- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thanks for the feedback, guys. churchistrue wrote:Thanks for the feedback, guys.
What do you think about my feedback? Am I being a jerk or have I misunderstood the “New Mormonism” principles? My delivery is sometimes blunt and I apologize for that.
rcronk wrote:churchistrue wrote:Thanks for the feedback, guys.
What do you think about my feedback? Am I being a jerk or have I misunderstood the “New Mormonism” principles? My delivery is sometimes blunt and I apologize for that.
We see it very differently, so it’s hard for me to give response. I don’t think you’re a jerk or too blunt. I appreciate all the feedback.
Quote: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.
I think the church is man-made. But I think all religion is man-made. So I wouldn’t want to de-emphasize the Book of Mormon. And I don’t want to take back the stance that Joseph was a prophet or that we have prophet today. I might have a different view of what a prophet is, but I think it’s still a powerful concept.
You may read me as saying “These things are hard or scary, let’s sweep them under the rug and just focus on Christ.” but I’m not saying that. I’m saying, let’s acknowledge these were man-made origins (or at least acknowledge those who believe that way are acceptable) but continue to operate in the same way, with the robust restored gospel message we have today.
I think rcronk’s feedback is a pretty common response. There are many current members that would not be able to transition well to the sacramental paradigm. I believe that there are many former members for whom a more nuanced paradigm did not work. For this reason I believe this paradigm can work for certain individuals but could be devastating if implemented church wide. churchistrue wrote:You may read me as saying “These things are hard or scary, let’s sweep them under the rug and just focus on Christ.” but I’m not saying that. I’m saying, let’s acknowledge these were man-made origins (or
at least acknowledge those who believe that way are acceptable) but continue to operate in the same way, with the robust restored gospel message we have today. I do hope that there can be room made for those that believe differently but are not aggressively vocal or divisive with their beliefs.
rcronk wrote: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.
I don’t think it does. I don’t think the likes of Givens or Bushman are saying that at all – they’re both historians and both believers. I think they are saying to look at the history from a faithful questioning point of view (if you must) as opposed to a doubting/cynical point of view. Again, if there is such a thing as new Mormonism I don’t believe the point behind it is to put our heads in the sand – I believe it’s quite the opposite and actually encourages gaining an understanding of the history and doctrine in context. Since many in faith crisis were brought there by new historical information that threw them for a loop (I’m not included in that group), I think new Mormonism (if it exists) attempts to be more open and honest about those tings so that doesn’t happen to others in the future. Likewise, taking a broader (and perhaps less McConkie-esque) view of doctrine also alleviates the chance of FC and can help overcome the FC and transition.
Like CIT, I think the church is man made. That doesn’t mean JS wasn’t a prophet or that TSM is not a prophet. That also doesn’t mean that the BoM is “false” (the opposite of true). It just means, as CIT said, we see things differently – but I’m just as much a Mormon as you are.
Quote: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?
I think you already know the answer. You knew before you asked.
amateurparent wrote:Quote: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?
I think you already know the answer. You knew before you asked.
Yeah, I wanted to check to make sure I wasn’t being too holier than thou.
churchistrue wrote:I’m saying, let’s acknowledge these were man-made origins (or at least acknowledge those who believe that way are acceptable) but continue to operate in the same way, with the robust restored gospel message we have today.
There is room for such opinions, but no, I won’t acknowledge man-made origins because the evidence, witnesses, and my own spiritual confirmations don’t support such an assertion. I support your right to express that opinion and will give you a place to express it, but we can discuss it right? We can discuss the statement that “it’s likely there were no brass plates” where you are calling dozens of witnesses liars. What’s that about?
[Admin Note]: Careful, everyone. This is primarily a support group where we don’t try to assert any particular point as the only true and acceptable view. We also don’t do debates. We can talk respectfully about different perspectives, and we haven’t crossed the line yet in this thread, but let’s be careful about accusatory charges. If responses start getting adversarial and emotional, the threads tend to get closed.
As an example, the tone of the last sentence of the last comment changes dramatically with a simple tweak like, “Are you saying you think the witnesses lied in what they said?”
Roy wrote:I do hope that there can be room made for those that believe differently but are not aggressively vocal or divisive with their beliefs.
Of course. There’s room for all kinds of beliefs. I never said there wasn’t. I want to discuss those beliefs and understand why and how they work because doing that helps me refine my own beliefs.
:thumbup: DarkJedi wrote:rcronk wrote: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.
I don’t think it does. I don’t think the likes of Givens or Bushman are saying that at all – they’re both historians and both believers. I think they are saying to look at the history from a faithful questioning point of view (if you must) as opposed to a doubting/cynical point of view. Again, if there is such a thing as new Mormonism I don’t believe the point behind it is to put our heads in the sand – I believe it’s quite the opposite and actually encourages gaining an understanding of the history and doctrine in context. Since many in faith crisis were brought there by new historical information that threw them for a loop (I’m not included in that group), I think new Mormonism (if it exists) attempts to be more open and honest about those tings so that doesn’t happen to others in the future. Likewise, taking a broader (and perhaps less McConkie-esque) view of doctrine also alleviates the chance of FC and can help overcome the FC and transition.
I’m down with that. It works as long as neither side is arrogant or overreaching. Humility demands that we admit we really don’t know 1/100th of the reality of any part of history. Faith fills in the gaps for now, not fake facts (on both sides).
DarkJedi wrote:Like CIT, I think the church is man made. That doesn’t mean JS wasn’t a prophet or that TSM is not a prophet. That also doesn’t mean that the BoM is “false” (the opposite of true). It just means, as CIT said, we see things differently – but I’m just as much a Mormon as you are.
