The Increasing Size Of The Tent Of Mormonism

[DBMormon]

Greg Prince

Terryl Givens

Richard Bushman

All active LDS whose views are nuanced and not traditional.

Whether not believing a historical BOM, defining "True and Living" way different then the Church's traditional explanation, and other flexible ways of fitting in the tent of mormonism that are markedly different then what we have been taught in generations past.

This type of preaching would have meant Church discipline 20 years ago.

Today one can speak of allowing gays full fellowship in the church, speak of allowing sisters priesthood, define the church in ways it has never described itself or it's truth claims, and still be an active member in full fellowship.

I see this tent enlarging as positive, as allowing others to hang on in spite if the difficult issues and still lead with faith. While we have to hang onto some things - BOM as scripture, Articles of Faith, belief that leaders are called of God and led by revelation, I also am grateful to rid ourselves of some of the nonsense

What think you?

Edited July 4, 2013 by DBMormon

[Kenngo1969]

To what "nonsense" are you referring? (I know I'll probably be sorry I asked, but ... )

[The Nehor]

Today one can speak of allowing gays full fellowship in the church, speak of allowing sisters priesthood, define the church in ways it has never described itself or it's truth claims, and still be an active member in full fellowship.

True, but I advise against sharing your views in class or from the pulpit.

[DBMormon]

Some additional thoughts and I know some will disagree

Terryl Givens said the manuals were deplorable - He also is going state to state giving Faith Crisis firesides. Whether we want to acknowledge or not, the Church is behind these though off the record and not officially.

For far too long we held cultural beliefs as a church, that were not based on revelation and the which bound individuals to to very little flexibility in their beliefs. Not anymore. The gates are open, and if it is nonsense, it won't survive.

For the First time in as long as I am aware doubt was acknowledged as not making one less then (Elder Holland), Diversity of thought makes us stronger (Ucthdorf), Doctrine is is defined and allows one to discard that which is not confirmed by the HG when taught by a given leader at a given time (Christofferson and Anderson)

Scripture Changes supporting flexibility have been created.

Youth Curriculum which gets away from strict correlation and gives flexibility has been implemented.

Exciting Times

We are in a time where a directional change of large importance is happening

[DBMormon]

True, but I advise against sharing your views in class or from the pulpit.

I have shared my nuanced views often and with almost unanimously positive results. I have not seen and push back at all and most seem excited to hear my nuanced view, in my ward and stake at least

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Greg Prince

Terryl Givens

Richard Bushman

All active LDS whose views are nuanced and not traditional.

Whether not believing a historical BOM, defining "True and Living" way different then the Church's traditional explanation, and other flexible ways of fitting in the tent of mormonism that are markedly different then what we have been taught in generations past.

This type of preaching would have meant Church discipline 20 years ago.

Today one can speak of allowing gays full fellowship in the church, speak of allowing sisters priesthood, define the church in ways it has never described itself or it's truth claims, and still be an active member in full fellowship.

I see this tent enlarging as positive, as allowing others to hang on in spite if the difficult issues and still lead with faith. While we have to hang onto some things - BOM as scripture, Articles of Faith, belief that leaders are called of God and led by revelation, I also am grateful to rid ourselves of some of the nonsense

What think you?

I have no problem with differing opinions. But could you state which is which...Surly "Bushman's" belief in the BoM. Maybe lagging on some historical issues.....So could you expand?

[The Nehor]

Whether we want to acknowledge or not, the Church is behind these though off the record and not officially.

So the Brethren believe this is inspired and something they should support but are too cowardly to back it up? Not buying it, sorry.

