Reformist Mormons

[Thinking]

On another thread, kolipoki09 wrote

I think the Church and Reformist Mormons...

What is a Reformist Mormon?

The name suggests a mormon who wishes to stay mormon but thinks the church should change some doctrine or policy. Are there any critics on this board who are Reformist Mormons? Would you go back to (or stay if you haven't already left) the LDS Church if it changed some things? Has the LDS Church already changed some things that helped you stay?

I would not consider myself a Reformist Mormon. Never have I said, "I will come back to church if..."

[Jeff K.]

A reformist Mormon? Isn't that like the reformist protestant churches? ie the breakaway sects?

There were other reformists movements, the Strangites for example, and of course the "Reorganized" Church later to be called something else. Yes, those churches were chock full of reformist Mormons.

Or are reformists those who claim to know better than the prophet the direction in which the church is heading? There will always be reformists in the Church, even in the Church of Jesus Christ. I will bet when Christ comes to reign, there will still be reformists.

[mercyngrace]

Some might consider the correlation process a series of reforms not unlike those carried out under Josiah.

[Maidservant]

Hopefully kolipoki will answer with what it was he was personally referring to.

[Senator]

Some might consider the correlation process a series of reforms not unlike those carried out under Josiah.

Indeed.

In fact, I believe it safe to say that the church has been in reform since the day of its conception.

[wenglund]

Indeed.

In fact, I believe it safe to say that the church has been in reform since the day of its conception.

Agreed. And, hopefully, the same is true for its members. Reform (i.e. change into an improved form or condition) is what the gospel of eternal progression is all about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

What is a Reformist Mormon?

I've never heard tat term before. I guess whoever coined it should define it.

I, for one, always hope the Church will improve in its doctrine, teachings and policies. So to the degree that those improvements could be called "reforms", I guess I might be a "Reformist Mormon"

Edited April 10, 2012 by cinepro

[Buzzard]

On another thread, kolipoki09 wrote

What is a Reformist Mormon?

The name suggests a mormon who wishes to stay mormon but thinks the church should change some doctrine or policy. Are there any critics on this board who are Reformist Mormons? Would you go back to (or stay if you haven't already left) the LDS Church if it changed some things? Has the LDS Church already changed some things that helped you stay?

I would not consider myself a Reformist Mormon. Never have I said, "I will come back to church if..."

Unfortunately, I think it's code for nominal members who think that the bretheren are out to lunch and want the church changed to the way THEY want it.

[kolipoki09]

What is a Reformist Mormon?

It includes, but is not entirely limited to, those who believe in open, respectful, and progressive discussion about LDS Church, doctrine, and culture. They are those who are sympathetic to finding value in religion in general and Mormonism specifically, though they presuppose no level of involvement in the Church. They are those who discuss any topic unflinchingly but also in a way that all feel safe sharing their ideas and perspectives.

The name suggests a mormon who wishes to stay mormon but thinks the church should change some doctrine or policy.

You're probably right. For instance, I think worthy couples who are married civilly outside an LDS temple shouldn't have to wait a year to be sealed together. I guess that would make me a reformist, wouldn't it?

Are there any critics on this board who are Reformist Mormons?

There is a plethora of different perspectives on Mormonism represented on this board. I would suggest that it is very likely that there are "critics" and even active, believing, temple-worthy members on this board who might identify with reformist positions.

Would you go back to (or stay if you haven't already left) the LDS Church if it changed some things? Has the LDS Church already changed some things that helped you stay?

I'll say that the Church being more open about its history and fostering an environment that is friendlier to intellectual inquiry than it has been in the past is a reason that some might stay. Ordaining black men to the priesthood was a positive thing. Being more tolerable toward LGBT members. Telling members not to judge others (especially women) if they choose to work outside the home. Some might consider those things baby steps, but for some, it's enough to keep them involved.

I would not consider myself a Reformist Mormon. Never have I said, "I will come back to church if..."

Some come back from inactivity out of a sense of belonging. Others, do so because they believe they have something to gain by becoming active again.

I'm reminded of Janet Eyring's perspective on it.

Being on the other side of the fence, investigating other faiths, comparing them with my childhood teachings, thinking deeply about principles, meeting lots of people from all walks of life, feeling something amiss, wanting more balance, I decided to reexamine my church roots. Biblical scripture study, often using the New International Version Study Bible with its extensive and informative footnoting, meditation, and prayer were key to the revising of my view of Joseph Smith. At this later time in my life, his “delusions and hallucinations” seemed better explained as real experiences, much like those of earlier prophets and apostles who had claimed to see angels and God. (Few believed them either.) Reading Richard Bushman’s 2007 book Rough Stone Rolling: A Cultural Biography of Mormonism’s Founder (Vintage Books) was pivotal in permanently changing my view of this man—from charlatan to humble seeker. Joseph Smith’s own statement, “If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 317.) and other writings confirmed that he was an honest man. The hardships he suffered and the life he gave sealed the truthfulness of his claims for me.

Acknowledging Joseph Smith as a modern-day prophet was only a starting point—but an important starting point for understanding other Christian doctrines. Since then, I have been able to thoughtfully explore other questions about angels, temples, health, preparedness, etc. within a faithful context through Sunday School discussions, books, organizations (Sunstone, Mormon History Association), journals (Sunstone, Dialogue,BYU Studies), on-line journals (FARMS and FAIR), and gatherings like Sunstone conferences and the Miller-Eccles Group in Southern California. A seeker is always a seeker and scriptures and principles such as the following provide a lot of food for thought: “The Glory of God is intelligence, or . . . light and truth” (D&C 93:36), “Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection” (D&C 130:18), and the Thirteenth Article of Faith, “We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”

[Damien the Leper]

I hope it doesn't mean implementing Reformed Theology into Mormon Theology...that would be a disaster.

