New Mormonism

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

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.

Thanks for explaining your point of view. As I have had different experiences, my point of view is different from yours and I agree that we can coexist just fine and follow Christ together just fine. I think that while some of the details about Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon don’t directly affect my ability to follow Christ, they infer some things that might affect my progression and salvation. Because of that, I can see why some people would be careful with how such things are discussed. I’ve already left the church and have come back and so I’m pretty open to discussing whatever, but some people might not feel fine about it because of fear or not wanting false doctrine introduced in a place that’s supposed to be a source of truth – perhaps they’ve received a confirmation spiritually that certain things are true and so they don’t want to introduce information contrary to that truth. There could be many reasons.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

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 history and heritage. I can’t flesh it out right now, but I think it’s an intriguing discussion to be had in the church.

I have also felt alone in crowded rooms. It sucks. As I have left the church, been a horrific person doing horrific things, then come back to church, sometimes I feel a little (or a lot) different. Kind of like the prodigal son, I suppose.

I want to walk through some thought experiments to see if there’s a way through such loneliness and what that might look like. It seems like the two main options are that there needs to be discussion of doubts in general meetings in church or that the discussions have to be in a different setting. I’ll try to walk through why I think that might be the case below.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Joseph Smith was actually a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon was actually translated from brass plates by the power of God and that satan is actually real and wants people not to believe in those truths. I think we can agree that there are many unknowns in history and can accept that as a given in this argument. What is the net effect of bringing up doubts and filling in the unknowns of history with what we think might have happened in an environment of many people at many different stages of spiritual and faith development? I’ve seen it happen where people with a little faith have had that faith destroyed by doubts or concerns that ended up not being true but they didn’t stick around long enough to find that out. It’s human nature to succumb to fears and doubts rather than having confidence and faith. I wish everyone (myself included) had a solid testimony of important things such that we could work through doubts and issues in an open forum without any collateral damage, but I’ve seen collateral damage before and it seems there might be a better way to work through those things where we can work through doubts and issues.

Now assume for the sake of argument that most of it is false, Joseph isn’t a prophet, no brass plates, etc. then it would actually be good to discuss the likelihood of those things being false in an open forum. We’re not bringing falsehoods but truth to the table and helping people to let go of their traditional beliefs that are actually false.

It seems to me that the fundamental issue here pivots on whether these things (Joseph Smith being called of God to restore Christ’s church, brass plates, Book of Mormon, etc.) are actually true or false. In order to pick one of the two arguments above and have it be the best choice, we first have to know the truth of these basic premises. Otherwise, we could, based on assumption, end up causing more harm than good by injecting falsehoods into the discussion.

So it’s a bit of a paradox. It seems we would have to find out the truth before being able to decide which method of discussing the issues in question would have the best outcome. I have found one pattern that works for me to know the truth of obscure things (we have heard this one before): study it out honestly and thoroughly, then go to God to get the truth handed to me. I can only testify of what I myself have experienced, but the answers I have received after following the above pattern were quite profound and caused me to know certain things that are very important to me and that help me make big decisions in my life.

Like you said above, knowing that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God or whether the brass plates existed in and of themselves doesn’t affect me directly, it’s what flows from them that affects me – going on a mission (way late), staying in this church or not, getting away from friends that had a bad influence on me, giving up my sins that I had clung hard to, etc. because of the specific truths I have been able to trust in because of knowing Joseph was a prophet of God. Knowing that the Book of Mormon is the word of God has helped me stick with the Church that Christ set up instead of continuing to shop around for a pastor I liked the best. The result is a freedom from some of my sins that I never knew could be possible. I’m changing into being a better human being than I ever have been (you should have known me before to know this one’s true given my current weaknesses).

So I’m in a difficult position. Assume for the sake of argument that I actually did seek and find and received answers on these things that are true and someone wants to introduce the idea that these things really aren’t true, what am I supposed to do? It’s always easier to disbelieve than to believe especially if it’s in something that makes me have to give up my sins, so innocent bystanders might be lost because of the falsehoods discussed in an open forum. Do I sit back and say nothing because everyone should be able to say whatever they want? Do I welcome and engage in the conversation in a more safe environment where bystanders aren’t as easily hurt?

For the sake of argument again, let’s assume I’m delusional and am a victim of wishful thinking and am believing that I know things that I really don’t know and that in fact it’s all false. Then the best thing would be to bring up the truth of these things being false.