[Tacenda]

http://mormonmatters.org/2013/06/17/178-179-tolerance/ Tolerance is a tricky virtue. In a list of ways one might interact with others, it’s certainly better than active persecution but falls far short as an ideal way to engage people or ideas we don’t fully understand or (yet) trust. How do we draw the line between the need to protect ourselves from potentially harmful influence while still being open to the possible richness that might be added to our lives—and to theirs as they interact with us—should we come to truly engage them? In two recent addresses, Elder Dallin H. Oaks and President Boyd K. Packer, take on the issue of tolerance. Both affirm that we are indeed called to be tolerant and loving toward others, but each warns in a different way about being “too” tolerant, with President Packer even calling an excess of tolerance a potential “trap.” Both leaders’ attempts demonstrate just how difficult it is to suggest proper boundaries for interacting with others while still striving to live gospel ideals.

In this episode, panelists Charles Randall Paul, James McLachlan, and Michael Fife join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a focused look at these two talks and their approaches to the virtue of tolerance while also moving into wider explorations that draw on many different disciplines. What do we find in LDS or wider Christian scripture, history, or teachings that can serve as good guides for how to engage others while still protecting ourselves? What are the most effective ways for teaching or modeling tolerance (or its opposite, such as when Christ overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple)? How should we approach the difficult competing ideals of loving all people, including those we consider sinners, even as we are taught from the scriptures that God “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (Alma 45:16; D&C 1:31)? Are there better terms than “tolerance” that suggest the best ways to interact with others with who we are not in full agreement? If the panelists were to take the general conference pulpit, how might they approach teaching the proper balance between being watchpersons on the tower and at the same time embracing the sisterhood and brotherhood of all persons and welcoming their influence on us?

Episode 178 focuses the practical arena, while Episode 179 moves into a broader free-for-all about this fascinating, tricky subject. This is a great podcast! It correlates well to the OP. I think the tent is becoming wider, but like one of the commenters on this podcast mentioned, Joseph Smith started out trying to make the tent include everyone to begin with. Maybe leader after leader after Joseph, made the tent smaller. I think JS would be very pleased if what he started, would come back. For instance when Joseph was in leadership, women were allowed to give blessings and anoint with oil, albeit it was on other women, not sure if it was on babies or children. And apparently the Priesthood was given to a black man. It was only through years of other leaders that individuals were excluded where once included. I picture JS, including gays better than what is happening now. Right now there is no room at the inn for a gay member. The environment is just to difficult for most gay people. They feel like misfits in their wards usually. The gay person is unable to have as many callings for example. That right there would make a person feel like an outcast.

[DBMormon]

To what "nonsense" are you referring? (I know I'll probably be sorry I asked, but ... )

I am not speaking of church teachings but rather that which as a culture we have accepted as truth and isn't though many were taught by a leader at some point. Edit/added - Though many times local and general leaders hold up the nonsense and administer based on it.

age of earth

evolution

true means we have all truth

rejecting the LDS gospel when offered to you and you reject salvation and have blown you opportunity

God doesn't work through other faiths to save his children as only our church is God's True Church.

great and abominable church = Catholic

10 years ago 90% of LDS would have accepted these and others, it is coming to an end. We are also ending the mentality that disagreement with leaders and testing their words against the HG is a sign of apostacy. The recent quotes on Doctrine have opened the way for discarding past nonsense and future nonsense.

We are collectively moving from solid stage three in Fowler's paradigm to something closer to stage four

Edited July 4, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I have no problem with differing opinions. But could you state which is which...Surly "Bushman's" belief in the BoM. Maybe lagging on some historical issues.....So could you expand?

please clarify what your asking

[DBMormon]

So the Brethren believe this is inspired and something they should support but are too cowardly to back it up? Not buying it, sorry.

hmm. No I am sure Givens and Bushman are traveling around the globe at their own expense putting up free firesides on Faith Crisis.

I know for certainty that The Church has consulted with Givens and Bushman regarding Faith Crisis and how to address it... and now these two are addressing it, weird.

Edited July 4, 2013 by DBMormon

[canard78]

I have no problem with differing opinions. But could you state which is which...Surly "Bushman's" belief in the BoM. Maybe lagging on some historical issues.....So could you expand?

