New Mormonism

[Anonymous]

rcronk wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Why should people feel completely sure that any spiritual witness is a good way to know exactly what is true or not and not simply an induced emotional reaction triggered in their own mind to confirm their bias because they desperately want to believe something is true from the outset?

That question is chock full of unsupported assertions and judgements. It’s kind of insulting too…

I don’t see what’s so offensive or unreasonable about it. I’m not asserting that anyone’s specific experiences are definitely nothing more than an emotional reaction to confirm their bias; all I’m saying is that I think it’s possible for people to easily mistinterpret gut feelings, unusual dreams, etc. and think they mean more than they necessarily do. Especially in the case of Moroni’s promise where people are basically encouraged to directly ask for such a confirmation that the BoM, etc. are true as a package deal and given the expectation that any strong feelings mean all this is true I don’t see why people should believe this is a very reliable way to know the truth to begin with because on the surface it looks like the same basic method would probably work just as well to confirm what Muslims, Catholics, evangelicals, JWs, etc. already belive or want to believe.

rcronk wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

What about all the Church members and investigators that sincerely pray for answers without ever receiving any? What about all the people that receive different and contradictory answers that Islam, the Catholic Church, etc. are te true path approved by God or even that the LDS Church is explicitly false? Even if especially strong warm fuzzy feelings about the LDS Church actually did come from God, the Holy Ghost, etc. in some cases that wouldn’t necessarily mean that this is the one and only true church on the face of the earth because it could simply mean that God doesn’t care that much what people believe and is happy to let them believe what they want to or even that he thinks it would be good for them to belong to the Church at that time in a way that doesn’t necessary apply to everyone in a universal way.

See my answer above regarding the inputs to getting an answer that I’ve found to be necessary. I didn’t receive an answer in high school when I prayed. Personally, I lacked just about every prerequisite for getting an answer and probably I needed to go be a heathen atheist for several years to humble me before receiving an answer when it would be best for my progression.

If pre-requisites such as humility, praying with “real intent”, etc. are necessary to receive an answer then why did the Apostle Paul and Alma the Younger experience profound divine internventions to convince them of the error of their ways when they were doing everything wrong?

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

And to let you know, I have been tapped on the shoulder by the moderators also when I was a bit more upset and venting.

I do find it interesting what a testimony of spirituality you have. Many of us here are more struggling to figure it all out. Did you come here to help save us all [emoji6]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. I searched tapatalk’ story a for “Mormon” or “LDS” and this forum and an ex-Mormon forum showed up so I picked this one. I have two people close to me going through faith crises and so that’s relevant as well. I think part of me wants to know if I’m missing something in my testimony as well. I like to interact with lots of different people. I’m glad you all are patient with me.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I don’t see what’s so offensive or unreasonable about it. I’m not asserting that anyone’s specific experiences are definitely nothing more than an emotional reaction to confirm their bias; all I’m saying is that I think it’s possible for people to easily mistinterpret gut feelings, unusual dreams, etc. and think they mean more than they necessarily do. Especially in the case of Moroni’s promise where people are basically encouraged to directly ask for such a confirmation that the BoM, etc. are true as a package deal and given the expectation that any strong feelings mean all this is true I don’t see why people should believe this is a very reliable way to know the truth to begin with because on the surface it looks like the same basic method would probably work just as well to confirm what Muslims, Catholics, evangelicals, JWs, etc. already belive or want to believe.

I agree that those things can happen. If you weren’t implying that happened to me then that’s fine. We’re good.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

If pre-requisites like this are necessary to receive an answer then why did the Apostle Paul and Alma the Younger experience profound divine internventions to convince them of the error of their ways when they were doing everything wrong.

And why did I experience a divine intervention while doing everything wrong? It was the prayers of Alma’s parents, of my parents, and probably of the early Christians combined with what God knows will be best for His children. I actually got a second witness that it wasn’t me (He probably knew I’d be too prideful and take credit for it.), but my parents that caused my change to happen, but I had to take it from that point forward and it was very difficult.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

And to let you know, I have been tapped on the shoulder by the moderators also when I was a bit more upset and venting.

I do find it interesting what a testimony of spirituality you have. Many of us here are more struggling to figure it all out. Did you come here to help save us all [emoji6]

Indeed, even we mods have not escaped the occasional scolding.

[Anonymous]

Yep. Been scolded, appropriately, myself, more than once.

[Anonymous]

rcronk wrote:

Roy wrote:

rcronk wrote:

Do you believe the Holy Ghost can confirm truth such that a person can know something is true?

Lowell Bennion’s books suggest a form of compartmentalizing. Spiritual truth and value is of a different sort then empirical scientific truth. One does not pray to know if the answers that they submitted to a math assignment are true. Praying about whether or not a book is historically true would be trying to apply spiritual tools to find historical truth. However praying to know if a certain path or book or teaching is good for you and helps you to be a better person and/or if God would approve is applying spiritual tools to reach spiritual truth.

