Mormon Ultraorthodoxy

[Joseph Antley]

First, let me clarify with a disclaimer that I do not think any dichotomy exists among Latter-day Saints where everyone can be cleanly separated into categories like chapel Mormon and internet Mormon.

Nevertheless, I keep running into common ideas that seem to commonly exist together, and usually the ones that are generally (and unfairly) classed as "chapel mormonism".

I am not suggesting a dichotomy, but do you think an ultraorthodoxy exists in the LDS Church among certain Saints? Or am I way off base?

[DH]

First, let me clarify with a disclaimer that I do not think any dichotomy exists among Latter-day Saints where everyone can be cleanly separated into categories like chapel Mormon and internet Mormon.

Nevertheless, I keep running into common ideas that seem to commonly exist together, and usually the ones that are generally (and unfairly) classed as "chapel mormonism".

I am not suggesting a dichotomy, but do you think an ultraorthodoxy exists in the LDS Church among certain Saints? Or am I way off base?

You are right not to think in terms of dichotomy. I prefer to think of it as a continuum, with many different types of people. As in any faith community, yes, we do have people who could be classified as "ultraorthodox" (or who think of themselves as orthodox). One problem with this, however, is defining orthodoxy. Sometimes it can be difficult to pin down exactly what is "official" doctrine and what is not, let alone what is the "proper" interpretation of it. (Perhaps it's intentionally left a bit ambiguous, so that people can glean additional insights by pondering multiple layers or facets of meaning.)

DH

[LDSToronto]

First, let me clarify with a disclaimer that I do not think any dichotomy exists among Latter-day Saints where everyone can be cleanly separated into categories like chapel Mormon and internet Mormon.

Nevertheless, I keep running into common ideas that seem to commonly exist together, and usually the ones that are generally (and unfairly) classed as "chapel mormonism".

I am not suggesting a dichotomy, but do you think an ultraorthodoxy exists in the LDS Church among certain Saints? Or am I way off base?

Maybe, but I don't know. Perhaps you can be more specific about what 'common ideas seem to commonly exist together' are, and what leads you to think that those who hold those ideas are 'ultra-orthodox'.

I know I have a vision of an ultra-orthodox LDS, but I have a feeling it is different from what you are describing here.

H.

[Honorentheos]

While serving an LDS mission, there seemed to be a rough dichotomy among the missionaries between the Bruce R. McConkie lovers and those that felt he was way off base with much of what he said. I didn't really see the point in categorizing Elder McConkie so narrowly (who doesn't love I Believe in Christ?), but on returning home I found this paradigm to extend to quite a few members. My brother-in-law, for example, loves Elder McConkie and we had an interesting discussion once on how Elder McConkie disliked anything that Cleon Skousen had written. LDS cliches based on favored leaders are interesting.

I've since come to have a loose idea of what you may call an ultra-orthodox mormon as being associated with people who lean towards really, REALLY liking things that Elder McConkie, President Joseph Field Smith, and Elder Packer-types have said.

In otherwords, while I agree with the notion of a spectrum, I think that a hint can be found regarding where a person may lie on the spectrum in looking at which past and current church leaders a member tends to quote or seem most spiritually akin to. Most members do not absolutely dislike any of the GA's, I suspect, but the more skewed to a core group a person may be (rather than being equally appreciative of the whole body) the more likely they are to not be in the meaty portion of the bell curve.

[Duncan]

Yes I do think there are hardliners in the Church as well as liberals. I doubt I could define those terms without describing specific people in mind.

[Calm]

What I find interesting is the majority of the more extreme "hardliners", "ultraorthodox" or "traditionalists" I have encountered possess some really 'out there' idea as well, usually a church hobby gone ballistic.

It is also interesting that the rumour is that Elder McKonkie disliked Skousen as Cleon is seen by most in my experience as one of the "ultraorthodox".

[Tabitha]

First, let me clarify with a disclaimer that I do not think any dichotomy exists among Latter-day Saints where everyone can be cleanly separated into categories like chapel Mormon and internet Mormon.

