"Nom" Mormonism And The Ides Of Modernity

[ShawFanX]

Well, I enjoyed the article. I don't know that it really has anything to do with New Order Mormons, though. I don't know what Reform Mormons are supposed to be (are they like Reform Jews?). I've heard neo-Orthodox used as referring to Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith types, so I'm not sure what you mean by that either.

http://www.reformmor.../comparison.htm

Perhaps you should explain why these people and this essay are so scary because I don't see it

Alan Michael Williams suggests that the question that Latter-day Saints must face is “how the Mormon ‘family’ can continue to make sense soteriologically when it does not represent the diversity of American families.” Williams’s question is ultimately a social one—about a soteriology “making sense” in the context of an America where Mormon notions of family look increasingly anachronistic.

The theological and theoretical work that may serve as a basis for reimagining the practices of the Church with respect to homosexual relationships has yet to begin with any seriousness.

This essay treats the theological resources that can account for and make legible particular kinds of homosexual relationships within Mormonism. I use the term “homosexual relationships” to describe the particular dilemma for Mormon thought. Though contemporary Mormon discourse distinguishes between homosexual desires and sexual practices, permitting the former but rejecting the latter, both desires and practices obscure relationships as a dimension of homosexual experiences.

Petrey might be exploring ideas that aren't part of what is orthodox these days, but that only makes him an enemy of dogmatists, not the church.

Feeling dogmatic today, no?

One of the main tenants of the gospel (and the whole reason why the church exists at all) is that we should seek for revelation that changes our worldview.

Clever sophistry...really.

And what about that stubborn main tenet of the gospel elucidating the concept of eternal law and eternal truths and verities that are permanent and absolute? Also you might comment on the concept that God varies neither to the right nor to the left, is unchangeable from eternity to eternity, and never varies from that which he has said. Could you also comment upon the mandate the scriptures and His servants, the prophets, have left us and continue to teach regarding the central importance of keeping His commandments and the consequences - including the "second death" - of ignoring and/or rebelling against those commandments and principles of human relations, and most acutely, among others, in the area of human sexual relations?

Loran

Edited July 19, 2012 by ShawFanX

[ShawFanX]

Just now "new" is "New Order Mormonism?"

I have wondered about this question, and I think I may have found the answer:

Revelation 3:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Evidently the phenomenon of people being "neither cold nor hot" isn't all that new at all.

Regards,

Pahoran

Excellent point. It is, in a spiritual and human sense, reheated leftovers, but the "NOM," "Neo-Orthodox," and "Reform" Mormonism movements within the Church (and on its outer fringes) appear to be simply alternative names for fundamentally the same phenomena.

[ShawFanX]

Another interesting and salient quote from the essay in question in which the "neo" and "new" and "reform" aspects of each of these psychologically, philosophically, and ideologically related movements within the Church (really the same general movement, I think, bearing different names depending upon time and place of intellectual inauguration) are clearly implicated as to their underlying meaning.

Any attempt to think creatively and theologically within Mormonism to reconcile the tension between the LDS Church and

Petrey: Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology hose who identify as homosexual must investigate the ideologies

and theologies that inform the current tension. Some may feel that no reconciliation is possible, that LDS teachings cannot and

should not accept homosexual relationships as intelligible. This position is certainly viable, though it requires defense rather than

simply repetition and assertion.

[ERayR]

Back in the days when a certain group was lobbying for the "new morality" Billy Graham said it is nothing more than the old immorality brought up to date. To paraphrase Billy Graham the NOM is nothing more than the old apostasy brought up to date.

[mapman]

http://www.reformmor.../comparison.htm

Feeling dogmatic today, no?

Clever sophistry...really.

And what about that stubborn main tenet of the gospel elucidating the concept of eternal law and eternal truths and verities that are permanent and absolute? Also you might comment on the concept that God varies neither to the right nor to the left, is unchangeable from eternity to eternity, and never varies from that which he has said. Could you also comment upon the mandate the scriptures and His servants, the prophets, have left us and continue to teach regarding the central importance of keeping His commandments and the consequences - including the "second death" - of ignoring and/or rebelling against those commandments and principles of human relations, and most acutely, among others, in the area of human sexual relations?