I disagree with this because of my experiences. I’m a software engineer and I receive many non-spiritual answers to difficult questions dealing with programming. It says the Holy Ghost will reveal the truth of _all things_. I have experimented with that scriptural assertion and found it to be true with many physical world realities. And the answer you got to marry your wife wasn’t the answer to the question “should anyone marry this woman” but “should I marry this woman.” So context matters. When someone asks if the Book of Mormon is true, that’s not dependent upon the context of the person asking it. That truth exists independent of who is asking the question. The Book of Mormon is either what it claims to be or it isn’t. If one person receives a witness of that, it means that person now knows that piece of truth and if they find value in that truth, they might want to share what they witnessed with others. That’s normal. If I see a fire in one part of a building, I have witnessed truth that others haven’t witnessed yet. I will probably run to the other side of the building and tell my friends that they need to get out because the building’s on fire. They might trust me enough to go find out for themselves or they might trust me more and just leave, but it doesn’t mean that the truth I witnessed is only applicable to me or that I just “believe” I witnessed the fire.

I read 2 or 3 of Bro. Bennion’s books. He was writing to college students that are at a sort of unique crossroads. They are away from their families for perhaps the first time and they are learning a critical mindset. A simple example of what I am talking about is evolution and the age of the earth. Students will be presented with course materials that take evolution and a very old earth as fact in courses ranging from biology, anthropology, geology, history and much more. What is the student to do that was raised to believe in creationism and a 6,000 year earth? (I do not want to debate evolution, it is just an example) It would be natural for some of them to apply these new critical thinking skills towards the religion and faith of their heritage and they might cast it off as so much superstitious nonsense.

Bro. Bennion argues that this would be a mistake. He argues that spiritual things have value like art and that a well rounded person has room for multiple facets. I want to emphasize this part. Bro. Bennion is offering a frame work for young people to stay in the church even after discovering new facts that seem to contradict the faith. Bro. Bennion does not see a need for the student to either believe the church to the exclusion of the professors or believe the professors to the exclusion of the church. He argues for compartmentalization and what he calls being a well rounded person. If the church “is either what it claims to be or it isn’t” then many of these young people would be forced to conclude that it is not what it claims to be and leave forever. And this, Bro. Bennion says, would be a tragedy.

Suppose that Bro. Bennion and others have been successful and now we have faithful members that find spiritual upliftment in the church but believe in evolution and an ancient earth (again just as examples). How can we then allow them the flexibility to be one of our community of faith without denouncing what they believe to be scientific facts?

Suppose an individual in this church community prays and receives what they believe to be an answer that evolution is a false theory – should they try to convince the rest of the community to turn their backs on the theory?

Suppose an individual in this church community prays and receives what they believe to be an answer the evolution is true (and that the creation story as told in Genesis is not literal) – should they try to convince the rest of the community to abandon a more literal interpretation of Adam and Eve?

I believe that these approaches will only sow division and discord among us. We can be brothers and sisters working together to draw closer to our God and still believe differently on many points.

I want to stay in the church. I want to baptize my children and support them in church programs. My beliefs are different than most of my fellow ward members. I am not trying to convince anyone of my beliefs. At times I try to make a point that not everyone has the same experiences and conclusions that we do and that we should make room for those people. I hope that the viewpoints of people like me will not be dismissed, diminished, or insulted. Sometimes this happens at church and I try (I really do) to be charitable in trying not to take offense and get defensive. I try and I keep trying day in and day out because I believe in the value of the church and the gospel. It is my heritage too and I am stubborn about not letting others push me out.

[Anonymous]

Roy – I think we can agree. What I do is accept that basically everything is unknown. Evolution and age of the earth are not facts, they are theories with no witnesses and so they can live comfortably next to the creation theory as yet another unknown. I think people get into trouble when they get arrogant and pretend they know things when they don’t – to the exclusion of all other possibilities. This goes both ways for the religious and scientific. I guess letting two things exist in my mind as possible explanations for how things are or how things were could be considered a form of compartmentalizing, but it sounds like he’s saying just separate the two things into separate compartments that don’t ever have to be reconciled. Either way, two theories never have to be reconciled since neither are proven truths. Only if God comes to me and reminds me that I witnessed the creation, however it happened, and the truth of how it happened do I have to reject other theories. I don’t think He’s going to do that for something that’s basically irrelevant to my progression and salvation.

[Anonymous]

rcronk wrote:

I guess letting two things exist in my mind as possible explanations for how things are or how things were could be considered a form of compartmentalizing, but it sounds like he’s saying just separate the two things into separate compartments that don’t ever have to be reconciled. Either way, two theories never have to be reconciled since neither are proven truths.

