Navidad

I am a big fan of Bourdieu and his concept of "symbolic violence" as a true form of violence. It is something similar to the idea of "soul wounds" which epigenetics takes such an interest in. Bourdieu's symbolic violence can be defined (online at least) as "Pierre Bourdieu defines symbolic violence as a subtle, non‑physical form of domination in which the dominated unknowingly accept and legitimize social hierarchies through everyday meanings, norms, and classifications. It operates through misrecognition, habitus, and cultural capital, making inequalities appear natural rather than arbitrary. While this is a bit long-winded, it speaks to the kind of violence created within religious inequities and domination created by doctrinal or dogma norms. It goes beyond disagreement in that it makes the dominated "less than" or "the other" according to a church or individual. If, for example I, as a seventy-year Christian, am deemed as having zero likelihood of being able to access the Gift of the Holy Spirit in my life within my own Christian community, then I am relegated to being less than every baptized and confirmed member of the LDS Church on earth. Probably not two in ten members of the LDS church would acknowledge that as doing me violence, yet I have seen my dear wife come home in tears after being assured of the truth and certainty of the LDS doctrine that however godly she may appear, she does not know the fullness of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and they do. They would determine this, not based on her own spirituality, but on their own doctrine, which trumps what they see in her. This is a prime example of religion as conflict, which can be averted by a nice dose of incertitude, which in reality is a great foundation for faith, probably better than certainty. The protest of the Third Convention Mexican members of the Church in the 1930s is another example of religious violence - in this case better characterized as "protest violence." Protest violence is not physical violence except in that it is manifested with the feet - in leaving. It can be considered violence to the perpetrator as well as to the Church. Interesting stuff. That is it for now. Best wishes.

Greetings, my friend. Perhaps we define "intrinsically" differently. That is ok. For me, "intrinsically" means something has within it the capability, roots, or potential for." So, yes, I agree that all authority, including spiritual authority, has within in the potential for abuse. Many aspects of religion have the intrinsic capacity to be abusive, in all religious groups. In religions we sometimes manifest the "all but mine" syndrome. We may either deny, rationalize, or justify toxicity based on our doctrine or dogma. Once we take possession of the truth, especially sole possession, the doors for abuse swing wide open, yes, even in my faith. Religious authority is filled with the potential for symbolic violence a la Bourdieu. It is, of course, easier for me to see in the LDS Church than it is for me to see it in the Mennonite Church. The blind spot is a core quadrant in the Johari Window. For example, if the LDS Church held that I have no spiritual authority to baptize in the LDS Church, that would make perfect sense to me. But when the LDS Church claims that my father had no spiritual authority when he baptized me in our church, hence my baptism is invalid according to Christ. Or when it is said I had no spiritual authority when I baptized the 100 or so people that I baptized; therefore, they all need rebaptized by someone with "proper" authority (aka an LDS elder). That doctrine extends to a denial of my spiritual authority, the Gift of the Holy Spirit, etc. in a way that does me and my spiritual condition violence. "But it is our doctrine;" it is nothing personal," you say to me. Well, ditto for when a Fundamentalist or an Evangelical, or a Mainstreamer claims the LDS are not Christians "It is their doctrine; it is nothing personal" Well, it often becomes pretty personal for the LDS Christian pretty quickly, doesn't it? Symbolic violence is both personal and violent in a non-physical way (even if said with a kind smile). I am a project on a journey. I try not to allow my doctrine to become a sling to cast stones, nor to justify the slinging, especially when I know that even doctrinal stones hurt. I think spiritual authority is laden with latent potential for violence, both in interfaith and intrafaith situations. I don't know if any of this responds to your thoughtful comments. Best wishes.

There is no question (in my mind, at least) that some usages of spiritual authority can be intrinsically oppressive. And I would expand that to some usages of any kind of authority can be intrinsically oppressive. I would also add that denying spiritual authority to others who are not you can be intrinsically oppressive and abusive as well. Some usages are indeed abusive. As with most everything involving humans, it is complex.

I have noticed something in my readings over the past few months. I find LDS folks using the term "fundamentalist evangelical" more often. I wonder what the source of that is? I don't remember seeing that term at all in years past. I use the term "conservative Evangelical" often because the Evangelical community, on its own a continuum. The other day I think I mentioned in a thread I had also read the term "mainstream fundamentalist." I like the beginnings of what may be an interest in being more careful and more specific about identifying those in the non-LDS Christian community. At the same time I am seeing the term "neo mormon" with greater frequency. Interesting stuff!