So here again, in order to make the right choice, we would need to know the truth first.

[Anonymous]

rcronk wrote:

Because of that, I can see why some people would be careful with how such things are discussed. I’ve already left the church and have come back and so I’m pretty open to discussing whatever, but some people might not feel fine about it because of fear or not wanting false doctrine introduced in a place that’s supposed to be a source of truth – perhaps they’ve received a confirmation spiritually that certain things are true and so they don’t want to introduce information contrary to that truth. There could be many reasons.

Which is why I discuss things here under relative anonymity and not in detail (or as bluntly) in the three hour block. 🙂

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

rcronk wrote:

Because of that, I can see why some people would be careful with how such things are discussed. I’ve already left the church and have come back and so I’m pretty open to discussing whatever, but some people might not feel fine about it because of fear or not wanting false doctrine introduced in a place that’s supposed to be a source of truth – perhaps they’ve received a confirmation spiritually that certain things are true and so they don’t want to introduce information contrary to that truth. There could be many reasons.

Which is why I discuss things here under relative anonymity and not in detail (or as bluntly) in the three hour block. 🙂

Understood. See my other reply above to Ann because I think it applies here too.

[Anonymous]

rcronk wrote:

So I’m in a difficult position. Assume for the sake of argument that I actually did seek and find and received answers on these things that are true and someone wants to introduce the idea that these things really aren’t true, what am I supposed to do?

Which perspective are you talking from here, the orthodox or heterodox member? Depending on the context I believe either camp could say the exact same thing.

rcronk wrote:

So here again, in order to make the right choice, we would need to know the truth first.

Not necessarily. Alma talks of experimenting upon the word. We can make a choice, evaluate whether it bears fruit, then decide whether the thing in question is a part of our truth. I try not to obsess over making the right choice because I try not to write my choices in stone. I also recognize that the right decision for me isn’t necessarily the right decision for everyone.

J. Reuben Clark wrote:

If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.

I think that’s the hardest part, when our truth is harmed how do we react? Do we doubt the old truth or do we doubt the investigation?

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

rcronk wrote:

So I’m in a difficult position. Assume for the sake of argument that I actually did seek and find and received answers on these things that are true and someone wants to introduce the idea that these things really aren’t true, what am I supposed to do?

Which perspective are you talking from here, the orthodox or heterodox member? Depending on the context I believe either camp could say the exact same thing.

Yes both camps could say the same thing. I was talking about it from my perspective, so it would be orthodox. Out of curiosity though, do we have people here claiming to have received answers through the Holy Spirit specifically about something heterodox? If so, I’d like to know more about that.

nibbler wrote:

rcronk wrote:

So here again, in order to make the right choice, we would need to know the truth first.

Not necessarily. Alma talks of experimenting upon the words. We can make a choice, evaluate whether it bears fruit, then decide whether the thing in question is a part of our truth. I try not to obsess over making the right choice because I try not to write my choices in stone. I also recognize that the right decision for me isn’t necessarily the right decision for everyone.

Yes, that’s during the investigation phase of seeking truth and I agree with that part. Regardless of whether we get the truth trough experience or investigation, we still need to know that truth in order to evaluate a correct moral choice.

nibbler wrote:

J. Reuben Clark wrote:

If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.

I think that’s the hardest part, when our truth is harmed how do we react? Do we doubt the old truth or do we doubt the investigation?

I agree. Over the years I’m learning to doubt my own old truth if it’s from myself, but when it’s about truth I’ve received from God, I doubt the investigation. It’s just based on my evaluation of the strength of the evidence.

[Anonymous]

rcronk wrote:

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Joseph Smith was actually a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon was actually translated from brass plates by the power of God and that satan is actually real and wants people not to believe in those truths. ….[snip]….Now assume for the sake of argument that most of it is false, Joseph isn’t a prophet, no brass plates, etc. then it would actually be good to discuss the likelihood of those things being false in an open forum. We’re not bringing falsehoods but truth to the table and helping people to let go of their traditional beliefs that are actually false.

You seem to be taking the position that the church is either wholly true in every important sense and ought to be built up and proclaimed to all as the doorway to life everlasting or that it is a fraud and false hope that should be denounced and torn down. That is a paradigm or worldview. CIT is operating from a different worldview. In CIT’s worldview (as I understand it) all churches represent Man’s best attempt to organize themselves and please God. For someone in CIT’s worldview the discussion of true/false becomes less relevant because all churches represent Man’s sincere effort towards goodness or even godliness.