Yes rcronk, I believe that we are mostly on the same page. I like the idea of possible explanations that leave room for other possibilities. One added point would be that in school and in certain fields of study an individual would need to frame their answers as though evolution were true. At church and religious meetings a person might need to frame their answers as though creationism were true. There can be advantages to “toggling” between theories and I believe that is part of what Bro. Bennion was trying to get at by compartmentalization and being well rounded.

[Anonymous]

rcronk wrote:

Roy – I think we can agree. What I do is accept that basically everything is unknown. Evolution and age of the earth are not facts, they are theories with no witnesses and so they can live comfortably next to the creation theory as yet another unknown.

Quote:

I think people get into trouble when they get arrogant and pretend they know things when they don’t – to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

This goes both ways for the religious and scientific. I guess letting two things exist in my mind as possible explanations for how things are or how things were could be considered a form of compartmentalizing, but it sounds like he’s saying just separate the two things into separate compartments that don’t ever have to be reconciled. Either way, two theories never have to be reconciled since neither are proven truths. Only if God comes to me and reminds me that I witnessed the creation, however it happened, and the truth of how it happened do I have to reject other theories. I don’t think He’s going to do that for something that’s basically irrelevant to my progression and salvation.

Ah, but therein lies the rub RC.

I think we do pretty much the same thing. Again using evolution only as an example and not a topic of discussion in this thread, I believe in a Creator-God. I don’t know how God did it. The Big Bang and evolution are plausible explanations, but not the only explanations. I comfortable with them being part of a set of possibilities.

BUT, in many a fast and testimony meeting, in many a Sunday School, and in many a priesthood lesson I have heard people do just as you describe –

Quote:

I think people get into trouble when they get arrogant and pretend they know things when they don’t – to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Relevant to salvation or not, this happens way too often, and also happens with things that are relevant by expanding on core gospel principles with things we don’t know.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Ah, but therein lies the rub RC.

I think we do pretty much the same thing. Again using evolution only as an example and not a topic of discussion in this thread, I believe in a Creator-God. I don’t know how God did it. The Big Bang and evolution are plausible explanations, but not the only explanations. I comfortable with them being part of a set of possibilities.

BUT, in many a fast and testimony meeting, in many a Sunday School, and in many a priesthood lesson I have heard people do just as you describe –

Quote:

I think people get into trouble when they get arrogant and pretend they know things when they don’t – to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Relevant to salvation or not, this happens way too often, and also happens with things that are relevant by expanding on core gospel principles with things we don’t know.

Yeah, that’s my point. As I said, pretty much everyone does the same thing in overreaching when they don’t know for sure – whether they’re LDS or scientists or atheists or professors. This causes a false battle between two competing truths instead of an easier discussion about two possible explanations. And for most topics, this is just fine because the direct consequences of the discussion are usually tiny. I suppose if the topic were about something that had large consequences, perhaps I’d have a harder time with it.

[Anonymous]

I really like the “New Mormonism” approach . In fact I have been doing this for a few years now !!! It’s nice to not worry about the literal and historical things. I like looking at the church and what it teaches today !!! The church is clean living has a great teaching and stands out in todays society . I see nothing wrong with the new Mormonism approach and hope others will also adopt it !!!

[Anonymous]

I think you are describing the notion of Orthoprax mormonism vs orthodox mormonism…which is a paradigm shift for many.

Definition of Orthopraxy:

Quote:

While orthodoxies make use of codified beliefs, in the form of creeds, and ritualism more narrowly centers on the strict adherence to prescribed rites or rituals, orthopraxy is focused on issues of family, cultural integrity, the transmission of tradition, sacrificial offerings, concerns of purity, ethical systems, and the enforcement thereof.

I think when a person bumps up against church rules, stances of LGBT, or church historical inconsistencies…the orthodoxy can become a hard pill to swallow as a literal “truth”. If we shift our mind to thinking about what the church DOES in our lives, we can still find truth when we feel it enriches our family life.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I think you are describing the notion of Orthoprax mormonism vs orthodox mormonism…which is a paradigm shift for many.

Definition of Orthopraxy:

Quote:

While orthodoxies make use of codified beliefs, in the form of creeds, and ritualism more narrowly centers on the strict adherence to prescribed rites or rituals, orthopraxy is focused on issues of family, cultural integrity, the transmission of tradition, sacrificial offerings, concerns of purity, ethical systems, and the enforcement thereof.

I think when a person bumps up against church rules, stances of LGBT, or church historical inconsistencies…the orthodoxy can become a hard pill to swallow as a literal “truth”. If we shift our mind to thinking about what the church DOES in our lives, we can still find truth when we feel it enriches our family life.

Yes. orthodoxy vs orthopraxy is a topic I’ve been doing research on for a future article.

[Author]

Posts