I'm not sure. Is Ostler a member in good standing? He is a bit of an independent guy with independent views. Of course, I like that, but I am not sure his writings can be used as harmonizing with the church's perspective on this or that issue.

I would very much appreciate some recommendations for sources that explain in some detail the LDS concept of God the Father as an exalted man. My guess is that it would be inclusive of describing His spirit nature and perhaps soul. If that is a distinction that is made. It would be helpful if it also includes the Father's literal relationship (physical and spiritual) with Christ. I have several books on the "Mormon" Jesus, but I don't believe I have any specifically about the Father from a modern LDS scholar. Thanks.

I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask. But I am rather curious about the official LDS Church position on interpretation of its three unique scriptures. I was taught in college and seminary that the Bible contains at least five different types of literature, each requiring a unique manner and method of interpretation. The one thing that they all have in common is their inspiration by the Holy Spirit in the process of the Bible's creation. To be properly understood, however, each type of literature in the Bible requires a correct description as the type of literature it was intended to be. I don't think I have ever read an interpretative guide for the Book of Mormon officially sanctioned by the LDS Church. In part I ask because over the past few months I have been reading several well-written books on the manner and method of the creation of the content of the Book of Mormon. However, neither book really deals with how the reader is to interpret a given passage based in part on the type of literature (poetic, prophetic, parable, etc.) that it represents. Thanks. I hope this question does not take the thread off track too much.

But I live in Mexico. Where are the mules, cows, and coyotes?

Well, yeh! That is what I have been trying to say on this forum since 2017! Ha! It is most likely a truth, because our Fundamentalist friends make it a point to seek out and approach members of the LDS Church wherever they can be found! Pageants and Temple Square are such places!

Thanks, I have posted the link to the site. I understand most of what the author is saying, but it is an astonishing cornucopia of terms and concepts. Someone did a lot of work on this. It is a shame it is almost impossible to decipher.

If any of you would like to make your head spin, please go to the Reformed fundamentalism wikipedia site. It may win the prize for the biggest mish-mash of terms I have ever read. It even talks about mainstream fundamentalism and a whole host of other terminology. It speaks about your example of Reformed Baptists, who tend to be more fundamentalist than evangelical. (notice small f and e). Anyway, I don't know if the rules allow me to post the link to this Wikipedia site, but it is really entertaining and confusing to a fault. I have enjoyed reading it. I hope you all enjoy it too. It appears I can post the link to this miasma of terms. I am 77 years old and I have never seen such a hodge-podge of terms. Enjoy! Reformed fundamentalism - Wikipedia

If anyone is interested, when we were faithful nonmember participants in the ward, we were not allowed to tithe. We were, however, allowed to donate to the fast offering. They gave us envelopes to do so.

Exactly. That is a great way to discern a Fundamentalist from an Evangelical.

I am not exactly sure what you are asking, but if someone identified to you as an Evangelical who was aggressively and with certitude bashing members of the LDS church, I wouldn't both correcting them. They aren't going to change. Now, to be clear, I would correct them, but I don't think a member of the LDS Church should, unless you simply want to change the subject. I think it greatly depends on if they are asking questions, clarifying, or critiquing rather than onlying and othering. As an Evangelical professor, I taught all my students to be curious and to ask questions of others of all faiths. As an Evangelical, I am also used to and comfortable with differences. For example, I enjoy the current Evangelical debate about Genesis 1 and 2, whether those passages deal with material creation, or functional creation. That is a huge difference and is a wonderful, although sometimes caustic, debate among Evangelicals. Fundamentalists wouldn't even engage in the debate. They would simply inform me they are praying for me to get it right, which of course means, as they see it. I personally think the idea of Gen 1 and 2 as functional creation is brilliant. It means I don't have to bash or be in conflict with what science teaches. If you do anything, I would ask them what they think the difference is between a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical. See what they say. That is a way to learn and have a fun discussion without getting into an argument. I enjoy doing something similar in discussing with LeBaron and LDS Mormons. They dress and look alike; but it doesn't take long to sense the differences. If I didn't answer your question, please ask again. Thanks.

There is certainly nothing wrong with critiquing someone's beliefs. That is often fun. Where we err is when we walk down the slippery slope to symbolic violence: Ranking, Generalizing, NormalizIng, Onlying, and Othering. Those are, in my experience, precursors to much of human conflict and all of the many forms of violence.