CIT (as I understand him) does not see the church as false or want to destroy it. He sees good in the church and feels a certain level of Godly approval in becoming the best person that he can be with the help of the church. I believe he has created a blog to explore and express his ideas on the subject as well as to help others with similar struggles. If someone is struggling because they want the church to be true but can no longer maintain that belief (based upon their personal experiences and how they interpret the evidence), then CIT is offering a third alternative. They do not need to leave the church or fight against the church. They can stay in the church for the good that it offers. Without this alternative, some of those struggling will see no choice but to leave the church.

rcronk wrote:

What is the net effect of bringing up doubts and filling in the unknowns of history with what we think might have happened in an environment of many people at many different stages of spiritual and faith development? I’ve seen it happen where people with a little faith have had that faith destroyed by doubts or concerns that ended up not being true but they didn’t stick around long enough to find that out. It’s human nature to succumb to fears and doubts rather than having confidence and faith. I wish everyone (myself included) had a solid testimony of important things such that we could work through doubts and issues in an open forum without any collateral damage, but I’ve seen collateral damage before and it seems there might be a better way to work through those things where we can work through doubts and issues.

This is the real issue IMO. There are people who have not been exposed to what might seem like troubling aspects of our history and to discuss these things openly may cause them to enter a faith crisis where none existed before. This is the tight rope. How can we include people with doubts that want to stay without having those same doubts cross contaminate those with fledgling faith?

This is why I expressed to CIT that I believe his paradigm and worldview can be great on a personal scale but that it could be problematic on a church wide scale. IMO, the church right now is doing 2 things to address this issue.

1) Church leadership have stated in several instances essentially that having doubts or divergent points of belief is ok as long as we do not become overly vocal or divisive about those differences. What exactly constitutes “overly vocal or divisive” is not precisely clear – however CIT has stated that if a church authority asked him to take his blog down then he would do so without complaint so he seems to be well within the boundary.

2) The church seems to be bringing troubling aspects of our history forward and explaining them in as faithful as a way possible. The new church essays, the Joseph Smith Papers project, the new emphasis at the church history museum, and the support of publishing books such Rough Stone Rolling Massacre at Mountain Meadows are examples of this effort. This might be considered inoculation. The goal is to be communicating these things to people in faithful settings as they grow in the church so that they will feel less blindsided or lied to if/when they are confronted with these issues by church detractors later. Even this is no easy task. Some people are discovering things through these new approved church sources that they had never known before or had dismissed as anti-Mormon lies. Even this inoculation effort can cause faith crisis in some members. I believe, however, that in the long term the church as a whole should become better informed and better equipped to deal with negative historical discoveries. I believe the church has decided to push forward in the inoculation effort even though there will be some “collateral damage” in lost and damaged testimonies in the interim.

In summary, for people with this paradigm the true/false worldview is no longer very effective. Some who have lost hope of making the true/false paradigm work may still be successful looking for what is good and useful independent of “truth”. We here at StayLDS endeavor to support everyone that is working to stay connected to the church in whatever way works for them.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

In summary, for people with this paradigm the true/false worldview is no longer very effective. Some who have lost hope of making the true/false paradigm work may still be successful looking for what is good and useful independent of “truth”. We here at StayLDS endeavor to support everyone that is working to stay connected to the church in whatever way works for them.

I agree, Roy. I think much of what drives faith crisis is a black and white or all or nothing view. The church and the gospel are neither black or white, all or nothing, or true or false.

[Anonymous]

Roy and DarkJedi – good points. I like the way you unpacked that. I hadn’t realized that in simplifying the argument hypothetically to make it more clear, I created a false dichotomy between all true and all false extremes. I guess there is a valid dichotomy with each individual item like either Joseph Smith saw God and Christ or he didn’t; there were brass plates or there weren’t; the church either has authority from God or it doesn’t; etc. but not everything is all true or all false. I was trying to keep it just to the most basic things but even then there are those who might accept or reject some but not all of even the basics. I’ll keep thinking about this.

[Anonymous]

I made update to this topic. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/new-mormonism-scripture-and-authority/ This answers some of the questions brought up here, especially related to CoC.

[Anonymous]

churchistrue wrote:

I made update to this topic. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/new-mormonism-scripture-and-authority/ This answers some of the questions brought up here, especially related to CoC.

Thanks for clarifying CIT. I find it very interesting. I was impressed with the viewpoint of Marcus Borg.