Nevertheless, I keep running into common ideas that seem to commonly exist together, and usually the ones that are generally (and unfairly) classed as "chapel mormonism".

I am not suggesting a dichotomy, but do you think an ultraorthodoxy exists in the LDS Church among certain Saints? Or am I way off base?

Anyone who insists on wearing a dress to VT is probably ultraorthodox. Here is how I would break it down:

Ultraorthodox: PG movies only (usually Disney movies), listen only to Motab or other churchy music. Consider weekly or twice monthly temple attendance their main source of recreation. Read only scriptures or church books. Wear church clothes all day on Sunday. Always fast a full 24 hours. Do VT and HT every month. Are offended by anything worldly (such as American Idol and Dancing with the Stars). Usually think the world is going to heck in a handbasket. Sometimes so far to the right they wouldn't even vote for McCain (or Bush). Love to give talks on following the prophet.

On my mission I did see a strong dichotomy between those who were "Letter of the Law" and more "Spirit of the Law." I tended to agree that exact obedience was important, but I found at time the extraordinary lengths some people would go to in showing obedience became ridiculous, and killed love for one another and the spirit.

I was a little upset a few months ago by an eight-year-old girl in our Primary who almost threw up and passed out because of fasting. Her mother is what I would consider ultra-orthodox. I thought it was unfortunate that this little girl was being taught to associate love of the Savior with physical pain.

Tabitha

[BCSpace]

I am not suggesting a dichotomy, but do you think an ultraorthodoxy exists in the LDS Church among certain Saints?

It appears that way. But all the stories I've heard about such people have been anecdotal. I've met some who might be more strict in their interpretation of the commandments than I, but nothing extreme.

Where I see a dichotomy is between the older and younger generations. Older generations is where you tend to find more resistence to local Flood, LGT's, and theory of evolution though I think they are comming around (anecdotal, I know). The younger generation is more open to those ideas. This has nothing to do with being on the internet and many LDS of the older generation are internet savy (part of the LDS culture to be more educated, having to get online to do geneology, prepare lessons, etc.).

There is nothing wrong with such a dichotomy. Neither side is really in opposition to doctrine, it's just that different generations were raised on different scientific explainations etc.

[firepatch36]

There are those who take the Word of Wisdom to the extreme. Those could maybe be considered ultraorthodox, or just a little crazy.

[Olavarria]

Haredim

Orthodox

Conservative

Reform Rabbi

For terms like Ultraorthodox, Orthodox, Liberal and others to mean anything in Mormonism you need people to describe themselves as such. Can anyone who is LDS honestly say they attend an ultraorthodox ward? You need people to get together in groups and draw up guiding principles around which "new order" or "orthodox" actually mean something. More importantly, you need people from these differing religious parties to acknowledge the members of the other parties as being good mormons. So far, I have only seen such things on the internet.

If you want to go against the Church's official conventions when it comes to identifying who us a Latter Day Saint, you might be able to say:

Polygamous Sects(Ultra Orthodox)

LDS(Orthodox)

CoC(Reform)

But I dont think any of these groups would go with this. It would be more like

My Group(Real mormons)

Other group(fake mormon)

Other group(Diet fake mormons)

That is I think the genius of the Gospel, the whole thing about: "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves".

Outside of the internet you can have a:

LGT,

Darwinist,

attends the temple every week,

only dates people with active temple recommends,

has a close gay friend,

drinks Coke,

has Orson Pratt views on polygamy,

only kiss a girl if they are officially exclusive(or are very close to being that)

does not get offended by belly dancing at the Persian Restuarant

alaways wears the garment

watches Ultimate Fighting at Hooters,

watches TV on Sundays,

100% home teaching,

fast full 24 hours,

doesnt work on Sunday,

loves to give talks about following the prophet,

thinks that an LDS girl wearing a bikini is not commiting 10% the sin of the LDS guy who is leering at her is

thinks the War in Iraq is a huge waste of time

thinks cheating on an exam is a bigger sin than drinking a beer

Gives a big thumbs up to BRM when he is taking about the atonement,prophets, eternal marriage and Joseph Smith etc........but looks the other way when BRM talks about science

Sticks up for his Bishop when others talk smack, but in his mind recognizes when his Bishop has goofed up.

