Identity

[Damien the Leper]

I recently listened to a podcast on the Mormon Matters site titled "Self-Identifying as Mormon". It was a profound and thought provoking discussion with contributors Joanna Brooks, Jared Anderson, Blair Hodges and Dan Wotherspoon.

From the page:

"Mormonism has always been a home to members with many different religious temperaments, levels of belief, attitudes toward authority, and commitment to and comfort within the community. Still, even with this diversity, Mormonism has often felt to many members (and certainly to most outsiders) as monolithic—if the diversity is there, it hasn’t always been easy to find those “like you.”

Indeed, much of this sense and appearance of unity came as a result of the efforts of the institutional church to deliberately set and convey fairly rigid boundaries about what constituted orthodoxy and orthopraxis, and who was and was not a Mormon “in good standing.” Thanks in large part to the Internet revolution and the powerful networking it allows, this situation seems to be changing. Latter-day Saints are no longer looking quite as much to the institution for such definitions. Church members along many different spectrums of belief, practice, and commitment are finding each other and declaring their identities as Mormons, even if they fail to align very closely with the mainstream."

I no longer identify with the institutional church because of the fact that concepts and ideals such as orthodoxy and tradition hold little to no meaning to me. Both concepts are human in origin and humanly shaped and done so consistently.

"Believe and obey" or "Rank and file" are methods of spiritual abuse and violence. Because President [insert name] or Elder [insert name] says so or teaches on a specific doctrine does not automatically constitute relevence to every single latter day saint.

I struggle with reading the Book of Mormon but there is still something that draws me to it. Joseph Smith is a problematic historical figure yet I am still drawn to our sacred story and what it means to me as a self-identifying Mormon.

As I stated before in another thread, my faith and membership in the church is not conditionalized by creedal statements, 'authoritative' proclamations, etc. My faith is not deductively reasoned to Joseph Smith and his call as a prophet.

With that said...

Truth is a claim and not always a fact.

I see prophets (excessively heavy plural emphasis) and not just a prophet or specific group of prophets.

I honor scripture as the origin for each child of God's sacred story but do so with consideration to allegory and metaphor.

I know that I'm not the only person that identifies the way I do and those who do don't identify exactly as I do. My question is this...at what point is the church going to allow for open dialogue, exercise of conscience, or freedom to reflect and implement personal theology as a means to experience God more fully and not simply by current institutionalized theological parameters?

For those who don't identify so closely with the institutional church, what does being Mormon mean to you? What does it say about your testimony? Has it been a blessing? A burden? Both?

This topic isn't meant to be controversial or to criticize the testimonies of others. As Jared Anderson states in the podcast, the members who identify traditionally have every right to so identify without someone trying to disrupt. However, the courtesy should be granted likewise to those who no longer identify traditionally.

[Senator]

My question is this...at what point is the church going to allow for open dialogue, exercise of conscience, or freedom to reflect and implement personal theology as a means to experience God more fully and not simply by current institutionalized theological parameters?

Now.

Have you read some of the profiles on the "I'm a Mormon" website? Some of those people make me look like an "Saint"!!

[Damien the Leper]

Now.

Have you read some of the profiles on the "I'm a Mormon" website? Some of those people make me look like an "Saint"!!

But which of those videos talks about a member who struggles with their testimony, with the doctrine of polygamy, with deification, with the BOM, the BOA and while they express their doubts or concerns they end the video with "I'm a Mormon"?

Will we see this sort of honest reflection at all? If not, what is the purpose of suppressing testimony and atypical Mormon identification?

[thesometimesaint]

Valentinus:

For me when someone starts to deny the Truth Claims of the Church. That person needs to do some serious reflection of what being a member of the Church means.

IE. When the Church changed the name of the Improvement Era to the Ensign some left the Church.

[altersteve]

IE. When the Church changed the name of the Improvement Era to the Ensign some left the Church.

Wait, are you serious?

[Cobalt-70]

Not all members of the Joseph Smith movement are Mormons, not all Mormons are Latter-day Saints, and not all Latter-day Saints are members of the LDS Church. All that the LDS Church can define is who are its own members. It has no jurisdiction over anyone else, so anyone who is a Mormon but not a member of the LDS Church should not necessarily care about how the LDS Church defines them. Likewise, people who are members of the LDS Church, and want to remain so, are free to adopt any beliefs or views that will not implicate church disciplinary procedures.

[thesometimesaint]

altersteve:

Yes.

[CV75]

I know that I'm not the only person that identifies the way I do and those who do don't identify exactly as I do. My question is this...at what point is the church going to allow for open dialogue, exercise of conscience, or freedom to reflect and implement personal theology as a means to experience God more fully and not simply by current institutionalized theological parameters?

Why would non-traditionals wait for an invitation or permission to express themselves? Of course they need to do it in a socially acceptable manner if they really want to be listened to.

Edited January 17, 2012 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

The correct name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Further if you ask 99 people out of 100 "Who are the Mormons?" they will say us. Not the Community of Christ, not the FLDS, not any of the break away or never were part of us groups.

