Jump to content

What Are "Uncorrelated" Mormons Afraid Of?


Duncan

Recommended Posts

I was wondering what people who identify as an "uncorrelated" Mormon seem to be afraid of? I don't know what a "correlated" Mormon is but what would be the worse thing that could happen to an "uncorrelated" Mormon if they identified as a "correlated" one. I hate labeling people because it seems like uncorrelated Mormons now all correlate together but...just asking! Please note I have glasses so no hitting

Link to comment

"Uncorrelated" Mormons aren't "afraid" of anything. They are just trying to explain their stance that they don't believe in certain aspects of the correlated history and/or doctrines of the Church, but they consider themselves "mormon". They are just trying to be honest about where they stand.

Random Example:

"Uncorrelated Mormom A" doesn't believe in the historicity of the BOM. He's not "afraid" of believing in the historicity of the BOM, he just doesn't believe it.

Link to comment

I was wondering what people who identify as an "uncorrelated" Mormon seem to be afraid of? I don't know what a "correlated" Mormon is but what would be the worse thing that could happen to an "uncorrelated" Mormon if they identified as a "correlated" one. I hate labeling people because it seems like uncorrelated Mormons now all correlate together but...just asking! Please note I have glasses so no hitting

You lost me; could you define each?

Link to comment

You lost me; could you define each?

I can't! I am lost in all these blooming acronyms, NOM, Uncorrelated Mormons, and the like. There is another thread going about what it probably means!

Link to comment

I can't! I am lost in all these blooming acronyms, NOM, Uncorrelated Mormons, and the like. There is another thread going about what it probably means!

You should be lost and very confused for you don't have an identity crisis.

If a person with an identity crisis can't even wrap their brains around it, we shouldn't be expected to either.

Link to comment

"Uncorrelated" Mormons aren't "afraid" of anything. They are just trying to explain their stance that they don't believe in certain aspects of the correlated history and/or doctrines of the Church, but they consider themselves "mormon". They are just trying to be honest about where they stand.

Random Example:

"Uncorrelated Mormom A" doesn't believe in the historicity of the BOM. He's not "afraid" of believing in the historicity of the BOM, he just doesn't believe it.

Then he's just not a Mormon. The historicity of the BoM is kind of a big deal. To question its historicity is to question whether it was an ancient record on golden plates translated by Joseph Smith. Seems pretty clear that if you don't believe that, you're just not a Mormon.

Link to comment

Then he's just not a Mormon. The historicity of the BoM is kind of a big deal. To question its historicity is to question whether it was an ancient record on golden plates translated by Joseph Smith. Seems pretty clear that if you don't believe that, you're just not a Mormon.

Its a big deal to you, its not a big deal to others.

Link to comment

33For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.

34And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.

35That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.

36All kingdoms have a law given;

37And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

38And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

DC 88:33-38

I would be interested how uncorrelated Mormons interpret these verses. I am just trying to understand and not ridicule

Link to comment

Its a big deal to you, its not a big deal to others.

I mean it's a "big deal" as in the entire narrative of Joseph Smith, the plates, the Angel Moroni, etc. is wrapped up in the historicity of the BoM. That's the foundation of Mormon theology. If you don't believe Mormon theology, you're not a Mormon. Seems fairly simple to me.

Link to comment

I'm not a fan of attempting to read other people's minds/hearts and/or of broad generalisations, but I've had a couple of close friends who might fit into this category, and it has seemed to me after 100s of hours of discussion that they are afraid that, if they truly surrender themselves, they will somehow be less, not more.

Link to comment

"Uncorrelated" Mormons aren't "afraid" of anything. They are just trying to explain their stance that they don't believe in certain aspects of the correlated history and/or doctrines of the Church, but they consider themselves "mormon". They are just trying to be honest about where they stand.

Random Example:

"Uncorrelated Mormom A" doesn't believe in the historicity of the BOM. He's not "afraid" of believing in the historicity of the BOM, he just doesn't believe it.

I definitely appreciate honesty. These labels to me only reflect a ball of confusion. They want to be considered "Mormon", but don't believe in the doctrines - just doesn't work in the Gospel no matter what kind of "creative" label a person makes up. Keeping one foot in the Church and the world doesn't work either.

The Gospel isn't designed to live in grey areas. It is black and white. It doesn't mean a person can decide to live in grey areas, but they are also deciding to live in the Terrestrial Kingdom which according to Doctrine and Covenants - that's where "uncorrelated Mormons" will be.

Link to comment
The Gospel isn't designed to live in grey areas. It is black and white. It doesn't mean a person can decide to live in grey areas, but they are also deciding to live in the Terrestrial Kingdom which according to Doctrine and Covenants - that's where "uncorrelated Mormons" will be.

I'm really not that bothered by someone who wants to be considered Mormon but who doesn't believe or doesn't know about the 'important' stuff. (loaded term, I know... what's 'important'?) What bothers me is when they say they don't believe, but have a surprising number of negative opinions and conclusions rather than sticking back in that "I'm not sure" area. Or when they spend years on a Church-related dialog website arguing with others who do believe the other stuff. ;)

Link to comment
I'm not a fan of attempting to read other people's minds/hearts and or of broad generalisations,

UK spelling of 'generalizations' aside, I really agree with this. I don't like it when the critic kicks dust on my spiritual experiences because it's all in my head, so I probably should keep my nose out of the what's, why's, and how's of another person's spiritual journey.

