The Increasing Size Of The Tent Of Mormonism

[DBMormon]

Here, you say:

Reasonable people reading that quote, and the statement you've just made, "we are the only church in this dispensation with Keys," would think that you are saying that folks outside the priesthood structure in other "paths" can also find salvation. If that is not what you're saying, then I fault the post and what they say.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "only path" and what "other path" might exist for exaltation. Certainly, a Baptist accepting the Gospel in the hereafter is on the "only" path to salvation. Somewhere in one's existence you must accept Jesus Christ and submit to his ordinances. I see only one path. Perhaps you define path differently -- a resident of Sandusky could accept the Gospel on his "path" and a resident of Los Angeles on his "path." However, the way you express yourself definitely uses the verbiage of universal salvation.

I'm asking you for your reference. Did he really say this? I will likely be seeing Bro. Givens soon and I'd like that quote in hand to discuss it with him.

Which manual, which page? Do you have other examples?

Let me suggest that my post was pretty plain. Yes -- "still in their faith." Yes, "go to hell," they will, yes indeed. (Hell being, of course, the Latter-day Saint formula for the Spirit Prison).

in regards to Deplorable Manuals - He says it in his interview with Mormon Stories - http://mormonstories.org/terryl-givens-an-approach-to-thoughtful-honest-and-faithful-mormonism/

I know it is in part 3

the quote is requoted here http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2012/02/discussion-of-mormon-apostasy-spreads.html and here http://rubyslippersx3.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-you-cant-trust-me-feeling-is-mutual.html

the quote is

We have been set up.

The manuals distributed throughout the CES (Church Education System) and the sunday school program are deplorable... they are full of errors and misinformation. I don't think there is a deliberate campaign of disinformation going on...

The best scholarship taking place in the church history department hasn't filtered down to the level of the curriculum. And everyday that it doesn't the church is going to lose more mormons.

The problem is not information, the problem is betrayal. Nobody really leaves the church because there isn't enough information available to answer a question - and that's one thing that I don't think the church has gotten yet.

People leave the church because by the time the question arises it is too late.

If you are 45 and you learn for the very first time that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using a peep stone you have every right in the world to feel betrayed. Why wasn't I taught the truth in seminary or in sunday school?

I haven't heard a good answer for that, there isn't really an excuse for the church not to be moving faster to revise and update more truthful manuals.

[DBMormon]

The notion that the LDS tent is enlarging to a mental illusion...Go ahead and test your claim in an actual church setting and see just how large that tent really is.

I challenge anyone posting here next Sunday to question the historicity of the Book of Mormon in a church setting….or to claim that we need to view that Book of Mormon as inspired scripture rather than literal history.

Go ahead and share your views that evolution was the means by which God created man, that Adam was an evolved being with Chimpanzee cousins verses the traditional view that God created Adam from the dust of the earth.

Tell your fellow ward members that the earth is millions of years old rather than the scriptural backed 6,000.

Please share your views that Lamanites were more a political party than a race of people and that the Book of Mormon should be viewed more like metaphor than actual historical events. That the cursing of the Laman and Lemuel was not a changing of their skin color but again a metaphor.

Share with your fellow members that human language has evolved over 10’s of thousands of years rather than being changed in an instant at the Tower of Babel.

Be my guest in teaching the flood as a local event rather a universal occurance and see how many members ponce on you for teaching false doctrine and going against prophetic utterances of past prophets.

If an individual wishes to maintain a relationship with the church they must self-edit their views in order to retain that relationship. There is no such thing as free speech without consequences in the church. All of the compromise must be done by the individual wishing to remain inside the tent. I see none by the church..

For the record I was told by my former Stake President that if I were to discuss my “Large Tent” views with any member of my stake, including my own family members I would face church discipline. I refused to accept his gag order…and well I guess the rest is history.