[Sky]

I guess it doesn't really matter so much about who calls themselves a Mormon because, in the end, God cares the most about how well we kept our covenants.

But, FYI, here's how the Webster's dictionary defines the term Mormon.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus:

For me when someone starts to deny the Truth Claims of the Church. That person needs to do some serious reflection of what being a member of the Church means.

IE. When the Church changed the name of the Improvement Era to the Ensign some left the Church.

But this only sticks if you subscribe to a 'standard' member concept. Many, like myself, are moving away from conditionalized theological idealism. For me, orthodoxy and tradition are barren. Like orthodoxy, status quo, normal, etc. have very little to no meaning or relevence to me.

For instance, from the Articles of Faith concerning scripture I maintain the same standard for the Book of Mormon as I do the Bible. It's the word of God so long as it is translated correctly. I know many can claim conservative counter arguments against my position but those arguments are fairly irrelevent since they are based on traditional truth claims.

[Damien the Leper]

Why would non-traditionals wait for an invitation or permission to express themselves? Of course they need to do it in a socially acceptable manner if they really want to be listened to.

Perhaps even in a church setting they shouldn't wait for permission. However, the consequences of that would be that they are being insensitive.

[Damien the Leper]

Cobalt-70:

The correct name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Further if you ask 99 people out of 100 "Who are the Mormons?" they will say us. Not the Community of Christ, not the FLDS, not any of the break away or never were part of us groups.

Since when is others perception of who or what Mormons are important? I know some Community of Christ who consider themselves Mormon but not in the same sense as LDS. There is no need to standardize what it means to be Mormon.

[CV75]

Perhaps even in a church setting they shouldn't wait for permission. However, the consequences of that would be that they are being insensitive.

I think by the time someone self-identifies as non-traditional they know who and how to start sharing with without coming across as insensitive. Otherwise they're just engaging the same peer pressure dynamics that go on in any setting. There are sensitive and insentitive people with traditional and non-traditional views.

[Sky]

But this only sticks if you subscribe to a 'standard' member concept. Many, like myself, are moving away from conditionalized theological idealism. For me, orthodoxy and tradition are barren. Like orthodoxy, status quo, normal, etc. have very little to no meaning or relevence to me.

For instance, from the Articles of Faith concerning scripture I maintain the same standard for the Book of Mormon as I do the Bible. It's the word of God so long as it is translated correctly. I know many can claim conservative counter arguments against my position but those arguments are fairly irrelevent since they are based on traditional truth claims.

How can you say that orthodoxy and tradition hold no meaning to you, but at the same time, say that you are still drawn to our sacred story? Don’t our traditions and sacred stories go hand in hand to some extent?

I’d like you to explain more about what being Mormon means to you. Why is it that you choose to identify as a Mormon if you don’t agree with much of what the Church teaches? Obviously there is something about the religion that you find compelling, otherwise you wouldn’t identify with it.

And if you want all of the blessings that the institutional Church has to offer, such as the Priesthood and the Temple and Church callings, then you need to comply with certain “theological parameters.” But if you don’t really care about those things, then your approach works well.

[The Nehor]

I know that I'm not the only person that identifies the way I do and those who do don't identify exactly as I do. My question is this...at what point is the church going to allow for open dialogue, exercise of conscience, or freedom to reflect and implement personal theology as a means to experience God more fully and not simply by current institutionalized theological parameters?

'

The Church can't stop you if you're american. We have that 1st Amendment thing. If you mean you want to discuss your personal heresies in a Church environment where they will be counted worthy of consideration then it will hopefully never be allowed.

This topic isn't meant to be controversial or to criticize the testimonies of others. As Jared Anderson states in the podcast, the members who identify traditionally have every right to so identify without someone trying to disrupt. However, the courtesy should be granted likewise to those who no longer identify traditionally.

No, it shouldn't. The Church does not exist as a community of differing beliefs where all are entitled to their "say". The Church is there to preach the revealed word of God. There are areas where there has not been revelation given and there members are free to hold whatever views they wish but not to preach them in a Church environment. If we don't have lessons and sermons on "global vs. local flood" or "Movement within the Three Kingdoms of Glory" we certainly aren't going to have any on "Sister Jane Doe's Personal Disagreements with the Revealed Word of God".

Do these people just want a captive forum obligated to sit through their "enlightened" Sacrament meeting talks or what?

I highly recommend for them the Unitarian Universalist congregation. That is basically what they do.

[CV75]

I know that I'm not the only person that identifies the way I do and those who do don't identify exactly as I do. My question is this...at what point is the church going to allow for open dialogue, exercise of conscience, or freedom to reflect and implement personal theology as a means to experience God more fully and not simply by current institutionalized theological parameters?

…but to answer the question: I think the institutional Church is structured so that anyone who self-identifies as a member (whether traditional or not) can believe whatever he wants in the privacy of his own conscience. But the Church has to function as the institution it is, so I think things like temple recommends will still require the same responses, and that the line for refusing membership or imposing excommunication will still be drawn at the most egregious behaviors, including militant apostasy. As I mentioned before, I think the member’s ability and comfort with dialogue largely determines how far he can relate and share his ideas with others, and successfully navigate the line for being a member.

