"Nom" Mormonism And The Ides Of Modernity

[ShawFanX]

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

So...back to the OP...

[ShawFanX]

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.

Well, if you're out of the loop here, then I suppose you won't be a very stimulating interlocutor on this issue. There is an entire and fairly well known publisher known as Signature Books, who specialize in and generally express the attitudes, values, beliefs, and philosophy of the "NOM" and "Neo-Orthodox" mindset.

I consider LDS Neo-Orthodoxy to be a far more pressing concern for contemporary apologetics that the EV Protestant counter-cult is, or ever really was.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Then why are you being coy? Perhaps you could sum up what the NOM believe and how significant they are. I have never met one. I am familiar with the term "neo-orthodoxy," and am aware that decades ago Kendall White wrote his dissertation at the UofU on the subject and (with his son) has been milking it ever since. I have never heard of any real organization associated with it, but have seen in print some absurd connections with people who are clearly not neo-orthodox. Perhaps you are aware of some actual neo-orthodox organization?

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.

What table? So she's a blogger. They're a dime a dozen. I gather from her website that she does apparently have a very funny bestseller out about her LDS childhood.

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.

Monstrous? Murderous? anti-Christ?

You clearly haven't a clue as to who Joseph and Brigham were, nor any sense of propriety in discussing divergent points of view. A little self-restraint might help.

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?

Respond to my critique of the Petrey article in post #32, and we might have a real conversation.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Bob Crockett]

Was Loran banned? Is this him?

[volgadon]

Was Loran banned? Is this him?

Yes.

[CASteinman]

Well, if you're out of the loop here, then I suppose you won't be a very stimulating interlocutor on this issue. There is an entire and fairly well known publisher known as Signature Books, who specialize in and generally express the attitudes, values, beliefs, and philosophy of the "NOM" and "Neo-Orthodox" mindset.

Am I to understand that buying a Signature Book makes one a "NOM" or what I would assume is the opposite of a NOM -- a "NeoOrthodox"? Or perhaps buying five of them? Or how many does it take? How would you know if you were NOM or NeoOrthodox?

I consider LDS Neo-Orthodoxy to be a far more pressing concern for contemporary apologetics that the EV Protestant counter-cult is, or ever really was.

Why? It seems to be zero trouble at all. Maybe I don't get what you mean by the term. Can you try to use some terminology that would be less jargon-like?

[Robert F. Smith]

Am I to understand that buying a Signature Book makes one a "NOM" or what I would assume is the opposite of a NOM -- a "NeoOrthodox"? Or perhaps buying five of them? Or how many does it take? How would you know if you were NOM or NeoOrthodox?

Why? It seems to be zero trouble at all. Maybe I don't get what you mean by the term. Can you try to use some terminology that would be less jargon-like?

The ShawFan (Loran Blood) has left the bldg . . .

[ShawFanX]

Was Loran banned? Is this him?

Yes. I've been signing some of my posts as "Loran," just to be clear, but I don't always remember to do that. I would have used my real name again, as I've liked to do in the past, but those options are pretty much used up.

Loran

[ShawFanX]

Yes.

I've been banned a half dozen times or so over the last five or six years.

I have the diplomas hanging on my wall.

[ShawFanX]

Then why are you being coy? Perhaps you could sum up what the NOM believe and how significant they are. I have never met one. I am familiar with the term "neo-orthodoxy," and am aware that decades ago Kendall White wrote his dissertation at the UofU on the subject and (with his son) has been milking it ever since. I have never heard of any real organization associated with it, but have seen in print some absurd connections with people who are clearly not neo-orthodox. Perhaps you are aware of some actual neo-orthodox organization?

OK, you're trying to draw me out, and that's fine. How about the term "liberal?" That does, for all intents, summarize the core of the psychology and intellectual orientation of the NOM perspective. I think I already mentioned Joanna Brooks as emblematic of the general orientation. There are a number of people (I think Dehlin is a classic example) and several on-line communities dedicated to this perspective.