Quote:

Question: In the Bible, you have God doing things that don’t seem like the God we believe in. For example, endorsing slavery or the genocide of the Amalekites. How do you go about deciding what you accept as truth and what is not? Whose job is that?

Answer: It is the discerning Christian community. It’s not up to the individual to pick and choose. You’ve heard the quip of Cafeteria Christians that just take what they like. No it’s the responsibility of the Christian community working under the direction of the Holy Ghost to make decisions of which of this material is relevant, and applicable, and authoritative for our time.

I believe that the “discerning Christian community” is a widely diverse group that may even include the Mormons. I agree that one could map out general trends among the entire Christian community and draw conclusions about what is “relevant, and applicable, and authoritative for our time.” Circumcision is an easy one that was a big topic in the new testament church that is not a relevant issue for the community today. Equality for women would probably also be trending. Because the community is so large it might be difficult to separate out which trends emerge from the Christian community itself and which trends are merely reflections of trends in larger society.

Applying this to the LDS church is slightly different because we have a definitive body of men that speak for the church. Is the “discerning [Mormon] community” the entire body of membership and discussion to include the bloggernaccle and every offshoot? Do Jana Riess, Joanna Brooks, John Dehlin, Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, and many, many more have a voice in the discerning Mormon community Or does the Mormon responsibility “to make decisions of which of this material is relevant, and applicable, and authoritative for our time” just fall with the Q15?

I ask not to convince you one way or the other but just to better understand. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

churchistrue wrote:

I made update to this topic. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/new-mormonism-scripture-and-authority/ This answers some of the questions brought up here, especially related to CoC.

Thanks for clarifying CIT. I find it very interesting. I was impressed with the viewpoint of Marcus Borg.

Quote:

Question: In the Bible, you have God doing things that don’t seem like the God we believe in. For example, endorsing slavery or the genocide of the Amalekites. How do you go about deciding what you accept as truth and what is not? Whose job is that?

Answer: It is the discerning Christian community. It’s not up to the individual to pick and choose. You’ve heard the quip of Cafeteria Christians that just take what they like. No it’s the responsibility of the Christian community working under the direction of the Holy Ghost to make decisions of which of this material is relevant, and applicable, and authoritative for our time.

I believe that the “discerning Christian community” is a widely diverse group that may even include the Mormons. I agree that one could map out general trends among the entire Christian community and draw conclusions about what is “relevant, and applicable, and authoritative for our time.” Circumcision is an easy one that was a big topic in the new testament church that is not a relevant issue for the community today. Equality for women would probably also be trending. Because the community is so large it might be difficult to separate out which trends emerge from the Christian community itself and which trends are merely reflections of trends in larger society.

Applying this to the LDS church is slightly different because we have a definitive body of men that speak for the church. Is the “discerning [Mormon] community” the entire body of membership and discussion to include the bloggernaccle and every offshoot? Do Jana Riess, Joanna Brooks, John Dehlin, Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, and many, many more have a voice in the discerning Mormon community Or does the Mormon responsibility “to make decisions of which of this material is relevant, and applicable, and authoritative for our time” just fall with the Q15?

I ask not to convince you one way or the other but just to better understand. Thanks!

Yes. So, the idea here for me is that there is the scriptures are a live document in the LDS church, as it is in the Christian community, though by different processes. LDS does not make its doctrinal decisions and declarations on what scriptures are relevant based on the community. That’s the job of the living prophet and the brethren. That’s a completely separate issue about whether or not that’s appropriate or how or why it should change. What I’m addressing here is the answer to the question, why is the Book of Mormon (and Bible) more relevant than The Grapes of Wrath, in terms of our study material and doctrinal understanding. Answer: because we as a church define the canon and the BOM and Bible are in the canon. But what if there’s stuff in the Bible or Book of Mormon that’s deemed to be incorrect or outdated or irrelevant, what’s the process of declaring that? The brethren tell us.

So that takes you to the next question on whether the voices you mention above Joanna Brooks, etc, should the brethren listen to them and incorporate their voices when they’re making decisions? IMHO, absolutely yes. And further, I think they do, more than we give them credit for. Could they move faster on some social issues? Yeah, probably. But that’s the process we have, and I support it.

[Anonymous]

churchistrue wrote:

My latest blog post has kicked up quite a storm…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?

