community path as they diverge.
churchistrue wrote:DarkJedi wrote:I also looked at the site your referenced CIT, and I guess it all depends on what you want to accomplish. My brief first impression is that the site is not a site for believers who want to be a part of the church, rather there seems to be a fair amount of negativity and mockery there.
What do you think is negative and mocking there? That’s my site, and everything there I wrote. And I wouldn’t want to come across as mocking Mormonism at all.Yes, I was referring to the Naked Mormonism site. I should have been more clear.
Roy wrote:In your sacramental/metaphorical paradigm (as I understand it) the religion represents the collective expression of the community in trying to draw closer to God. I believe that to be good and true but I also believe in the value of the individual offering/journey/sacrament. The individual path or sacrament is where the individual brings/builds his or her offering and tries to draw closer to God. This offering can be independent of any communal worship or it might dovetail/overlap to various degrees.
There can be tensions between the individual path and the community path as they diverge.
I like what you say here. I think the role of church is heavily leaning towards that community path. While individual worship is the place for the individual path. It’s good to acknowledge and understand the different needs of each and how they might clash.
To me, “New Mormonism” sounds like punting on 2nd down – to use a football analogy. I have found that truth claims and moral or accuracy judgements about history that are not based on testimony from the Holy Ghost are frequently overreaching and assume a lot. I think making such judgements and then acting on them by creating “New Mormonism” reveals something about how you’ve chosen to fill in the gaps of knowledge we are all faced with around these issues. I can barely judge accurately the things I’m fully immersed in right now, much less people or events from nearly 200 years ago. I have been online for a long time now, and I second what has been said by others: 1) Avoid that podcast and seeming to endorse or be affiliated with that blog like the plague, IF what you are trying to do is related in any way to staying LDS. The potential collateral damage is far too serious.
2) “Godfather” has a negative tone on its own within many cultures. I think it is a word, in and of itself, that the Givenes would not like being used to describe them. I also am positive they would not like being labeled as people who are leading a movement of any kind. Frankly, I would go back to the post, if I was the author, and edit that part to remove that word – replacing it, perhaps, with something like “one of the more prominent faithful voices in the continuing evolution of Mormon theology”.
Words are important, and you don’t want to ruin the message you are trying to convey by using words and positioning that will cause strongly negative reactions and stop people from getting what you are saying.
rcronk wrote:To me, “New Mormonism” sounds like punting on 2nd down – to use a football analogy. I have found that truth claims and moral or accuracy judgements about history that are not based on testimony from the Holy Ghost are frequently overreaching and assume a lot. I think making such judgements and then acting on them by creating “New Mormonism” reveals something about how you’ve chosen to fill in the gaps of knowledge we are all faced with around these issues. I can barely judge accurately the things I’m fully immersed in right now, much less people or events from nearly 200 years ago.
It is certainly not impossible to judge some things based on our knowledge and independent of a spiritual witness. Truth exists whether recognize it by the Spirit or some other way and truths which are not spiritual also exist. The closest thing I can come to saying “I know” is true is the teaching that we need to love our neighbors and be kind to others. I believe it’s true because it’s nearly universally taught in religions and belief systems (Judeo-Christian, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism). If this is something that God really wants us to know, He is being effective at getting the point across. There is no overreaching or assumptions made in this conclusion, yet I have neither asked for nor received a spiritual witness of its truth (maybe because I don’t need a witness to believe it or maybe because that’s not how God tells me things or maybe some other reason).
If there is such a thing as a new Mormonism, I don’t think the idea is to make up new things to believe or new ways to act or fundamentally change of “reform” the church. I think the idea is to recognize that we’re not all gingerbread men and women who look, act, and believe exactly the same and that’s OK. If we believe the
gospel of Jesus Christand act accordingly (and according to the dictates of our own hearts) we’re going to be OK. We don’t have to believe in a church teaching beyond the gospel – some of which we can judge to have been wrong after two hundred years. Likewise, leaders like Pres. Uchtdorf and Elder Robbins (just to name a couple) have taught us that our individual testimonies and levels of knowledge and understanding differ but that we’re all welcome at church because we need to strengthen and help each other – not because we’re there to show off our own testimonies and knowledge. I agree with focusing on Christ, etc., but I can (and have) done that in any Christian church. If we punt on the difficult parts of the history of the church especially about the Book of Mormon or whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then we become just another man-made church and that’s it. If the important historical parts of the church are actually true, then it really is Christ’s church with the authority to perform saving ordinances and that’s extremely important. I have received specific testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I’ve also witnessed miraculous healing by the power of the priesthood. Because I received those testimonies, I tend to dig a bit harder when I see historical claims that conflict with them. I’ve found that most of the conflicting claims I’ve researched are shallow and logically fallacious, and when I dig deeper all the way to source documents and get some 200-year-old context, I find treasures of truth that actually strengthen my testimony rather than weakening it. I also found that most people stop digging into history and other research when they find what matches their existing worldview. It’s important to push past that and the discomfort involved all the way to the truth. I felt that “New Mormonism” represents an unwillingness to push past difficult issues all the way to the truth. “These things are hard or scary, let’s sweep them under the rug and just focus on Christ.” I agree in the focusing on Christ part, that’s good. I don’t agree on punting on the hard things. If I had done that, I wouldn’t have found the truth of these matters and I also would have had a hidden wedge in my testimony that might cause me to just go join some other Christian denomination because they’re all the same, right? Plus I think seeking truth, especially in the face of fear is a moral good in and of itself. We can all be different and not cookie cutters while still seeking truth rather than sweeping it under the rug.
I had to add this. My 2-year-old said just now, “Let’s turn the light off so we can’t see.” That summarizes the attitude of New Mormonism perfectly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.