Latter Day Saint

I think the members of our Church are way too complicated to put into compartments they themselves don't officially put themselves into.

[Lightbearer]

I had an institute instructor who once put it this way: "There are many different levels of understanding and conversion in the true Church. Some are at a Pre-K level, some are at grade school level, some are at high school level, some are at undergraduate college level, and some are doing post graduate work." This understanding helped me to understand why some have different views other than the "official view." There is also another problem, and that is the possibility of "tares" among the "wheat" and in order for them to be sifted out a great deal of trials and challenges are sent in our direction. That is why the Savior told Peter "When thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren." Just because a person gains a testimony does not mean they are fully converted to the Gospel or understands all things about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We may think we know a tremendous amount, but the closer one gets to the spirit the more they realize that we comprehend very little. The reason we study the four standard works over and over at a four year cycle is because we all can gain more as we study more, no matter how much we think we know. Also even if we have memorized all the scriptures word for word, the process of studying and ponder them can often bring different insights at different times. Finally the reason we have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost and living prophets and apostles is because as long as we are in this mortal existence we can always increase our faith and knowledge until we achieve the stature of the fullness of Christ. We are all at different places in this mortal probation and we all have different "tutorials" to pass and master before we are "made perfect" so it is inevitable that we will all be at different points in the process. I liken it to the parable of the talents, we must improve on what we have been given and be humble (teachable) and have faith enough to trust in the Lord and His servants so we can grow up to the Lord in our wisdom and knowledge and especially our faith.

Having said that I do not think there is an "ultra-orthodoxy" in the Church, I think that may be a "tag" or "label" given to those who may seem more "strict" than others in their understanding of the doctrines of the Gospel and who seem not open to "interpretations" that would conflict (either actually or apparently) with what is taught by the general authorities of the Church. So every man and woman must judge for themselves their own "orthodoxy" and relate it to their valiance in serving the Lord and in their loyalty to the Church. It is interesting the teachings we had yesterday on the importance of unity among the Latter-day Saints and I believe it relates directly to this topic. Fortunately if we are too "orthodox" or too "liberal" there is always repentance that gives us the opportunity to align ourselves with the mainstream teachings of the Church and the doctrine that is taught by the apostles and prophets. It is critical that we do follow the Lord's servants as the following indicates:

(D&C 1:11-16) "Wherefore the voice of the Lord is unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear: Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh; And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth. And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall."

[Analytics]

I've since come to have a loose idea of what you may call an ultra-orthodox mormon as being associated with people who lean towards really, REALLY liking things that Elder McConkie, President Joseph Field Smith, and Elder Packer-types have said.

Excellent examples. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie were quite certain about a lot of things that they believed were central issues of the gospel (e.g. no death before the fall). If you believe their certainty was grounded in a clear understanding of the nature of reality and that they were insightful apostles who told it like it isâ??wisdom of man be damnedâ??then you are an Orthodox Mormon.

[robuchan]

I had an institute instructor who once put it this way: "There are many different levels of understanding and conversion in the true Church. Some are at a Pre-K level, some are at grade school level, some are at high school level, some are at undergraduate college level, and some are doing post graduate work." This understanding helped me to understand why some have different views other than the "official view." There is also another problem, and that is the possibility of "tares" among the "wheat" and in order for them to be sifted out a great deal of trials and challenges are sent in our direction. That is why the Savior told Peter "When thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren." Just because a person gains a testimony does not mean they are fully converted to the Gospel or understands all things about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We may think we know a tremendous amount, but the closer one gets to the spirit the more they realize that we comprehend very little. The reason we study the four standard works over and over at a four year cycle is because we all can gain more as we study more, no matter how much we think we know. Also even if we have memorized all the scriptures word for word, the process of studying and ponder them can often bring different insights at different times. Finally the reason we have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost and living prophets and apostles is because as long as we are in this mortal existence we can always increase our faith and knowledge until we achieve the stature of the fullness of Christ. We are all at different places in this mortal probation and we all have different "tutorials" to pass and master before we are "made perfect" so it is inevitable that we will all be at different points in the process. I liken it to the parable of the talents, we must improve on what we have been given and be humble (teachable) and have faith enough to trust in the Lord and His servants so we can grow up to the Lord in our wisdom and knowledge and especially our faith.