What table? So she's a blogger. They're a dime a dozen. I gather from her website that she does apparently have a very funny bestseller out about her LDS childhood.

Still being coy? I linked to Religion Dispatches, where there is an extensive archive of her essays.

Monstrous? Murderous? anti-Christ?

You clearly haven't a clue as to who Joseph and Brigham were, nor any sense of propriety in discussing divergent points of view. A little self-restraint might help.

Huh? If you will go back and read my post, you will see clearly that my criticism there is aimed squarely at your having associated Joseph, Brigham, Roberts et al with the Left; with the likes, in other words, of Comte, Rousseau, Saint Simon, the Jacobins, Marx, and later and more importantly, those who applied these ideas in actual practice - Lenin, Stalin, Kun, Brezhnev, Mao, Ho, Pot, Kim, Castro, Che, Ortega etc., etc., and many other theorists of the same worldview who seek utopia through collectivist political redemption. I was hardly implying these things about Joseph or Brigham themselves (which would clearly be nonsensical, as none of these people ever approached concepts of an ideal society in collectivist terms, save for one short season, in the spartan and critical survival oriented Salt Lake period in which there was a much more military-like regimentation among the Saints necessary to physically survive under the harsh conditions there while creating a viable physical infrastructure).

Respond to my critique of the Petrey article in post #32, and we might have a real conversation.

Well, I'll take a look at it.

[ShawFanX]

I'm not sure what the NOM actually is,

A "liberal," or secularistic, humanistically oriented Mormon or, as has it has long been termed, "cultural" Mormon who may or may not find certain aspects of LDS culture and tradition appealing and who has a sense of "place" within that culture, but has rejected, or is in process of rejecting, key elements of the doctrines and teachings of the Church per se, finding them incompatible with the secular modernity within which he/she finds greater sense of place and belonging and/or with specific issues and concerns to which such an one finds more satisfactory claims within the secular culture (homosexual marriage, for example).

Such may be quite active, semi-active, or "post-Mormon" even if still retaining membership. Some, like Joanna Brooks, appear desirous of altering the Church from within in graduated stages, such that certain of its core teachings are, over time, diluted and squeezed through a modernist secular filter to remove what are considered the impurities and slag within the Church that inhibit its ecumenal possibilities and hinder its "tolerance" of "diversity."

In a salient sense, its really just an LDS manifestation of processes that have been underway in mainline Protestantism and among Roman Catholics for a very long time. Its unique in the Church, however, because of the unique claims the church makes (Moroni 10:4:) epistemologically.

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.

NMI is now defunct as an apologetic scholarly enterprise. Is this news to you?

Edited July 22, 2012 by ShawFanX

[CASteinman]

That should be pronounced Haaavad.

There is, of course, the "Law of the Conservation of the R". If you remove an "R" from a word, it cannot be destroyed. It must be now placed in some other word where an R would not be found. By such mechanics you may derive Cuber from Cuba.

[CASteinman]

A "liberal," or secularistic, humanistically oriented Mormon or, as has it has long been termed, "cultural" Mormon who may or may not find certain aspects of LDS culture and tradition appealing and who has a sense of "place" within that culture, but has rejected, or is in process of rejecting, key elements of the doctrines and teachings of the Church per se, finding them incompatible with the secular modernity within which he/she finds greater sense of place and belonging and/or with specific issues and concerns to which such an one finds more satisfactory claims within the secular culture (homosexual marriage, for example).

Such may be quite active, semi-active, or "post-Mormon" even if still retaining membership. Some, like Joanna Brooks, appear desirous of altering the Church from within in graduated stages, such that certain of its core teachings are, over time, diluted and squeezed through a modernist secular filter to remove what are considered the impurities and slag within the Church that inhibit its ecumenal possibilities and hinder its "tolerance" of "diversity."

In a salient sense, its really just an LDS manifestation of processes that have been underway in mainline Protestantism and among Roman Catholics for a very long time. Its unique in the Church, however, because of the unique claims the church makes (Moroni 10:4:) epistemologically.