Loran

I think that you're misinterpreting Petrey. I could be wrong, but all I see him as doing is some speculation and not pushing for anything (I'm certainly not pushing for anything). As for eternal truth, I believe in it. I'd guess that we are probably approaching things from a different epistemological perspective (which is OK). This is how I see things: Only God knows everything perfectly. Us mortals have an incomplete and imperfect understanding of reality. Revelation makes the picture more complete and sharper. Ideas don't exist by themselves, but are incorporated into the system of believes we have, our worldview. New information, revelation of eternal truths, can often be incorporated into the worldview we already have, but sometimes things don't fit and we have to construct a new worldview. I guess I see it as just being inevitable that we are going to have to change our worldview several times if we are going to become like God.

I hope that I explained clearly!

[ShawFanX]

I think that you're misinterpreting Petrey.

I would, first of all, direct you to the title of Petrey's essay.

"Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology"

[Robert F. Smith]

This is a superb example of just why faithful LDS, and more acutely so, LDS within the apologetics community, either across the Internet or as a community of professional scholars working to answer criticisms of the Church within an organized, scholarly venue (the now defunct Neal A. Maxwell Institute) have long been - and should very much continue to be - deeply skeptical of the New Order Mormon (NOM), Reform Mormon, or Neo-Orthodox movement within LDS intellectual circles, academia, and the Internet sphere:

https://www.dialogue..._V44N04_110.pdf

I'm not sure what the NOM actually is, nor whether it and Reform Mormonism, and a Neo-Orthodox movement actually exist as significant entities. Moreover, it doesn't engender confidence in the accuracy of your comments to find your statement about "the now defunct Neal A. Maxwell Institute." Sounds like something from fantasyland.

As to the Petrey article which you cite: I was very surprised at his ignorance of LDS temple ritual, which he seems to absolutize at the very point where it is most symbolic and figurative, i.e., at the creation of man and woman.. Perhaps his naivete was merely pretended so that he could make his tortuous point about male-male creation of woman (Eve)., thus further diminishing the powerful role of women in Mormonism. So, he carefully ignored female ordinance workers in temples, as well as women who serve missions as official ministers of the Gospel -- whose testimonies are fully backed by the Holy Ghost (I have experienced that personally). I do not doubt that women exercise tremendous power on the other side, including full priesthood power in concert with their husbands -- who desperately need their counsel, there as well as here. I have a theory (not a doctrine) that men desperately need priesthood here as a challenge, and that women are so far ahead of the men that they don't need the challenge -- but they help us get by and meet our obligations . . .

Pres. Spencer Kimball said that "The story of the rib, of course, is figurative." See Robert J. Woodford, “‘In the Beginning’: A Latter-day Perspective,” Ensign, Jan 1998, online at http://www.lds.org/e...day-perspective .

"

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "the Mosaic account of the Lord creating her from Adam's rib being merely figurative. (Moses 3:20-25.)." Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. (1966),. 242.

McConkie, "For those whose limited spiritual understanding precludes a recitation of all the facts, the revealed account, in figurative language, speaks of Eve being created from Adam's rib. (Moses 3:21-25.) A more express scripture, however, speaks of "Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed." (Moses 6:22. Italics added.) In a formal doctrinal pronouncement, the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) said that "all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner," and that the first of our race began life as the human germ or embryo that becomes a man." (From "Eve and the Fall," in Woman [1988] p. 60; cf. Improvement Era, November 1909, p. 80.)

In fact, Adam & Eve are not created from dust or a rib (except figuratively), but are created the same way all of us humans are created. Mormonism doesn't actually have a theology of creation of humans, animals, and plants on Earth so much as it has a theology of transmission from elsewhere.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

He does not appear to be LDS himself, but this is hardly relevant, in my view, as the audience to whom he is writing is clearly the "New Order" or "Neo-Orthodox" sub-culture within LDS intellectual circles and the LDS blogosphere. Dialogue, is, after all, a "Journal of Mormon Thought," and is aimed at a Mormon, albeit "liberal" LDS sub-group within and on the periphery of the Church.