It's like 3DOP said... (And I really liked this, 3DOP) You really can only judge actions, not motives. Leave that one to God.

Link to comment

I mean it's a "big deal" as in the entire narrative of Joseph Smith, the plates, the Angel Moroni, etc. is wrapped up in the historicity of the BoM. That's the foundation of Mormon theology. If you don't believe Mormon theology, you're not a Mormon. Seems fairly simple to me.

Not so. That's very black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. If a person generally agrees with positions of the Republican Party, but does not accept each and every single plank of their platform, does that mean they are not Republican?

One does not have to consider BoM events to be literal, historical fact in order to consider it scripture. You could think of it as "inspired myth" that teaches truths about God and our relationship with Him. Many Christian think this way about the Bible.

Link to comment

Not so. That's very black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. If a person generally agrees with positions of the Republican Party, but does not accept each and every single plank of their platform, does that mean they are not Republican?

Political affiliation and religious belief are not the same thing. Besides, if you didn't agree with a core position of the Republican party, I think you wouldn't be affiliated with them anyway.

One does not have to consider BoM events to be literal, historical fact in order to consider it scripture. You could think of it as "inspired myth" that teaches truths about God and our relationship with Him. Many Christian think this way about the Bible.

Perhaps not every detail, but you must at least concede that there is some kind of historicity to it, such as the fact that it was translated from ancient golden plates, and that at least one of the writers of the book appeared to Joseph Smith. That's a core belief of the Church, as far as I know.

Link to comment

Then he's just not a Mormon. The historicity of the BoM is kind of a big deal. To question its historicity is to question whether it was an ancient record on golden plates translated by Joseph Smith. Seems pretty clear that if you don't believe that, you're just not a Mormon.

It is this belief that has caused the "uncorrelated mormons" to give themselves the label. They truly consider themselves "mormon" and want to be included in that broad class, but have been told statement like the above. And instead of saying "well, I guess I'll just leave the church" they try to carve out a niche that they can feel comfortable with.

I know there are people that say this is "bad" and they are "lukewarm" and in "gray areas" and shouldn't be doing it, but these people are trying not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If "Uncorrleated Mormon A" sat down with President Monson and said "I love the church, it's my heritage, i love the people. I love the teaching of Christ. I feel welcome worshiping with the Saints. I don't have a testimony of the historicity of the BOM, but I want to attend sacrament meeting and keep my calling in the Relief Society as a Visiting Teaching Supervisor... can I do that?"

I highly doubt that he would say "If you don't believe the BOM is historic, then you are not a Mormon. I'm sorry." I would think he would say, "Of course your can! I believe the historicity of the BOM and hope one day you will too, but in the meantime, please come and worship with us as one of us. Don't feel like you don't belong or are not wanted."

Link to comment

It is this belief that has caused the "uncorrelated mormons" to give themselves the label. They truly consider themselves "mormon" and want to be included in that broad class, but have been told statement like the above. And instead of saying "well, I guess I'll just leave the church" they try to carve out a niche that they can feel comfortable with.

I know there are people that say this is "bad" and they are "lukewarm" and in "gray areas" and shouldn't be doing it, but these people are trying not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If "Uncorrleated Mormon A" sat down with President Monson and said "I love the church, it's my heritage, i love the people. I love the teaching of Christ. I feel welcome worshiping with the Saints. I don't have a testimony of the historicity of the BOM, but I want to attend sacrament meeting and keep my calling in the Relief Society as a Visiting Teaching Supervisor... can I do that?"

I highly doubt that he would say "If you don't believe the BOM is historic, then you are not a Mormon. I'm sorry." I would think he would say, "Of course your can! I believe the historicity of the BOM and hope one day you will too, but in the meantime, please come and worship with us as one of us. Don't feel like you don't belong or are not wanted."

I agree that is what is "generally" is done with "struggling" members and I fully believe everything can be reconciled.

But there comes a point that person has to work out that so called "historicity" issue for I believe it will only weaken a testimony, never strengthen it.

In addition, I really don't get the historicity issue, at all. Yes, the world believes the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate. But who are we going to believe, the world or the Lord and His Servants?

And if you continue with this "historicity" issue. When does it stop? The Lord and G-d are not historically accurate according to the world.

Link to comment

Unfortunately, in the Church, there are a number of people who think that every believer understands all doctrines the way that they do, and that anyone who believes otherwise must be undergoing a crisis of faith.

Some of the discussions on this board that illustrate that fact are:

  • Limited Geography vs. Hemispheric models of Book of Mormon geography
  • Was Noah's flood a worldwide event or a local one
  • Was the translation of the Book of Abraham a literal translation of the papyrus that Joseph was holding at the time, or was the papyrus more of a catalyst
  • The Age of the Earth
  • Is Man the product of an Evolutionary Process
  • Was the Priesthood ban a representation of God's Will, a mistake by the Church, or something else entirely

Proponents of both sides of each of these debates can find plenty of authoritative sources by Prophets, Seers and Revelators to back up their side of the arguement.