Someone already pointed that out about Bushman staing it publically. Greg Prince has also said so publically. Elder Holland, an apostle says we should be patient with people who say such.

his quote is here http://www.pbs.org/m...ws/holland.html

and says

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

For the record, I am a believer in a historical BOM and I don't want people to assume otherwise from my defending those who take a less then literal approach. But I defend their right to do so.

Edited July 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[CV75]

Explain how LDS have an advantage? a real advantage that translates to a higher % of Mormons being saved then non-mormons

100% of those entering into the Celestial Kingdom is higher than 0% of those entering the Celestial Kingdom. As you pointed out, in the long run no one can enter the Celestial Kingdom without having, eventually, all the advantages that LDS Church membership (or its counterpart, successor or ultimate state of belonging in the next world) provides.

Edited July 5, 2013 by CV75

[HoldingOn]

Greg Prince

Terryl Givens

Richard Bushman

`````````````

I'm new here. Please forgive me if this is not the place for this post.

Can anyone refer me to something written by these men that describes their belief/beliefs in Mormonism? I've read/heard/understand that they do not fit the traditional TBM mold -- but I'm curious to read in their own words (preferably in a consice document -- not an entire volume) where they "are" in regards to their faith in the foundational claims of the church. I'd prefer NOT to be referred to a podcast -- preferably something in writing -- but I'll take whatever resources the collective wisdom of the board can offer.

I'm particularly interested in Bushman as I'm about to start RSR. But Prince and Givens are next on my stack of books on the nightstand.

Thanks.

[Tacenda]

The notion that the LDS tent is enlarging to a mental illusion...Go ahead and test your claim in an actual church setting and see just how large that tent really is.

I challenge anyone posting here next Sunday to question the historicity of the Book of Mormon in a church setting….or to claim that we need to view that Book of Mormon as inspired scripture rather than literal history.

Go ahead and share your views that evolution was the means by which God created man, that Adam was an evolved being with Chimpanzee cousins verses the traditional view that God created Adam from the dust of the earth.

Tell your fellow ward members that the earth is millions of years old rather than the scriptural backed 6,000.

Please share your views that Lamanites were more a political party than a race of people and that the Book of Mormon should be viewed more like metaphor than actual historical events. That the cursing of the Laman and Lemuel was not a changing of their skin color but again a metaphor.

Share with your fellow members that human language has evolved over 10’s of thousands of years rather than being changed in an instant at the Tower of Babel.

Be my guest in teaching the flood as a local event rather a universal occurance and see how many members ponce on you for teaching false doctrine and going against prophetic utterances of past prophets.

If an individual wishes to maintain a relationship with the church they must self-edit their views in order to retain that relationship. There is no such thing as free speech without consequences in the church. All of the compromise must be done by the individual wishing to remain inside the tent. I see none by the church.

For the record I was told by my former Stake President that if I were to discuss my “Large Tent” views with any member of my stake, including my own family members, I would face church discipline. I refused to accept his gag order…and well I guess the rest is history. I think the church is more interested in which way your tent is faced rather than how large their tent is. For those who can't decipher this metaphors meaning...the church is more interested that you received their traditional views of the church as taught in their manuals and that you accept church doctrine as taught today than them keeping members in the church with non-traditional views and beliefs.

You must live in my ward.

[DBMormon]

Let me suggest that my post was pretty plain. Yes -- "still in their faith." Yes, "go to hell," they will, yes indeed. (Hell being, of course, the Latter-day Saint formula for the Spirit Prison).

Your playing on words. Even if one goes to spirit prison for a time, that does not negate the fact that in the end they end up with exaltation. I admit the rate at which one is sanctified is assisted by the Lord's Church, but the eventual end result is not impacted by being a member in this life or not. Again being a member of the Church may affect a million things between this moment and exaltation, but not the end result of exaltation. You and I go to the grocery store. You go by Car and I go by Bike. I stop to buy a newspaper, get new shoes, and put air in a flat tire. but eventually we both got to the same destination. The true and living Church will provide ordinances for all and God's Work is to save all of his children, who are willing, repentant, and striving. Some of God's Children are going backwards in rebellion and they (both Mormon and non Mormon) will receive a lesser Glory. Many are good people who care not to be sanctified (both Mormon and non mormon) and will receive a lesser glory. Those who press forward with steadfastness and repent of shortcomings and come unto Christ (Mormon and Non Mormons who do so once they understand the truth in the next life) will be exalted - I am talking basics here. If you disagree with my wording let it be. Please focus on the idea of both LDS and Non LDS and how one is not favored over another.

[CV75]

What think you?

I think that as time goes on, the need to be recognized, tolerated, heard, understood, lauded and encouraged as a nuanced and non-traditional member will also be recognized as nonsensical. Why would a nuanced and non-traditional member even care?

I like the kind of member who recognizes, tolerates, hears, understands, lauds and encourages his fellow beings as children of God in the matters of godliness; but most of all, one who serves them.

[DBMormon]

100% of those entering into the Celestial Kingdom is higher than 0% of those entering the Celestial Kingdom. As you pointed out, in the long run no one can enter the Celestial Kingdom without having, eventually, all the advantages that LDS Church membership (or its counterpart, successor or ultimate state of belonging in the next world) provides.

agreed, but by being blessed to have it in this life (and whether we utilize it or not) does not make me better or more likely then those who have it in the next life ( and whether they utilize it or not) in terms of final outcome. Though I agree with your statement generally

[Stone holm]

Saying we should be patience with people who question or deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon, does not mean that the Church is moving towards allowing this as an acceptable doctrinal stance. There are potential cultural baggage that we might dispense with such as gender stereotyping and the subordination of women. But the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not a question of cultural baggage, we do not need to destroy the tent in order to expand it. I would agree that the manuals are deplorable and we have gone too far with correlation, but what I am hearing here does not smack me as a good alternative.

[DBMormon]

Greg Prince

Terryl Givens

Richard Bushman

