Identity

[Damien the Leper]

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?

Of course, but only to an extent. When I say tradition, I mean a thought process.

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.

Being Mormon to me is exercising the freedom of conscience. Reflecting on Joseph Smith's theological ideas and how they compare to the religions of that time inspires a need for deeper thinking and the necessity for dissent (in moderation and done appropriately). JS is a revolutionary thinker and was ahead of his time where the standard Christian communities of that time are concerned.

Mormonism isn't about adherence to creeds, or faith statements, or dogmatism, or a systematic standard. Mormonism is in its own way the call for reform. Unfortunately, like the actual reformation, Mormonism stopped reforming and has stopped being revolutionary and is stagnantly revelatory. As I told a good friend of mine, like Jesus, Mormonism needs to embrace the call to be beyond relevent and beyond revelatory, It needs to be revolutionary.

I identify as a Mormon because I do have a testimony. It's far from typical. Instead of saying 'I know', I say 'I have a good idea'. Mormonism allows me to express this freely and without regret or shame. Mormonism is a well spring of refreshing enlightenment and a pathway to experience God and to hear God and to answer God's call.

Being Mormon allows me to be an individual that is just as imperfect as the next but shares in the blessings and burdens of life and rejoice in doing so.

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.

I agree to an extent. Conformity is not a full necessity. I'm good with the Priesthood. I have questions about the Temple and I more often reflect internally on what I have learned there.

[Damien the Leper]

'

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.

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.

Well, so much for diplomacy. You are regurgitating.

Since you obviously didn't pay attention to my statement on sensitivity when expressing personal reflection...well that says a bit about you.

As for 'my heresies', that also ties into sensitivity and yet again shows that you weren't paying attention. Let me help a little:

IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS HEAVILY DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL IDEAS THAT WOULD NOT BE WELL UNDERSTOOD OR GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN A CHURCH SETTING. THAT WOULD BE INSENSITIVE.

Does that help?

Yes, the church is there to teach the revealed word of God. But it is not wrong for the general membership to approach teachings in such a way they are able to identify or to interpret.

[Damien the Leper]

…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 not arguing for a non-institutional church.

I'm saying that many of us no longer identify with the institutional church. I'm not asking or demanding that the church change. It must function appropriately.

[The Nehor]

Well, so much for diplomacy. You are regurgitating.

Regurgitating what exactly? I had pizza for lunch so I hope it isn't that.

Since you obviously didn't pay attention to my statement on sensitivity when expressing personal reflection...well that says a bit about you.

I never said you wouldn't be sensitive in sharing your views. That is more dangerous then sharing them by running to the pulpit before the meeting starts like a crazy person and ranting for a few minutes before someone is able to get you to stop. I don't doubt your sincerity. I still think that these kinds of views, even shared sensitively, are heretical and should not be taught or shared in a church environment (or anywhere for that matter but I wouldn't want it enforced anywhere else; people have the right to be wrong).

As for 'my heresies', that also ties into sensitivity and yet again shows that you weren't paying attention. Let me help a little:

IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS HEAVILY DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL IDEAS THAT WOULD NOT BE WELL UNDERSTOOD OR GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN A CHURCH SETTING. THAT WOULD BE INSENSITIVE.

Then what are you wanting? Discussion of lightly different theological views? You want the non-orthodox accepted as long as they keep quiet about their differences? We already do that. What changes do you want?

Does that help?

No.

You said:

"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 now you seem to want to say that you don't want open dialogue about personal theology in church meetings (the only setting the Church controls). Your quote suggests the Church is suppressing you or not allowing you open dialogue (logically this would have to be in a setting the Church actually controls) but when I suggest you want them to stop suppressing your views you claim I am thinking you will be insensitive. I don't think that.

What concrete changes in the Church structure/rules do you think would address your concerns. To quote Mr. Morden:

What do you want?

Yes, the church is there to teach the revealed word of God. But it is not wrong for the general membership to approach teachings in such a way they are able to identify or to interpret.

That leads to the obvious question: By the Holy Ghost and revelation or through reasoning? Your comment here is exceptionally vague. People identify with and interpret scripture many ways (right and wrong) so I can't disagree with you but you could mean by it something I do disagree with.

[Damien the Leper]

I never said you wouldn't be sensitive in sharing your views. That is more dangerous then sharing them by running to the pulpit before the meeting starts like a crazy person and ranting for a few minutes before someone is able to get you to stop. I don't doubt your sincerity. I still think that these kinds of views, even shared sensitively, are heretical and should not be taught or shared in a church environment (or anywhere for that matter but I wouldn't want it enforced anywhere else; people have the right to be wrong).

Then what are you wanting? Discussion of lightly different theological views? You want the non-orthodox accepted as long as they keep quiet about their differences? We already do that. What changes do you want?

No.

You said:

"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 now you seem to want to say that you don't want open dialogue about personal theology in church meetings (the only setting the Church controls). Your quote suggests the Church is suppressing you or not allowing you open dialogue (logically this would have to be in a setting the Church actually controls) but when I suggest you want them to stop suppressing your views you claim I am thinking you will be insensitive. I don't think that.

What concrete changes in the Church structure/rules do you think would address your concerns. To quote Mr. Morden:

What do you want?

Actually, you're right. I also apologize for my rudeness.

After reflecting on your question of "What do you want?" and my question of when the church will be more accomodating, I realized that I really don't want anything and I shouldn't have asked the question. I will more firmly say that there is nothing that I want from the church. I'm not sure that I should want anything from the church. Furthermore, I believe I'm pretty comfortable with where I'm at theologically...heresy and all.