I do think that the writing is on the wall for traditional LDS Mormonism as we know it (Daniel 5:24-28) because it is already becoming increasingly difficult to sell all this as a package deal and I expect this trend to continue. However, I don’t believe that simply admitting that some of the current truth claims are false or at least not the most likely explanation and that this is most likely just another man-made church would be enough to save the Church over the long term. That’s because I think that what is probably an even more significant problem with the LDS Church at this point than the questionable truth claims they continue to make is simply that the costs greatly outweigh the benefits for many typical practicing Mormons (in this life).

It would be one thing if members that don’t believe in some of the core doctrines could continue to participate and support the Church feeling like it is at the very least a good environment overall for them and their children but that’s not necessarily the case at this point because for many disaffected members the meetings are boring or even offensive to listen to, the callings are a pain and hassle, they don’t want their children being indoctrinated and grilled about chastity in intrusive worthiness interviews the way they were growing up, etc. So I think the primary goals for any reformed version of Mormonism should be similar to the medical oath, “First do no harm” and to try to balance the costs versus benefits to a more reasonable level so that it is something people can feel good about without needing to believe in the restoration story, priesthood authority, etc.

That’s one area where I think many mainstream Christian churches can already compete better with atheism/secularism than the LDS Church because their followers can simply apply some variation of Pascal’s wager and honestly say that even if they are wrong it was still worth the leap of faith in a way that is harder to do with LDS Church because of the heavy costs and tediousness involved. Also, I think a reformed version of Mormonism would require some top-down changes or at least a much more tolerant culture than what we see at this point because many members that don’t believe in some of the doctrines feel almost compelled to leave because the of the other active members’ overbearing expectations that they should to believe and/or do things they don’t feel like they can in good conscience and others reluctantly go along with this not because they want to but mostly to avoid upsetting their families.

[Anonymous]

churchistrue wrote:

Yes. So, the idea here for me is that there is the scriptures are a live document in the LDS church, as it is in the Christian community, though by different processes. LDS does not make its doctrinal decisions and declarations on what scriptures are relevant based on the community. That’s the job of the living prophet and the brethren. That’s a completely separate issue about whether or not that’s appropriate or how or why it should change. What I’m addressing here is the answer to the question, why is the Book of Mormon (and Bible) more relevant than The Grapes of Wrath, in terms of our study material and doctrinal understanding. Answer: because we as a church define the canon and the BOM and Bible are in the canon. But what if there’s stuff in the Bible or Book of Mormon that’s deemed to be incorrect or outdated or irrelevant, what’s the process of declaring that? The brethren tell us. So that takes you to the next question on whether the voices you mention above Joanna Brooks, etc, should the brethren listen to them and incorporate their voices when they’re making decisions? IMHO, absolutely yes. And further, I think they do, more than we give them credit for. Could they move faster on some social issues? Yeah, probably. But that’s the process we have, and I support it.

Thanks again for the clarification. I see no reason why this sacramental paradigm of Mormonism couldn’t be a sustainable pathway for some people to StayLDS. It might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but I believe it deserves a seat at the table of Mormonism for those that might find benefit therein.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

It would be one thing if members that don’t believe in some of the core doctrines could continue to participate and support the Church feeling like it is at the very least a good environment overall for them and their children but that’s not necessarily the case at this point because for many disaffected members the meetings are boring or even offensive to listen to, the callings are a pain and hassle, they don’t want their children being indoctrinated and grilled about chastity in intrusive worthiness interviews the way they were growing up, etc. So I think the primary goals for any reformed version of Mormonism should be similar to the medical oath, “First do no harm” and to try to balance the costs versus benefits to a more reasonable level so that it is something people can feel good about without needing to believe in the restoration story, priesthood authority, etc.

So far my kids are weighing and staying. They see a lot to admire and emulate in their leaders and ward members. They try to be reasonable in their callings (It’s not a “Jump!”/”How high?” thing for them), and they’re developing boundaries.

Quote:

Also, I think a reformed version of Mormonism would require some top-down changes or at least a much more tolerant culture than what we see at this point because many members that don’t believe in some of the doctrines feel almost compelled to leave because the of the other active members’ overbearing expectations that they should to believe and/or do things they don’t feel like they can in good conscience and others reluctantly go along with this not because they want to but mostly to avoid upsetting their families.

This will be the rub if literal truth claims become tests. Just a few strident GC talks, dogmatic teachers, and carelessly-written manuals can do a lot of harm to those trying to stay without literal belief.

[Author]

Posts