So, its a sort of apostate. NOM might be "Name Only Mormon". (I don't see Joanna Brooks as being correctly described, but then, I do not really know her much.)

This is not a new thing. The Church has faced such things before. Nehor would have been one of these "New Order" Mormons you describe.

[ShawFanX]

So, its a sort of apostate. NOM might be "Name Only Mormon". (I don't see Joanna Brooks as being correctly described, but then, I do not really know her much.)

Some could, like Dehlin, be considered apostate from the Church pretty much in toto. A number of others, however, have strong doubts or have rejected key elements of Church doctrine but are not publicly "anti-Mormon" and, subjectively at least, do not consider themselves in apostasy so much as being in a state of tension with the Church, which may or may not lead them, eventually, to sever official ties with it.

This is not a new thing. The Church has faced such things before. Nehor would have been one of these "New Order" Mormons you describe.

Perhaps, yes, although Nehor and Korihor were of a more extreme variety, having a worldview wholly in opposition (they couldn't have even managed cultural Mormonism, let alone broad Christian discipleship) to gospel teachings. Some come close, however, and they can be very nice people, too (nothing I've seen or heard of Brooks makes her appear any kind of an ogre).

Take a look at Brook's major wing at Religion Dispatches, however, and note that, of her many secularist political, ideological, and philosophical interests (her degrees are in (hyphenated) minority literature and one of the major theoretical/activist "studies" disciplines, in this case, woman's studies), homosexual marriage and homosexual "rights" per se stand out as a near fixation. This is also a primary interest of Dehlin's. So yes, its apostate in a variety of senses and to a variety of degrees. A number of those I've talked to bristle at the very idea that their any less authentically LDS than Thomas Monson - regardless of what they actually accept doctrinally.

[KevinG]

I find the idea of cultural Mormonism a Zion-centric thing. I am a doctrinal Mormon who is not very culturally Mormon. The vast majority of Saints throughout the world are very foreign to the ideas and behaviors of the "central stakes of Zion".

This whole discussion ranks up there with Mormon music. Interesting and sometimes moving but for the most part not heard of outside of Utah and a few bookstores near temples.

[ShawFanX]

The vast majority of Saints throughout the world are very foreign to the ideas and behaviors of the "central stakes of Zion".

Examples?

[Calm]

Green Jello

[KevinG]

Examples?

Green Jello

Yeah that...

The biggest I can think of is Mormons tend to blend back into the background society if they go inactive. The extra homework of examining ones role in "Mormon culture" is unique to areas where Mormonism is the dominant religion.

[ShawFanX]

Yeah that...

The biggest I can think of is Mormons tend to blend back into the background society if they go inactive. The extra homework of examining ones role in "Mormon culture" is unique to areas where Mormonism is the dominant religion.

So then, nothing really cromulent per se.

Edited July 22, 2012 by ShawFanX

[CASteinman]

I would like to be culturally Mormon but I am congenitally handicapped in that area.

[Calm]

I will never be a fully cultural Mormon as I don't like funeral potatoes.

[KevinG]

So then, nothing really cromulent per se.

You mean like creating media stars out of disaffected Mormons? Or perhaps the more mundane things like using Fetch and Flip as swear word substitutes? Or maybe the endless hand wringing over church and state in SLC that excludes Jews, Catholics and Hindus?

Lots of relevant things here.

[KevinG]

You do know cromulent is a made up word don't you?

[CASteinman]

You do know cromulent is a made up word don't you?

You are trying to embiggen a non-issue.

[volgadon]

Yeah that...

The biggest I can think of is Mormons tend to blend back into the background society if they go inactive. The extra homework of examining ones role in "Mormon culture" is unique to areas where Mormonism is the dominant religion.

That has been my experience. I really couldn't even understand the point of cultural Mormonism until I asked John Dehlin. I still find it odd, but I do understand the motivations behind it a bit better.