Using the term "correlated" is an interesting one, as most Church Manuals and official policies that emerged "post-correlation" don't address many of those issues. When studying Noah's flood, the emphasis is now on Following the Prophet rather on any theories about the need for the Earth to be baptised by immersion.

Even President Hinckley's now (in)famous statement regarding "As man is, God once was..." makes more sense in a post-correlation environment when he said "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

Prior to Correlation, a lot of Church leaders and even more Church members did an awful lot of speculating regarding doctrine. Correlation was an effort to set aside those speculative areas that we don't teach or emphasize and to concentrate on the doctrines that actually matter to our salvation.

Link to comment

But there comes a point that person has to work out that so called "historicity" issue for I believe it will only weaken a testimony, never strengthen it.

I agree with your statement, I guess the issue I'm thinking about is less about the doctrine, but what to do with the Member who can't seem to "work it out" and accept it. Is there a place for those people "in" the church?

Think of these 4 different members with their concerns. Don't think about changing them, they just are this way and may be til the day they die:

Member A doesn't believe that the BOM is a historical record

Member B doesn't believe the Polygamy was ever an inspired practice

Member C smokes and has no intention of quitting

Member D refuses to be a home teacher and doesn't believe in the Home Teaching program

Are all of these people "Mormom"? I know in terms of getting a Temple Recommend, the lines are drawn on some things.

But are there lines are drawn for being "Mormon" and attending church every week and participating as one of the congregation?

Link to comment
Correlation was an effort to set aside those speculative areas that we don't teach or emphasize and to concentrate on the doctrines that actually matter to our salvation.

It was also, in part, a reaction to David O. McKay's administrative style. Harold B. Lee in particular spearheaded the original correlation effort, and the result was increased power taken from both the prophet & the auxiliaries that was turned over to the Twelve.

An amazing account of this history can be found in this book.

Link to comment

I agree that things are not necessarily black and white.

But I think that there are some lines that CAN be drawn.

From temple recommend interviews, it is clear that there is a certain standard required for real basic beliefs.

Furthermore, I'd argue that from a certain basic interpretation of temple covenants, basic loyalty is required to the brethren, and a certain amount of willingness to stand in defense of the Church..

Therefore (1) while someone can maintain membership and believe whatever they please, and not lose that membership (i.e. the NOM/uncorrelated Mormons), (2) for those that intend to enter the temple, they are required to have certain basic beliefs and take a side with the Brethren on basic issues and so forth. So while there is a certain grey area with regard to belief and stance on issues and so forth, and to what degree you are correlated, it seems pretty clear to me that "Temple Mormons", to borrow a term from Ed Decker and other antis (I actually find that term useful in this context), "Temple Mormons" have a certain bar that is higher of a standard that they must meet to be considered a "Temple Mormon". So really, I don't so much like the TBM vs NOM or Uncorrelated versus correlated models/spectra. I prefer the Temple Mormon/Loyalty versus Non-Temple Mormon/Disloyal-to-whatever-degree model. Because I find the notion of loyalty and real basic beliefs in the foundation of the restoration a better issue to distinguish by, rather than this "Correlation/Uncorrelation" model that John Dehlin and company use. Because to me, I don't care what you believe. I only care if you are loyal. And many NOM types can be much more loyal to the stance of the brethren than TBMs who have bad attitudes due to some pet issue they have. Submission to the brethren and loyalty to their stance is much more important than petty things like whether something is correlated or even historicity questions.

Not so. That's very black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. If a person generally agrees with positions of the Republican Party, but does not accept each and every single plank of their platform, does that mean they are not Republican?

One does not have to consider BoM events to be literal, historical fact in order to consider it scripture. You could think of it as "inspired myth" that teaches truths about God and our relationship with Him. Many Christian think this way about the Bible.

Link to comment

I agree with your statement, I guess the issue I'm thinking about is less about the doctrine, but what to do with the Member who can't seem to "work it out" and accept it. Is there a place for those people "in" the church?

Think of these 4 different members with their concerns. Don't think about changing them, they just are this way and may be til the day they die:

Member A doesn't believe that the BOM is a historical record

Member B doesn't believe the Polygamy was ever an inspired practice

Member C smokes and has no intention of quitting

Member D refuses to be a home teacher and doesn't believe in the Home Teaching program

Are all of these people "Mormom"? I know in terms of getting a Temple Recommend, the lines are drawn on some things.

But are there lines are drawn for being "Mormon" and attending church every week and participating as one of the congregation?

The Church is for everyone.

Member A,B,C,D need to feel love and acceptance no matter where they are in life. As I stated before, a relationship needs to be built with rapport, love, friendship and non-judgment and then the "issues" can be worked out together with fasting and prayer.

I am glad you came on here, I am taking a hiatus - as I said, there are wonderful and faithful members here who will help you out. Feel free to email me too. Take care.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...