- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Tom Haws wrote:
SilentDawning’s question, as I understood it, was whether we could see ourselves ever returning to seeing the LDS Church as the One True Church, the Perfect Church with imperfect people, the Shining City on the Hill, the Light of Hope in a Dark World.
Yes, Tom, I am aware of that. My point, however awkwardly expressed, is that TBMs aren’t monolithic and there are certainly variances of belief. I still consider myself a TBM, athough most TBMs and uber-TBMs probably wouldn’t agree.
For a while I used to Identify more with Reform or NOM label. I really don’t anymore. I really don’t like the NOM label and frankly it doesn’t fit alot of so-called NOMs. I like and probably identify more with the Milleanial Mormoron Label more closely. Not to judge or disparriage NOMs but many who participate on the boards there make me ask why? Many of them are ex-mo and out of the church and many claim to be atheists. In my opinion, although I enjoy some of what they have to say, those who fit that demographic really dillute the meaning of being NOM. They don’t even fit the ‘third way’ perspective anymore. So I guess I’d have to say TBM and NOM is a pretty broad definition in actual examples of those who identify as such. That is an excellent point Fenix, the third-way or middle-way to me is not about saying the church is not what it claims to be. To me the “middle” way is saying “sure there is imperfection in the church, but as a whole I still find it worthwhile for me.” Most “TBMs” that I know (and I do like to include myself in the faithful member group) would agree with this statement. Perfection does not exist on earth, “All True” is an illusion – no matter how you slice it. And I don’t see that statement as heretical. Fenix, I agree with your sentiments. Orson, You said this well…and I think most TBMs would agree they don’t believe the church is perfect in this mortal world, but is striving for that with guidance from God.
Like Steve-hpais, I can agree with that too. That is why the labels are limited in their use…there can be so much variation and overlap.
FenixDown wrote:Not to judge or disparriage NOMs but many who participate on the boards there make me ask why? Many of them are ex-mo and out of the church and many claim to be atheists.
I get the impression a lot of the longtimers on the NOM board started out seeking a third way, but their beliefs have evolved to the point where their main objective now is to find a peaceable way to co-exist with their neighbors and extended family. I believe we split the difference between NOMs and TBMs in kind of a “fourth way”, or at least we try to.
Having said all that though, we’re all at different points on our faith journeys and categorization can sometimes hinder that journey.
FenixDown wrote:For a while I used to Identify more with Reform or NOM label. I really don’t anymore. I really don’t like the NOM label and frankly it doesn’t fit alot of so-called NOMs…Not to judge or disparriage NOMs but many who participate on the boards there make me ask why? Many of them are ex-mo and out of the church and many claim to be atheists…those who fit that demographic really dillute the meaning of being NOM. They don’t even fit the ‘third way’ perspective anymore. So I guess I’d have to say TBM and NOM is a pretty broad definition in actual examples of those who identify as such.
Heber13 wrote:…Orson, You said this well…and I think most TBMs would agree they don’t believe the church is perfect in this mortal world, but is striving for that with guidance from God…That is why the labels are limited in their use…there can be so much variation and overlap.
To me the most important distinguishing characteristic that separates different Mormons is where exactly they stand with regards to the Church’s official position on a few key doctrines like the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s role as a prophet, priesthood restoration, and the authority of living prophets and apostles. I would classify anyone that agrees with the Church on most of these points as a TBM and I would classify any Mormon that does not believe in one or more of these traditional doctrines but who doesn’t want to publicly leave the Church because of this as a New Order Mormon. Then there is perhaps the largest group of nominal Mormons of all that I would simply label as “Jack Mormons” that don’t really care that much about these points because either way they aren’t going to do everything the Church says they should when it comes to things like the WoW, tithing, church attendance, etc.
I guess the main problem with these labels is some of the stereotypes and extra meaning associated with these terms so people get this picture in their mind and start to think they’re not really like any of these stock characters and they are unique somehow. Sure there are always exceptions and many members don’t really identify with these generalized groups but I still think these categories accurately describe over 90% of all Mormons at any given time.
So I don’t think it really matters if some New Order Mormons’ actual beliefs are closer to atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddhist, New Agey, etc.; the important thing that makes them New Order Mormons in my mind is simply that they don’t believe in some of the traditional Mormon doctrines but they still associate with the LDS Church to some extent. Once they become completely inactive I would then classify them as Jack Mormons instead for practical purposes. I have been all of these 3 myself at different times and don’t think members should try to read too much meaning into these vague labels or be overly offended by them.