`````````````

I'm new here. Please forgive me if this is not the place for this post.

Can anyone refer me to something written by these men that describes their belief/beliefs in Mormonism? I've read/heard/understand that they do not fit the traditional TBM mold -- but I'm curious to read in their own words (preferably in a consice document -- not an entire volume) where they "are" in regards to their faith in the foundational claims of the church. I'd prefer NOT to be referred to a podcast -- preferably something in writing -- but I'll take whatever resources the collective wisdom of the board can offer.

I'm particularly interested in Bushman as I'm about to start RSR. But Prince and Givens are next on my stack of books on the nightstand.

Thanks.

Givens' best place would be the MormonStories interview - http://mormonstories.org/terryl-givens-an-approach-to-thoughtful-honest-and-faithful-mormonism/

the site is critcal at times but this interview is splendid

Bushman - You have to gather bits and pieces. you can get a little here - http://dan-christiansen.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

Greg Prince - you can get a little here - http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/prince.html

[DBMormon]

The notion that the LDS tent is enlarging to a mental illusion...Go ahead and test your claim in an actual church setting and see just how large that tent really is.

I challenge anyone posting here next Sunday to question the historicity of the Book of Mormon in a church setting….or to claim that we need to view that Book of Mormon as inspired scripture rather than literal history.

Go ahead and share your views that evolution was the means by which God created man, that Adam was an evolved being with Chimpanzee cousins verses the traditional view that God created Adam from the dust of the earth.

Tell your fellow ward members that the earth is millions of years old rather than the scriptural backed 6,000.

Please share your views that Lamanites were more a political party than a race of people and that the Book of Mormon should be viewed more like metaphor than actual historical events. That the cursing of Laman and Lemuel was not a changing of their skin color but again a metaphor.

Share with your fellow members that human language has evolved over 10’s of thousands of years rather than being changed in an instant at the Tower of Babel.

Be my guest in teaching the flood as a local event rather a universal occurance and see how many members ponce on you for teaching false doctrine and going against prophetic utterances of past prophets.