I think I have an idea, but what do you think a non-institutional church looks like, and how would that play out as a non-institutional LDS Church?

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt-70:

The correct name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Further if you ask 99 people out of 100 "Who are the Mormons?" they will say us. Not the Community of Christ, not the FLDS, not any of the break away or never were part of us groups.

I think that most people who know about them would also categorize Mormon fundamentalists as "Mormons."

[Cobalt-70]

I think I have an idea, but what do you think a non-institutional church looks like, and how would that play out as a non-institutional LDS Church?

Speaking for myself, I'm very happy to be part of the institutional church. However, there are precedents within Mormon that would allow for a non-institutional model. Indeed, that is how Mormonism got started. In 1829, before there was an institutional church, there was just an informal gathering of saints who met together, had the Lord's Supper, baptized each other, taught each other, and read the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Some were prophets, some were apostles/elders, some were teachers, some were priests, and there was no hierarchy. This would have seemed natural, given that Mormonism was a rejection of sectarianism, and the Book of Mormon says there are two churches only: the church of God and the church of the devil. This of course soon changed, but these pre-institutional saints were Mormons just as much as any of the rest of us.

[KevinG]

With 14 million living members some form of "institution" is bound to occur.

Ultimately the one opinion of how Saintly you are that should matter is Christ. He's the one I'm most worried about answering too.

The rest of the Saints are important to me and I do my best to support them, understanding they aren't perfect- but for my religious life, the next best thing to being with Christ himself.

[CV75]

Speaking for myself, I'm very happy to be part of the institutional church. However, there are precedents within Mormon that would allow for a non-institutional model. Indeed, that is how Mormonism got started. In 1829, before there was an institutional church, there was just an informal gathering of saints who met together, had the Lord's Supper, baptized each other, taught each other, and read the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Some were prophets, some were apostles/elders, some were teachers, some were priests, and there was no hierarchy. This would have seemed natural, given that Mormonism was a rejection of sectarianism, and the Book of Mormon says there are two churches only: the church of God and the church of the devil. This of course soon changed, but these pre-institutional saints were Mormons just as much as any of the rest of us.

I agree--it was a church in the sense of an assembly of like-minded people and ceratinly labeled by us as the original Mormons/LDS (I'm sure they called themselves something else at the time). Also, what occured in Africa before the Church was formally established there--pockets of beleivers getting together doing the best they could outside of the institution, though these too may have been formalized in their own fashion. Too long a story for now, but on a personal level, I was studying, practicing and sharing Mormonism independently for about 5 years before I was able to meet with the missionaries, attend and then join the Church; with virtually no contact with Church members, I was sort of a non-institutional church of one. I think the Africans would have felt like I did, waiting to make membership official to enjoy all the ordinances availed by in the "institutional" Church. The early saints probably felt the same; I'm sure Joseph Smith knew that more formality was on its way to institute the kingdom fully enought to restore more doctrine, covenants, ordinances, etc. I think that some who do not share this expectation and seek a return to a non-institutional format might consider themselves as non-instiututional but very traditional (in a long-forgotten sense by most, as traditions evolve), and as long as they are on the records, are still be considered part of the official institution.

[Wants2know]

…but to answer the question: I think the institutional Church is structured so that anyone who self-identifies as a member (whether traditional or not) can believe whatever he wants in the privacy of his own conscience. But the Church has to function as the institution it is, so I think things like temple recommends will still require the same responses, and that the line for refusing membership or imposing excommunication will still be drawn at the most egregious behaviors, including militant apostasy. As I mentioned before, I think the member’s ability and comfort with dialogue largely determines how far he can relate and share his ideas with others, and successfully navigate the line for being a member.

I think I have an idea, but what do you think a non-institutional church looks like, and how would that play out as a non-institutional LDS Church?

I'm assuming by "institutional" you mean structured and formatted in the worldwide sense? So is your question what would the church look like if every congregation got to set it's own "by laws" and rules?

[CV75]

I'm assuming by "institutional" you mean structured and formatted in the worldwide sense? So is your question what would the church look like if every congregation got to set it's own "by laws" and rules?

Yes, as well as situations like I was in, or the Africans, without access to it and doing the best we could with what we had (a church in the sense of a group of like-minded folks, which is even less organized than a congregation having sufficient latitude in setting up its own affairs under the auspices of a larger "franchise" to the degree that in some cases you might have to look twice to identify it as the same church.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

"For instance, from the Articles of Faith concerning scripture I maintain the same standard for the Book of Mormon as I do the Bible. It's the word of God so long as it is translated correctly. I know many can claim conservative counter arguments against my position but those arguments are fairly irrelevent since they are based on traditional truth claims".

The BoM claims to not be inerrant. See Title Page.

Edited January 18, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Damien the Leper]

I think by the time someone self-identifies as non-traditional they know who and how to start sharing with without coming across as insensitive. Otherwise they're just engaging the same peer pressure dynamics that go on in any setting. There are sensitive and insentitive people with traditional and non-traditional views.

I whole heartedly agree.