Having said that I do not think there is an "ultra-orthodoxy" in the Church, I think that may be a "tag" or "label" given to those who may seem more "strict" than others in their understanding of the doctrines of the Gospel and who seem not open to "interpretations" that would conflict (either actually or apparently) with what is taught by the general authorities of the Church. So every man and woman must judge for themselves their own "orthodoxy" and relate it to their valiance in serving the Lord and in their loyalty to the Church. It is interesting the teachings we had yesterday on the importance of unity among the Latter-day Saints and I believe it relates directly to this topic. Fortunately if we are too "orthodox" or too "liberal" there is always repentance that gives us the opportunity to align ourselves with the mainstream teachings of the Church and the doctrine that is taught by the apostles and prophets. It is critical that we do follow the Lord's servants as the following indicates:

I think I agree with the idea but may come to exact opposite conclusion. Do you think the ones doing "post graduate work" are the liberal Mormons or the ultra-orthodox?

[The Nehor]

I think I agree with the idea but may come to exact opposite conclusion. Do you think the ones doing "post graduate work" are the liberal Mormons or the ultra-orthodox?

Usually neither in my experience. The former are generally too interested in their own ideas and the learning of men to uncritically accept revelation and the latter are too dogmatic to learn anything new and are like those Joseph Smith described as going to pieces when a cherished view or idea is shown to be false. They also think they know more then they do.

[robuchan]

Usually neither in my experience. The former are generally too interested in their own ideas and the learning of men to uncritically accept revelation and the latter are too dogmatic to learn anything new and are like those Joseph Smith described as going to pieces when a cherished view or idea is shown to be false. They also think they know more then they do.

What about a liberal Mormon who donates to the perpetual education fund?

[annewandering]

I would classify myself as orthodox if I were to classify at all. But with the understanding that to be orthodox means not being critical of others and knowing I am not perfect either.

Ultraorthodox people do exist. I was struck by the WoW comment above. Generally it seems people try to justify in regards to WoW but man some people are so strict with it to the point of meat being a sin unless there is nothing else to eat.

TV is satans playground and the internet is only for genealogy work. On the other hand what are they doing that is wrong? Nothing. So long as they don't impose their ideas on everyone else.

Ultraorthodox is probably the safest place to be if you keep love of your brothers and sisters to the forefront. It is probably too easy to be self righteous about it.

Really it is more important to decide for yourself where you stand and why you stand there and go on from that point. It is no good to decide about any one or groups 'classification'. In fact isn't it a bit sanctimonious?

[The Nehor]

What about a liberal Mormon who donates to the perpetual education fund?

No idea as donating to a fund says nothing about a person's spiritual development. I'd like to donate more to that fund but I think my ward needs Fast Offerings more.

[The Nehor]

To be clear I don't think speculating on everything under the sun (Me) or being strict in interpretation of someone hinders someone's development. The test is what happens when revelation (either personal or through intermediaries) shows that you are wrong. If you have a good laugh at your naivete and follow through you are fine. It's when you stick to your habits or hold to your own theories out of conceit that danger comes.

[annewandering]

To be clear I don't think speculating on everything under the sun (Me) or being strict in interpretation of someone hinders someone's development. The test is what happens when revelation (either personal or through intermediaries) shows that you are wrong. If you have a good laugh at your naivete and follow through you are fine. It's when you stick to your habits or hold to your own theories out of conceit that danger comes.

That sounds like good advice.

What do you mean about interpreting someone? You mean like talks or writings?