Not quite. It is true that it caters to a hoity-toity pretend liberal sub-group which is "Mormon" in name only. They long ago excluded the authentically left-wing Mormons in the tradition of Joseph, Brigham, Orson, Roberts, and Nibley. Instead, Dialogue became Monologue, since having a real dialogue is far too risky an enterprise.

[Robert F. Smith]

Taylor is a very active Latter-day Saint and a great guy. I've worked with him since 2007 organizing "Faith and Knowledge" conferences for LDS graduate students in religious studies.

http://www.faithandknowledge.org/

Then why doesn't he appear to understand the basics of LDS temple rites? Specifically the figurative nature of the creation of Eve?

[mfbukowski]

I think that you're misinterpreting Petrey. I could be wrong, but all I see him as doing is some speculation and not pushing for anything (I'm certainly not pushing for anything). As for eternal truth, I believe in it. I'd guess that we are probably approaching things from a different epistemological perspective (which is OK). This is how I see things: Only God knows everything perfectly. Us mortals have an incomplete and imperfect understanding of reality. Revelation makes the picture more complete and sharper. Ideas don't exist by themselves, but are incorporated into the system of believes we have, our worldview. New information, revelation of eternal truths, can often be incorporated into the worldview we already have, but sometimes things don't fit and we have to construct a new worldview. I guess I see it as just being inevitable that we are going to have to change our worldview several times if we are going to become like God.

I hope that I explained clearly!

Just to confuse the issue with jargon, I think "omniscient" means "knowing everything there is to know". In other words, I think we basically agree on that one, since I think He is the one who defines the limits of what CAN be known. He is the Definer of what can be spoken and known in a human context. All that was organized was defined into existence by his Word.

I hope that doesn't muddy the issue.

Edited July 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Then why doesn't he appear to understand the basics of LDS temple rites? Specifically the figurative nature of the creation of Eve?

I was wondering about that myself.

[mapman]

I would, first of all, direct you to the title of Petrey's essay.

"Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology"

In my opinion, any theology done by Mormons is by its nature speculative as our doctrine is derived from revelation. This is how Petrey describes what he is doing:

"What follows is a thought experiment on the question of how Mormons might imagine different kinds of sealing relationships

other than heterosexual marriage. Such an experiment neither constitutes Church doctrine nor intends to advocate itself as

Church doctrine. Rather, this essay provides an occasion to think critically about the intellectual and theological problems posed by the reality of alternative relationships outside of heterosexual norms. This essay treats the theological resources that can account for and make legible particular kinds of homosexual relationships within Mormonism." (p. 107)

In any case, I found his speculations interesting to think about regardless of what his goals actually are.

Edited July 20, 2012 by mapman

[mapman]

Just to confuse the issue with jargon, I think "omniscient" means "knowing everything there is to know". In other words, I think we basically agree on that one, since I think He is the one who defines the limits of what CAN be known. He is the Definer of what can be spoken and known in a human context. All that was organized was defined into existence by his Word.

I hope that doesn't muddy the issue.

I think that could be right. Whether or not this is the case, I think it is probably true that since he is the most powerful being in the universe, and the being we are aspiring to be like, we have to do things on his terms.

Edited July 20, 2012 by mapman

[wenglund]

Then why doesn't he appear to understand the basics of LDS temple rites? Specifically the figurative nature of the creation of Eve?

My guess is that he, like many who style themselves as NOM's or RM's, view things through a fundamentalist (overly literalistic) prism. What they consider as liberal and progressive thinking, is actually their digressively conserving the absolutist thinking of their childhood and youth, and rebelling against the liberal thinking of spiritual adulthood. The maturation that ought to have occurred by graduating from regular Church life to temple life, failed to occur for whatever reason. At least that is how I see it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Robert F. Smith]

My guess is that he, like many who style themselves as NOM's or RM's, view things through a fundamentalist (overly literalistic) prism. What they consider as liberal and progressive thinking, is actually their digressively conserving the absolutist thinking of their childhood and youth, and rebelling against the liberal thinking of spiritual adulthood. The maturation that ought to have occurred by graduating from regular Church life to temple life, failed to occur for whatever reason. At least that is how I see it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is that like failing to graduate from the infantile to the transpersonal level?