Being “man-made” means what exactly then? That God and Christ didn’t appear to Joseph Smith? That Christ didn’t tell Joseph to form Christ’s church? That he didn’t translate the Book of Mormon from brass plates? That it’s not the word of God? Or something else?
Old-Timer wrote:[Admin Note]: Careful, everyone. This is primarily a support group where we don’t try to assert any particular point as the only true and acceptable view. We also don’t do debates.
We can talk respectfully about different perspectives, and we haven’t crossed the line yet in this thread, but let’s be careful about accusatory charges. If responses start getting adversarial and emotional, the threads tend to get closed.
As an example, the tone of the last sentence of the last comment changes dramatically with a simple tweak like, “Are you saying you think the witnesses lied in what they said?”
Noted. I will edit before saving to make sure my delivery is good. I can be blunt at times and don’t want that to distract from what’s important.
rcronk wrote:DarkJedi wrote:Like CIT, I think the church is man made. That doesn’t mean JS wasn’t a prophet or that TSM is not a prophet. That also doesn’t mean that the BoM is “false” (the opposite of true). It just means, as CIT said, we see things differently – but I’m just as much a Mormon as you are.
Being “man-made” means what exactly then? That God and Christ didn’t appear to Joseph Smith? That Christ didn’t tell Joseph to form Christ’s church? That he didn’t translate the Book of Mormon from brass plates? That it’s not the word of God? Or something else?
I think you’re asking my opinion/thoughts on the questions you ask. These are mine and do not represent any official stances of the church or doctrine or policy, nor do they represent the views Givens, Bushman, or any practitioner of “new Mormonism.” It’s just the way I see things and how it works for me.
Man made is exactly how it sounds – the church was made by men (principally Joseph Smith, but others and his successors as president also played – and do play – a part).
I believe Joseph Smith did have a profound spiritual experience somewhere near his home as a youth. I believe that it was as it is billed – a vision, not a physical manifestation. It is possible that God the Father and Jesus Christ did appear to Joseph in that vision, it is also possible these were other beings who Joseph interpreted as being God and Jesus. His main goal was to seek forgiveness of his own sins and I believe he believed he received that forgiveness. In reality Joseph spoke very little about this experience and it was not emphasized in the early church as it is today. Nevertheless, I do believe Joseph had a profound spiritual experience and I believe him.
I am not at all sure Christ told Joseph to form a church. Joseph may have believed He did. I do see the importance and necessity of having a church at least as an organized way of performing ordinances and teaching and I do recognize that reforming any of the existing churches to the way Joseph saw things was probably not going to work. Therefore Joseph may well have seen the need to form a church, it was not uncommon then and it is not uncommon now to do so. I lean toward it being Joseph’s idea to form a church, perhaps with the approval of God or Christ (at least in his mind).
I do not believe there were any physical gold/brass plates. The Book of Mormon is a good book which can bring people closer to God and Christ because it does teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t believe it is a literal history of a people who inhabited the Americas (or anywhere else). I don’t view the Bible as literal, either (and I don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Job, or Jonah). Joseph could have been inspired in translating the Book of Mormon or at least parts of it. C.S. Lewis, Charles Dickens and J.R.R. Tolkien could also have been inspired.
I’m not sure that any book contains the “word of God.” I suppose in part that depends on one’s interpretation of what or who God is. Scriptural accounts actually give little, if any, reference to God the Father interacting with us. They do tell of some limited interaction with Jehovah/Jesus. Most interaction, including the Doctrine and Covenants, was/is through the Holy Ghost. While it is apparently possible the Holy Ghost can speak audibly, it seems to more often speak to the mind and most often through feelings or impressions as opposed to words. It is difficult for me to put such feelings or impressions into words and I think that’s true of most, if not all, people. I think that’s exactly what Paul meant when he said he saw through a glass darkly. I also relate to Paul in that same passage when he said when he was a child he saw as a child and understood as a child, but as a man had put away childish things. I think I have reached a similar point (it could be related to Fowler’s faith stages). And, I think I understand what Paul meant when he said at some future time he would see things as they really are (that time as not arrived for me, I believe it is some point in the far future and in a different life).
Having said all that, does that mean I don’t think Joseph was a prophet? Again, I think the answer to that in part depends on your definition of prophet. He fits my definition, which is that of an inspired teacher. His successors also fit.
Do any of these beliefs (or others – I don’t believe God hears/answers prayers, I don’t think He cares about our personal lives quite honestly) prevent me from being a fully active, temple recommend holder with a calling? No. Do I care that you sitting next to me believes differently? No – because we both have a desire to do what’s right and we both believe in Christ.
rcronk wrote:churchistrue wrote:I’m saying, let’s acknowledge these were man-made origins (or at least acknowledge those who believe that way are acceptable) but continue to operate in the same way, with the robust restored gospel message we have today.
There is room for such opinions, but no, I won’t acknowledge man-made origins because the evidence, witnesses, and my own spiritual confirmations don’t support such an assertion.
I support your right to express that opinion and will give you a place to express it, but we can discuss it right?
The way I feel, that “place to discuss it,” doesn’t exist in sacrament meeting, or SS class, or amongst church friends. It’s very easy for me to understand why people leave. They feel alone in a full chapel. If dedication to the literal truth claims – and not the religion and way of life founded on those claims – is made a litmus test for belonging in a sort of retrenched “neo”-Mormonism, I will slip away.I recently read someone talking about the difference between
historyand heritage. I can’t flesh it out right now, but I think it’s an intriguing discussion to be had in the church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.