I'd taken copious notes and then my phone crashed and I can't even find the link on youtube. But Bushman lead a discussion group (I think called '21st century reading of the Book of Mormon) where he encourages people to treat the Book of Mormon as modern apocrypha or pseudo-biographic (I think, he said it quick). A "daughter of the bible that challenges its own parent."

It may be that he was only working to his (mainly non-mormon) audience. While he affirms his own testimony of the Book of Mormon, he is leading the change of rhetoric around it.

[canard78]

So the Brethren believe this is inspired and something they should support but are too cowardly to back it up? Not buying it, sorry.

In UK a letter was sent, by the church, to all stake presidents, inviting them to host this fireside on a Sunday in their chapels.

Givens also said (in the UK firesides) that he working with the church on a multiple-volume publication (with the church logo) dealing with the most challenging aspects of Mormon history and foundation. Effectively Givens has been commissioned to write the 21st version of our history. I would imagine it will be quite different to the first version that's now out of print.

[canard78]

Greg Prince

Terryl Givens

Richard Bushman

All active LDS whose views are nuanced and not traditional.

Whether not believing a historical BOM, defining "True and Living" way different then the Church's traditional explanation, and other flexible ways of fitting in the tent of mormonism that are markedly different then what we have been taught in generations past.

This type of preaching would have meant Church discipline 20 years ago.

Today one can speak of allowing gays full fellowship in the church, speak of allowing sisters priesthood, define the church in ways it has never described itself or it's truth claims, and still be an active member in full fellowship.

I see this tent enlarging as positive, as allowing others to hang on in spite if the difficult issues and still lead with faith. While we have to hang onto some things - BOM as scripture, Articles of Faith, belief that leaders are called of God and led by revelation, I also am grateful to rid ourselves of some of the nonsense

What think you?

I agree that there is a trend. I believe I read that the church initially tried this more open approach to history in the 1960s or 70s but got their fingers burnt and went back to a whitewash approach (and I can't remember the reference for the CFR requests, but a lot of the Ensign references that FAIR uses to show the church doesn't hide history come from that era).

Having said that, the vast majority of the 14mn Mormons in the world will not have noticed this trend. I sat in a lesson a month ago which used the 'doubt' talk as the topic. The teacher used it to teach the weakness of the apostles for not having the faith to heal the boy, the talk, for him, was a warning about the weakness of doubt, the danger of doubt. It was like he'd heard a different talk to me.

So while there is a trend... it's very, very, low profile. We 'bloggernacle' crowd represent a tiny sub-sample of the Mormon population and they will continue to set the tone for the next few decades.

[tyler90az]

I have shared my nuanced views often and with almost unanimously positive results. I have not seen and push back at all and most seem excited to hear my nuanced view, in my ward and stake at least

It sounds like I will be losing my TR for supporting gay marriage. The only reason is that a GD teacher brought it up and I said I disagreed. I am hoping you are right and it was a local leader goof. If not this church is not Christ,s church.

[DBMormon]

It sounds like I will be losing my TR for supporting gay marriage. The only reason is that a GD teacher brought it up and I said I disagreed. I am hoping you are right and it was a local leader goof. If not this church is not Christ,s church.

The difference may be what I taught. I have taught the following

- explicit lesson on what it means to be true and living - stating we don't have all keys, don't have all truth, don't have the only path to exhaltation (HOTC vol. 4:78-80),

- explicit lesson on how doubt is ok, testimonies are gathered different ways and God has not given all the gift of faith (D&C 46)

- Explicit lesson on not following prophets blindly but rather seeking HG and confirmation

- explicit lesson on spirit of the law vs letter of the law and MORONI 7 AKA living by the spirit, we talked about how lying,is not always wrong if the Lord Commands otherwise or if done to protect the life of an innocent person (one person walked out on this one, but I got several emails and phone calls thanking me for a lesson that showed there was a lot of nuance

- lesson on Grace vs Works using Brad Wilcox's model as the framework which values effort and repentance over perfect obedience.

