- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think Heber, and most people here are quite “out of the box” thinkers, and my question will come off as quite rhetorical, (sorry 😳 ) however, if I was to EVEN ask that question at church, I would be in the hot seat, as it is a fundamental teaching of the mormon church that all men and women will have to go through the LDS church/temple/ordinance to receive salvation and exaltation. There is NO room in the LDS orthodox box to believe any other way. I guess that is why I just have to respectfully disagree. Perhaps I just don’t understand the theory of pure mormonism. If pure mormonism IS “TRUTH” and if truly JS/Temples/BoM are part of it – than I don’t believe in it anymore than I believe in Mormonism in general.In my world, if there is such a thing as “pure mormonism” than it would be universal principles that would be freely available to all people throughout history. All people, not just the .001%. Just my opinion today.
cwald, I think the concepts and symbolic meanings of the temple and its ordinances are within “pure Mormonism” – but I’m not sure the temple itself has to be. Likewise, I think the concept and symbolism of the Word of Wisdom probably is within “pure Mormonism” – but I certainly don’t think the actual “Word of Wisdom” is.
I think the concept and symbolism of tithing is within “pure Mormonism” – but I don’t believe tithing is.
I believe the concept of sharing the Gospel is within “pure Mormonism” – but I don’t believe the specifics of the LDS Church’s missionary program need to be.
There are a lot of other things I could list (like Family Home Evening, fasting, Home and Visiting Teaching, etc.) where I believe the concepts and symbolic meaning could be included within “pure Mormonism” – but I wouldn’t put ANY of them in totality as implemented in that category.
Finally, I have studied pretty much every other major religion and denomination, and MANY of the things I personally put in the category of “pure Mormonism” simply aren’t there in most of them – even though many others are.
Heber, I think it’s interesting that there are more unique Mormon doctrines that come from Biblical interpretations than there are that come from the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon isn’t nearly the doctrinal proof text that most members believe it to be. That’s a fascinating discussion all by itself.
Ray — “concept and symbolism” – I can live with that. I love Ray’s “Concept and symbolism” post. Wonderful way to approach the LDS Church. Understand that the Book of Mormon is not very “Mormon” in certain ways, but no Mormon (or Moroni) means no “Mormon”-ism. It pretty much founded the movement, and was a major basis for JS’ prophethood. Brian Johnston wrote:In some form or another, we are divine beings, of the same substance and nature as the force that organized and creates further organization in the universe (aka “God).
By that, I think Pure Mormonism contains this idea that takes people’s thought in a different direction than the rest of Christianity. We are not creatures that God created for some whim of a purpose (like just to worship this being, or as some form of pets). We are a part of God, co-existent with whatever God is.
This took on more specific definition through theological speculation — kingdoms, a pre-existence story, etc.
If there were a sole issue for why I stay in the church this would be it. This is one thing I love about the church.
Regarding the Book of Mormon, I personally find it difficult to construct any significant form of Mormonism without the Book of Mormon. And I TOTALLY agree with Ray’s line of thinking in that symbolism and concepts are more true than specific manifested practices and dogmas. I don’t think there is a single perfect source. I can’t say “Read the Book of Mormon and nothing else ever,” and you are guaranteed all you will ever need. The Book of Mormon contains great ideas. It is “scripture” in every sense to me, but I don’t see scripture as something that you can just follow like a computer program, like being on autopilot programming where you can just turn off your mind and spirit while checking things off a list. I also think the existence of the Book of Mormon and the mythology surrounding its creation are as powerful a learning tool as the actual words of the text. I see Mormonism as a more recent adaptation of consistent and persistent lines of thought that have existed as long as human history has records of spiritual/philosophical thought. It’s the 19th century edition, an update IMO. While I know the orthodox majority in our church see the LDS Church is the eternal incorporation of the “Gospel,” I always had trouble with that for all the reasons others have mentioned. There
hasto be great value to life experience outside of a specific LDS framework, or else God’s plan is so ineffective that it might as well not exist. Substitute the word “Mormonism” for “Enlightenment” and it might be easier to see throughout history. But on the other hand, I did not live all throughout history. I live NOW. And I see Mormonism (Ray’s Pure Mormonism) as a really great adaptation and incorporation of a process of enlightenment and evolution I share with all my sisters and brothers throughout the ages who felt that urge to seek understanding and divinity.
Brian Johnston wrote:Regarding the Book of Mormon, I personally find it difficult to construct any significant form of Mormonism without the Book of Mormon. And I TOTALLY agree with Ray’s line of thinking in that symbolism and concepts are more true than specific manifested practices and dogmas. I don’t think there is a single perfect source. I can’t say “Read the Book of Mormon and nothing else ever,” and you are guaranteed all you will ever need…
….Substitute the word “Mormonism” for “Enlightenment” and it might be easier to see throughout history. But on the other hand, I did not live all throughout history. I live NOW. And I see Mormonism (Ray’s Pure Mormonism) as a really great adaptation and incorporation of a process of enlightenment and evolution I share with all my sisters and brothers throughout the ages who felt that urge to seek understanding and divinity.
Stephen R. Covey in some of his books on effectiveness says everyone should read “wisdom literature”, and he lists all the different sources of wisdom literature one might consider. The list reads like a Who’s Who list in scripture and enlightened thinking across cultures.
At the same time, Covey is a staunch Mormon (last I checked), but I think he inadvertently created a universal philosophy of human relations that transcends religious boundaries.