[robuchan]

No idea as donating to a fund says nothing about a person's spiritual development. I'd like to donate more to that fund but I think my ward needs Fast Offerings more.

What I meant was a liberal mormon who's open to the concept of revelation. You seemed to eliminate that in your categorization.

[The Nehor]

That sounds like good advice.

What do you mean about interpreting someone? You mean like talks or writings?

I meant something (a doctrine mostly) not someone. Sorry.

[The Nehor]

What I meant was a liberal mormon who's open to the concept of revelation. You seemed to eliminate that in your categorization.

I think it depends on what we mean by 'liberal'. The word has become borderline meaningless due to having too many meanings. I probably fit some of the descriptions of liberal Mormon.

What I most commonly think when I hear the term applied: (From http://www.mudrow.org/Herb/FKM1.html)

Liberal Mormons

Liberal Mormons comprise the broadest category of Mormons.

Regardless of temporal politics, LMs are considered liberal by virtue of their "odd" or non-conformist notions about Mormonism. Unofficial Church policy and general membership consensus is that they are all going to hell.

Traditionally, LMs vote anywhere to the left of the Republican party. On the average, they have 4.9 children-a token effort in the Church's unspoken policy of Mormonizing the world through reproduction. LMs, when they pay it, pay tithing haphazardly with literally no idea of whether it is 10 percent or not.

Liberal Mormons are also comprised of anyone who does not go to church regularly or even at all and still believes the gospel to be essentially true. LMs who don't go to church resent being called "less active" since the reason they don't go to church in the first place is because other Mormons there tend to be less active themselves; although by Liberal Mormon definition this is more of a cerebral thing than an attendance thing.

LMs do not believe that every word that falls from the lips of a general authority represents the actual personal opinion of Jesus Christ.

A trait singular to Liberal Mormons is their love of baiting normally complacent Mormons with such stimulating statements as "We used to live polygamy because Joseph Smith was a Capricorn."

Female LMs also think that it is highly astute of them to repeatedly point out the anatomical differences in the sexes as a snide indication of true priesthood eligibility. Hopeless LMs like to think that they could read the mind of God if they could only get a doctorate in something obscure and useless like Mesozoic Menstrual Studies.

Faith and obedience are onerous things to most LMs, who demand human explanations for virtually everything with which they don't agree. If pressed hard enough, most LMs would explain the veil placed over our eyes at birth to be the real product of sexism, cronyism, conservatism, or just plain old BYUism. It never occurs to LMs that their intellectual contrariness may be the cross they are required to bear in life instead of a Word of Wisdom or a tithing problem. LMs would argue gospel doctrine with an angel, the burning bush, or even another flood.

LMs tend to worship most diligently at the altar of their own opinion.

[annewandering]

I meant something (a doctrine mostly) not someone. Sorry.

Whew that makes a lot of sense now! thanks

[Olavarria]

Ultraorthodox people do exist. I was struck by the WoW comment above. Generally it seems people try to justify in regards to WoW but man some people are so strict with it to the point of meat being a sin unless there is nothing else to eat.

Given that up until Heber J Grant you could be a temple worthy LDS and drink an occasional beer know and again, it would seem to me that the "ultraorthodox" position would be to be lenient on the WoW. Joseph drank beer.

It seems to me that most people are thinking "ultraorthodox=extremly strict".

[annewandering]

Given that up until Heber J Grant you could be a temple worthy LDS and drink an occasional beer know and again, it would seem to me that the "ultraorthodox" position would be to be lenient on the WoW. Joseph drank beer.

It seems to me that most people are thinking "ultraorthodox=extremly strict".

It always comes down to definition it seems. I would say extremely strict would be my definition of ultraorthodox.

For me as orthodox in nature I would go by the temple recommend questions as a guide to the WoW. For ultra I would think they would go to the parts that were never even made commandments just to be on the safe side.

Anyway this really reminds me too much of the jewish arguments over the sabbath and food and unclean although that is what ultra boils down to doesnt it?