[why me]

Reformist mormonism is just another term to help people keep an identity during our postmodern age of identity participation. The point is: all are mormons until they resign from the church and then they become exmormon. And people have always existed within the church who had various of ways to cope and worship. The difference is: they didn't need an identity title for belonging.

Edited April 10, 2012 by why me

[Evangeline]

They are those who discuss any topic unflinchingly but also in a way that all feel safe sharing their ideas and perspectives.

Sorry, but I don't buy this at all. I've observed that many of those who might identify themselves as "Reformist" LDS are just as guilty of ostracizing others for opposing views as extreme-minded conservative LDS I've come across.

[cinepro]

The difference is: they didn't need an identity title for belonging.

Or the internet is the first effective means these people have to actually find each other and create any type of "group identity".

I don't know for sure, but I suspect being a untraditional Mormon in the pre-internet era could be a lonely, lonely place.

[Log]

Or the internet is the first effective means these people have to actually find each other and create any type of "group identity".

I don't know for sure, but I suspect being a untraditional Mormon in the pre-internet era could be a lonely, lonely place.

I dunno, the "Swearing Elders" apparently made do without all them electronomic doohickeys.

[Evangeline]

Also, I find the whole "chapel-Mormon" vs. "internet-Mormon" dichotomy rather offensive and an example where someone with more traditional views might not "feel safe sharing their ideas and perspectives."

[Damien the Leper]

Or the internet is the first effective means these people have to actually find each other and create any type of "group identity".

I don't know for sure, but I suspect being a untraditional Mormon in the pre-internet era could be a lonely, lonely place.

The Bloggernacle has been an amazing blessing. As has Sunstone, MHA, JWHA and Dialogue.

[Damien the Leper]

Also, I find the whole "chapel-Mormon" vs. "internet-Mormon" dichotomy rather offensive and an example where someone with more traditional views might not "feel safe sharing their ideas and perspectives."

This is interesting considering the fact that there are 'chapel Mormons' here on this board who also dialogue in other areas of the internet and do so freely and unapologetically. You taking offense is a choice. Sleep well in that choice.

[Evangeline]

This is interesting considering the fact that there are 'chapel Mormons' here on this board who also dialogue in other areas of the internet and do so freely and unapologetically.

I admire them for that. It takes guts sometimes, something I don't always have.

[Evangeline]

This is interesting considering the fact that there are 'chapel Mormons' here on this board who also dialogue in other areas of the internet and do so freely and unapologetically.

As an aside, how can a group of people who "dialogue freely and unapologetically" on various sites throughout the internet be considered "chapel" Mormons (especially when "chapel Mormons" are differentiated from "internet" Mormons)?

[Damien the Leper]

As an aside, how can a group of people who "dialogue freely and unapologetically" on various sites throughout the internet be considered "chapel" Mormons (especially when "chapel Mormons" are differentiated from "internet" Mormons)?

I think that maybe there is a false dichotomy.

[Scott Lloyd]

Some might consider the correlation process a series of reforms not unlike those carried out under Josiah.

Correlation strikes me as being more preventive than reformist.

[Pahoran]

Also, I find the whole "chapel-Mormon" vs. "internet-Mormon" dichotomy rather offensive and an example where someone with more traditional views might not "feel safe sharing their ideas and perspectives."

Actually the "Chapel Mormon" and "Internet Mormon" dichotomy is a fabricated one. It was invented to enable the "critics" to control both sides of the conversation. If Shades or any of his cohorts put forward a criticism, and an informed LDS defender puts forward any counterargument better informed that "My great-grandpappy once heard Heber C. Kimball say..." the "critic" can smugly come back with, "Ah, but you only say that because you're an internet Mormon. Chapel Mormons have always believed that the moon is inhabited by ten-foot Quakers."

I once proposed that the correct definitions for these labels should be:

1. Chapel Mormon: a Mormon who goes to church in a chapel.
   
2. Internet Mormon: an anonymous critic who pretends to be a Mormon on the internet.
   

For some reason, those who like this dichotomy were decidedly cool towards my suggestion. Apart from that one instance, nobody has ever used these categories honestly. Not in this forum and not elsewhere.

So if you regard yourself as a "chapel Mormon," then you can rest assured that you're not alone.

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

Actually the "Chapel Mormon" and "Internet Mormon" dichotomy is a fabricated one. It was invented to enable the "critics" to control both sides of the conversation. If Shades or any of his cohorts put forward a criticism, and an informed LDS defender puts forward any counterargument better informed that "My great-grandpappy once heard Heber C. Kimball say..." the "critic" can smugly come back with, "Ah, but you only say that because you're an internet Mormon. Chapel Mormons have always believed that the moon is inhabited by ten-foot Quakers."

I once proposed that the correct definitions for these labels should be:

1. Chapel Mormon: a Mormon who goes to church in a chapel.
   
2. Internet Mormon: an anonymous critic who pretends to be a Mormon on the internet.
   

For some reason, those who like this dichotomy were decidedly cool towards my suggestion. Apart from that one instance, nobody has ever used these categories honestly. Not in this forum and not elsewhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

And this is the point of labeling in general. It is amazing that most of the critics' labels for themselves have wonderful connotations: postmormons, new order mormon, internet mormon, reformist mormon, born again mormon, cafeteria mormon, etc. But with the faithful we have. morgbots, TBMs, and chapel mormons,

I am sure that there are more labels for the critics that have wonderful connotations but for the faithful...not so wonderful.

Edited April 11, 2012 by why me