This idea of pure Mormonism is not really clicking with me though — it’s too hard to distill Mormonism into pure principles and still have it feel like Mormonism in my view. Mormonism is Mormonism as it stands –warts and all, unfortunately.
Not to derail the conversation, but I find Steven Covey irritating — add one more to my LDS blasphemies list 😆 😆 😆 The owner of the last company I worked for loved Covey (and was a devout Baptist). He hired a management coach and facilitator that used a lot of Covey material at our management and planning “retreats.” It was a real generational barrier issue at the company. Most of the management were Gen-X’er age. The owner was a classic idealistic Boomer. Covey’s material is very focused on boomer idealism IMO — lots of marshmallow fluff about lofty principles and figurative verbal pictures of navigating rapids in a kayak. Not a lot of practical substance.
The cynical gen-x’er managers just wanted sharper spears to hunt down the competition so we could feast upon their corpses, and make it home in time to see the kid’s softball game that evening. That’s what we wanted to know. Hold the B.S. please.
Sorry … end of rant.
The only Stephen R. Covey book that I ever liked was one of his earliest he published through Deseret Book entitled, The Spiritual Root of Human Relations. Everything else is watered down philosophical psycho-babble. I read his 7 habits of highly effective people and only really liked or remember the sharpening the saw part and the writing new texts part. Organizational Behavior is great, but not the solution. My mom lives by checklists and has done a bang up job as a Stake Primary President and Relief Society president and ward missionary. Even though the irony is that my mom is the source from where I obtained the 7 habits of highly effective people. The best books that I have read on “applied Mormonism/discipleship come from the late Neal A. Maxwell. Stephen R. Covey’s 7 Events of the Restoration was a waste of my time. So yeah, I wouldn’t put Stephen R. Covey on essential Mormonism for anything.
In attempting to define pure Mormonism, my spirit resonates with the Sunstone article by Don Bradley in April 2006 titled “the Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism.” (I am not experienced in providing links 😳 , so if anyone else wants to provide one that would be appreciated.)[Moderator: Link to Article =
http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/141-32-41.pdf Don reviews the attempts to define Mormonism from D & C 20 to the Wentworth letter and some other stuff in between. I am reminded of various passages from Rough Stone Rolling that spoke of Joseph’s reluctance to codify or to set down in creeds what the heart of Mormonism is.
Quote:“But Joseph had an aversion to creeds. Later he criticized the very idea of them. They circumscribed truth when he wanted expansion. Revelation overturned old ideas and was forever evolving.” RSR 172 “Even near the end of his career, he resisted any attempt to stanch the spring of inspiration. ‘The most prominent point of difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints & Sectarians,’ A clerk later recorded him saying, ‘was that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing any thing not contained therein; whereas the L. D. Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe
all true principlesthat exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.” RSR 285 (Emphasis in original)
This, IMO, is similar to the feelings expressed by the Dunkers from Benjamin Franklin’s recollection.
Quote:Silent Dawning Wrote:
I’ve been reading Ben Franklin’s autobiography, and I came across this little gem of an idea. He was conversing with a man who belonged to a newly formed religious group called the Dunkers, who was commenting on how others were distributing Anti-Dunker propaganda about his new sect. Franklin, (a printer) suggested he codified their beliefs for distribution to clear up the matter. Franklin reports this….
He [the man from the persecuted sect] said that [codifying their beliefs] had been proposed among them, but not agreed to, for this reason: ‘When we were first drawn together as a society,” said he, “it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors; and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths.
From time to time, He had been pleased to afford farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing.
Now we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge; and we fear that, if we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves as if bound and confined by it, and perhaps be unwilling to receive farther improvement, and our successors still more so, as conceiving what we their elders and founders had done, to be something sacred, never to be departed from’.”
In Don’s analysis, Joseph’s final and most mature attempt to distil pure Mormonism boils it down to
three principles. 1) “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive
truth, let it come from where it may.” 2) “
Friendshipis the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism.” 3) With less clear source documents, Don argues for “
Relief“as the third principle. Quote:“I teach tem correct principles, and they govern themselves.” JS
Quote:“The rule is…Live the Principle. If you refuse this rule, more rules will be created.” Anonymous
This is what I had always thought Ray was referring to in mentioning “pure Mormonism.”
That’s one of my all-time favorite Sunstone Articles. Thanks for that Roy! You hit at the essence of what I also think of as “pure Mormonism.” It’s expansive, it supports all truth – come from where it may and be understood tomorrow in a different light than today. I also agree with SD. Mormonism is what it is – warts and all, modern culture included, all the teachings of all the past leaders taken into account. It is what it is. Our perception of it grows from our experience in it.
I do however believe we can “jump out of the fishbowl” or “take off the rose colored glasses” to see it in a different light. And I think doing so is in harmony with seeking after the expanding truth that pure Mormonism aspires to. The part that disappoints me is when people that see the church in a different light suddenly think the new light is the only correct light — and feel the need to “expose” it for what it “is”. Such simplistic and absolutist explanations never serve up the whole pie.
Covey was life-changing for me. I needed it validating principles at a time of deep self-doubt in my life. I love the Sunstone article you referenced, Roy. Great Pure Mormonism, that.
The view of Covey’s stuff among us is a GREAT example of why I try really hard not to de-value or dismiss things that simply don’t resonate with me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.