[mapman]

My guess is that he, like many who style themselves as NOM's or RM's, view things through a fundamentalist (overly literalistic) prism. What they consider as liberal and progressive thinking, is actually their digressively conserving the absolutist thinking of their childhood and youth, and rebelling against the liberal thinking of spiritual adulthood. The maturation that ought to have occurred by graduating from regular Church life to temple life, failed to occur for whatever reason. At least that is how I see it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Has Petrey ever styled himself a New Order Mormon or Reform Mormon? I think it wise to not label people in ways they would object to and then make sweeping generalizations about the whole group (this has happened with the TBM and Internet/Chapel Mormon labels as well). I doubt that he would identify himself as a NOM. In fact, it is quite possible that he has never even heard of the term "New Order Mormon", as those who identify as such are a small and obscure group. And since I've never even heard of Reform Mormons before this thread, I'd guess they're even more obscure.

Edited July 20, 2012 by mapman

[mfbukowski]

I think that could be right. Whether or not this is the case, I think it is probably true that since he is the most powerful being in the universe, and the being we are aspiring to be like, we have to do things on his terms.

I think that is another way of making substantially the same point. There are many ways it can be described.

[mfbukowski]

Is that like failing to graduate from the infantile to the transpersonal level?

That's certainly one way of seeing it.

And then we have Maslow, with a similar view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization

Kevin Christensen (did I spell that correctly?) is fond of the Perry scheme, and I think that also points toward a similar problem from a slightly different perspective:

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

[wenglund]

Has Petrey ever styled himself a New Order Mormon or Reform Mormon? I think it wise to not label people in ways they would object to and then make sweeping generalizations about the whole group (this has happened with the TBM and Internet/Chapel Mormon labels as well). I doubt that he would identify himself as a NOM. In fact, it is quite possible that he has never even heard of the term "New Order Mormon", as those who identify as such are a small and obscure group. And since I've never even heard of Reform Mormons before this thread, I'd guess they're even more obscure.

I didn't label him or say he was a NOM or and RM. Rather, I mentioned that his symbolism-challenged thinking was "like many who style themselves as NOM's or RM's." and I went on to give a viable explanation as to why.

Also, I was very careful to avoid the false accusation about "sweeping generalization" by using the word "many."

So, you got it wrong on both your key accusations. Please, if you are going to slip into lecture and judgmental mode, it would be wise to avoid knee-jerk reactions and take better care in your reading and to know what you are talking about so that it doesn't come back to bite you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 20, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Is that like failing to graduate from the infantile to the transpersonal level?

Yes...figuratively speaking. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sethpayne]

Has Petrey ever styled himself a New Order Mormon or Reform Mormon? I think it wise to not label people in ways they would object to and then make sweeping generalizations about the whole group (this has happened with the TBM and Internet/Chapel Mormon labels as well). I doubt that he would identify himself as a NOM. In fact, it is quite possible that he has never even heard of the term "New Order Mormon", as those who identify as such are a small and obscure group. And since I've never even heard of Reform Mormons before this thread, I'd guess they're even more obscure.

Taylor is not a NOM or an RM. He is an active Latter-day Saint.

[ShawFanX]

Taylor is not a NOM or an RM. He is an active Latter-day Saint.

Which, of course, has no necessary relation to what he actually believes.

[ShawFanX]

I'm not sure what the NOM actually is, nor whether it and Reform Mormonism, and a Neo-Orthodox movement actually exist as significant entities.

I'm quite settled as to what a NOM or Neo-Orthodox LDS is, in broad intellectual and attitudinal outline, and, as to their significance, I don't think there's any need to be coy about that.