I like that explanation, DA. From my observation, the “average” Jack Mormon has more of a traditional testimony than the “average” New Order Mormon (or Cultural Mormon). I like the term Cultural Mormon because it implies an appreciation for things Mormon and a desire to affiliate to some degree with Mormonism. On the other hand, I like the meaning of the term (not the actual term) New Order Mormon, because it implies, as you said, a clear dismissal of certain of the fundamental assertions of the mainstream church.
From my perspective above, I suppose StayLDS could be thought of as a support group for Cultural Mormonism (or a special subset of New Order Mormonism).
Tom Haws wrote:From my perspective above, I suppose StayLDS could be thought of as a support group for Cultural Mormonism (or a special subset of New Order Mormonism).
This is how I see it. I certainly don’t think I would be in the TBM class or the cultural mormon – and I cringe with the NOM label. Perhaps a “subset” of NOM would sit well with me though.
Tom Haws wrote:…From my perspective above, I suppose StayLDS could be thought of as a support group for Cultural Mormonism (or a special subset of New Order Mormonism).
I’ve always thought of this site as supporting almost any kind of Mormon that has considered leaving the Church regardless of the reasons or problems they have with it. The idea seems to be to help members find ways to deal with some of the challenges without feeling like they need to leave the Church and make a big stink about it.
There are other forums specifically geared around TBM apologists, Ex-Mormons, New Order Mormons, etc. but this one seems more broad and tolerant in terms of what people can get away with saying without being ridiculed and attacked by posters that don’t agree with them. In other words, you don’t really have to fit a certain profile as long as you’re not too negative towards the Church because that’s not really what this forum is about.
That’s the way I see it, DA – as an open forum for all who are looking for ways to remain involved and are willing to be respectful, regardless of their individual “religious orientation” at the moment. In other words, “traditional believers welcome here too”. That’s a new idea I hadn’t considered, but it’s a good one. Of course, the title of this thread assumes those participating on this particular topic won’t consider themselves traditional believers at the moment. But that doesn’t have to be the case for the forums as a whole.
Hmm. Gotta think about this a bit.
I personally would never turn away someone who is a “traditional believer” – as long as s/he understood the need for respect and help and wasn’t trying to convert anyone to a particular perspective. I know LOTS of “traditional believers” who fit that description, fwiw. Getting back to the original point of this thread, I just realized that I did this exact thing, returning to stage 3 after my initial faith crisis. For a time after my initial reconversion, I was able to immerse myself completely in the church, including not doubting leaders and holding to all of the doctrines, even polygamy. It turned out I DID need to shut down a part of myself. At the time, I preferred to think of it as “turning away from the natural man.” After a while, however, I just couldn’t keep it up, and I slipped back into stage 4 for a time. I’ve been in a tentative form of stage 5 for some time now, although I’m still trying to work out some issues and occasionally I’ll slip back into stage 4, depending on which priesthood leader offended me and how. Now I like to think that, rather than indulging the natural man, I’m living an authentic life and dealing with reality in a healthy fashion. Thanks Steve — I’ve had the same experiences. The tension of Stage 4 has been too much at times and I sometimes settle back into the comfort of Stage 3, letting go of my angst in the name of obedience. But yes, I agree that experiences can turn us off Stage 3 and put us back into Stage 4. I keep having Stage 5 moments now and then too, which are kind of attractive because you get indpendent of those pesky priesthood leaders and things that irritate you — however, I can’t sustain them for a long time yet…..
I really think there are huge differences between a cultural believer and a spiritual believer. Cultural believers seem live, believe, and follow all of the doctrines, dogmas, rules and regs of Mormonism. Spiritual believers in my opinion and observation are akin many times to the believing Jack-Mormon of cafe/buffet Mormon which I personally identify with. I accept many or most things but I am Liberal THEOLOGICALLY while retaining core LDS beliefs. I don’t think most NOMs fit the Spiritual Believer archetype. I’m not trying offend or pick on NOMs. However it seems to me most NOMs are involved culturally for a plethora of reasons good, bad or otherwise. My exepirience is that most would leave the Church if the impact was not so negative.
Then there are the LDS Reformists, I think that segment is very, very large and hard to pin down. I think alot of Reformist issues and talking points have alot to do with socio-politics and thier relation to the church. I however like alot of what Reform Mormon’s discuss and the bottom-up style of theological practice.
I’d just like to say that I do respect most/many of all the viewpoints presented in the various groups but I think there are several sub-sets of TBM, NOM, Reformists, and Ex-Mo’s.
If I had to break it down I’d have to say there’s Non-Orthodox TBMs, Orthodox TBMs, Cultural NOMs, Reformist/Progressive NOMs, Believing Jack-Mormons, Ex-Mo/Lapsed-Jack-Mormons. I think the real defining lines though come down to these questions:
Method of Practice? Orthodox/Non-Orthodox/Non-Practicing
Believing? Yes/No/Yes and No
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.