- I have on multiple occasions tackled bad assumptions and expectations and false teachings, even those taught by previous leaders, all with positive feedback, minus the one walk out

[tyler90az]

In your first post you said the following.

Today one can speak of allowing gays full fellowship in the church, speak of allowing sisters priesthood, define the church in ways it has never described itself or it's truth claims, and still be an active member in full fellowship.

Have you shared thoughts on that issue or heards others share thoughts without push back? If you do not want to share I understand.

[Stone holm]

In your first post you said the following.

Have you shared thoughts on that issue or heards others share thoughts without push back? If you do not want to share I understand.

Tyler, there is a difference between supporting the Constitutional and legal rights of gays to marry and saying that it is acceptable to The Lord for them to enter into such unions. From what you have said on other threads you crossed that line.

[volgadon]

For far too long we held cultural beliefs as a church, that were not based on revelation and the which bound individuals to to very little flexibility in their beliefs. Not anymore. The gates are open, and if it is nonsense, it won't survive.

While I fairly agree with this statement, I think that one ought to avoid the sentiment that cultural beliefs are a thing of the past. Even the fairly edgy crowd has plenty of them.

[Stone holm]

While I fairly agree with this statement, I think that one ought to avoid the sentiment that cultural beliefs are a thing of the past. Even the fairly edgy crowd has plenty of them.

Care to elaborate?

[omni]

It sounds like I will be losing my TR for supporting gay marriage. The only reason is that a GD teacher brought it up and I said I disagreed. I am hoping you are right and it was a local leader goof. If not this church is not Christ,s church.

Sorry, I don't want to derail this thread or turn it into yet another SSM thread, but are you really going to lose your TR, or was that said in jest?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Care to elaborate?

Volgadon can speak for himself, but I've noticed off and on that 'We need to rid ourselves of cultural beliefs that aren't really the essence of the gospel' can = 'So that I can replace them with my own cultural beliefs, which, unlike everyone else's, really are gospel-centred ...'

Edited July 5, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[volgadon]

Care to elaborate?

It is just something that I've observed. Growing up in a fairly non-US environment with people from all over the world, and serving in Eastern Europe has given me a somewhat different perspective than many in the US. It is neither a good nor a bad thing, merely an "I would approach this differently" sort of thing. I'm not fool enough to consider myself above cultural influence, or that the dawn of the 21st century heralded the beginning of the end of it. At the end of the day we all see through a mirror, darkly. Culture is one of the lenses through which we refract our experience, and who knows, in my case it might even be crack'd from side to side. One of the things that come to mind is during, IIRC, the Q&A session at Terryl Givens' Arrington lecture on Enoch as the blueprint for the restoration. He was somehwat dismissive of ideas of deification involving a literal understanding of sovereignity, advocating instead an understanding based more on pathos. Growing up in an orthodox Jewish environment, and having read every Jewish source on deification and divine kingship that I could lay my hands on, I felt far more comfortable with the idea, and saw no reason to consider it merely a cultural belief. That being said, Givens' presentation was astounding.

[Stargazer]

It is just something that I've observed. .... That being said, Givens' presentation was astounding.

Volgadon, I wanted to communicate with you privately, but you apparently cannot receive any new PMs, so I am left with this clumsy means. Can you PM me with an alternative way to contact you? It depends upon whether or not you are conversant with the Russian language -- if not then, nevermind.

[Brian 2.0]

The difference may be what I taught. I have taught the following

- explicit lesson on what it means to be true and living - stating we don't have all keys, don't have all truth, don't have the only path to exhaltation (HOTC vol. 4:78-80)

I couldn't find an online source for History of the Church so I couldn't look up the quote, but does it insinuate a path to exaltation that is outside that of receiving the saving ordinances through the proper priesthood (which is currently only in the LDS church)? I've always thought that exaltation is only through this path, and that many will have the opportunity to get on this path after death.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Brian 2.0