As to what the movement represents and signifies vis-à-vis the Church and its doctrinal coherence and its relationship to the surrounding secular culture, if you haven't ever read any of Joanna Brooks essays, you can find a large archive of them here and at her personal website. I think she's quite emblematic of the philosophical orientation that most NOMs or "reform" Mormons bring to the table.

Not quite. It is true that it caters to a hoity-toity pretend liberal sub-group which is "Mormon" in name only. They long ago excluded the authentically left-wing Mormons in the tradition of Joseph, Brigham, Orson, Roberts, and Nibley. Instead, Dialogue became Monologue, since having a real dialogue is far too risky an enterprise.

Please be very careful when you associate people like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other special witnesses of the Savior with historic or any contemporary manifestations of leftism. Besides creating substantial problems, both philosophical and moral, with respect to the doctrines and principles they taught as prophets, seers, and revelators, and which the Church and its members still follow today, by doing so you place them among many of the most monstrous, murderous, fanatical tyrants, crackpots, and disciples of Korihorism (the pattern of anti-Christ) ever to afflict the human family, and virtually all of them being products of the 20th century. You also associate them with some of the darkest, most debasing and destructive anti-human political/social ideologies in the history of humankind. Nibley hadn't a clue, admittedly, in this area, but he also had no authority to reveal or interpret doctrine for the Church.

Now, back to the topic of the OP, which was, or should have been in any case, the manner in which the concept of "post-heterosexual Mormon theology" could possibly be congruent with LDS doctrine, and just how an "active" Latter day Saint could be found seriously considering such. Isn't this what the "NOM" movement is normally found to be dabbling in, among other similar issues and from a similar standpoint?

Edited July 22, 2012 by ShawFanX

[volgadon]

I'm quite settled as to what a NOM or Neo-Orthodox LDS is, in broad intellectual and attitudinal outline, and, as to their significance, I don't think there's any need to be coy about that.

As to what the movement represents and signifies vis-à-vis the Church and its doctrinal coherence and its relationship to the surrounding secular culture, if you haven't ever read any of Joanna Brooks essays, you can find a large archive of them here and at her personal website. I think she's quite emblematic of the philosophical orientation that most NOMs or "reform" Mormons bring to the table.

Please be very careful when you associate people like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other special witnesses of the Savior with historic or any contemporary manifestations of leftism. Besides creating severe cognitive dissonance with respect to the doctrines and principles they taught as prophets, seers, and revelators, and which the Church and its members still follow today, by doing so you place them among the most monstrous, murderous, fanatical tyrants, crackpots, and disciples of Korihorism ever to afflict the human family. You also associate them with some of the most dark, malignant, anti-human political/social ideologies in the history of humankind.

Now, back to the topic of the OP, which was, or should have been in any case, the manner in which the concept of "post-heterosexual Mormon theology" could possibly be congruent with LDS doctrine, and just how an "active" Latter day Saint could be found seriously considering such. Isn't this what the "NOM" movement is normally found to be dabbling in, among other similar issues and from a similar standpoint?

In other words, self-appointed, dogmatic drivel to fuel a witch-hunt.

[CASteinman]

This is a superb example of just why faithful LDS, and more acutely so, LDS within the apologetics community, either across the Internet or as a community of professional scholars working to answer criticisms of the Church within an organized, scholarly venue (the now defunct Neal A. Maxwell Institute) have long been - and should very much continue to be - deeply skeptical of the New Order Mormon (NOM), Reform Mormon, or Neo-Orthodox movement within LDS intellectual circles, academia, and the Internet sphere:

https://www.dialogue..._V44N04_110.pdf

Not entirely sure what you are getting at here. I am more than deeply skeptical of the article you cite. But I have no idea how that article relates to something called a "New Order Mormon (NOM), Reform Mormon, or Neo-Orthodox movement".

There is no "movement" of any consequence in the LDS Church -- although supposed movements have come and gone. There is the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles. These "movements" you cite are valid only in the minds of the very few who attend to them.