If an individual wishes to maintain a relationship with the church they must self-edit their views in order to retain that relationship. There is no such thing as free speech without consequences in the church. All of the compromise must be done by the individual wishing to remain inside the tent. I see none by the church.

For the record I was told by my former Stake President that if I were to discuss my “Large Tent” views with any member of my stake, including my own family members, I would face church discipline. I refused to accept his gag order…and well I guess the rest is history. I think the church is more interested in which way your tent is faced rather than how large their tent is. For those who can't decipher this metaphors meaning...the church is more interested that you received their traditional views of the church as taught in their manuals and that you accept church doctrine as taught today and that members recognize their authority and power over them than in the church keeping members in the church with non-traditional views and beliefs.

One more thought: How large can that tent get before the church loses all credibility and control over its membership...personally I don't think they can allow a large tent (to continue the metaphor) Mormonism only works within a small doctrinal tent...give the members too much intellectual freedom in nuancing doctrine so they can reconcile it with conflicts...and you lose them...at least that's been my experience.

Again it is more a reflection of the cultural beliefs members have and not the framework that todays leaders (FP and Q12) demand we abide by.

Edited July 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[CV75]

agreed, but by being blessed to have it in this life (and whether we utilize it or not) does not make me better or more likely then those who have it in the next life ( and whether they utilize it or not) in terms of final outcome. Though I agree with your statement generally

Those who have it in this life and those who have it in the next life are ultimately the same cohort. But you must also agree (maybe not) that for you, yourself, that having it now makes you better off or more likely* to accept more light in the next life than if you were not a member. At some point it is better to see others as brothers and sisters to serve, not things to judge or to compete with.

* I really don't like using liklihood and probablity in relation to spiritual outcomes, because God's righteousness is always victorious, and the Atonement always works.

[Tacenda]

I have for a long time felt it best to enlarge the tent of the religion, but I'm not sure I agree anymore. Part of my reasoning has been if the tent is not enlarged, I will soon find myself left out. There was a time I felt it was easy to be a part of the Church but that time is just a memory that gives me all sorts of conflicting feelings these days.

How true are statements that suggest if we are luke warm He will spew us out of His mouth? I have yet to meet a person in all my journeys who is not to some extent luke warm (but this is just my subjective judgment). With nearly everything I do when it comes to Church and religion, I question and scrutinize to death. I dont' want to offend, but I also don't want to just go ahead with things as if I'm sure I'm on board--as if my integrity is constantly under scrutiny itself. My mind and heart are so unsettled these days I don't know what statements, claims and ideas are those which lead us to good and those which are influenced by satan to some extent and are leading us to selfishness or other ugly character flaws. I find myself sinking generally but being bounced up every now and then by unexpected inspirational stories, ideas, and events--its as if I"m being tossed around on the waves by every wind of doctrine as it comes. I can think this but I can't correct it, if it needs correcting.

I don't know its fair of me to even ask or hope for me to go back to where I once was. I don't want ignorance (although a great deal of ignorance remains in me). I'm glad context is a larger part of my studies now. I don't want to miss plenty of interesting stuff by going back. But I also don't want to continue to have to question everything--not actually knowing anything it seems. For the Church I think it's easier to get things done if it's composed of people just happily faithfully doing what they're asked. I don't fit that mold anymore. In this, do I bring everyone else down? Am I slowing the work? Going back to the question of what is luke warm--am I the real luke warm one and its my own mixed up brain that thinks everyone is luke warm to some extent?

If the church was a smaller tent, it would possibly be more focused. More nuanced. It wouldn't have a bunch of me's running around slowing it down.

Certain positions in particular are hard for me to advocate now. I used to think without a doubt it's good to increase the size of the tent. Now I'm not so sure that's the best thing. I can see how keeping it focused and direct may actually be best. While in a very real and large way I want to be included, in another way I wonder if its best for me and for the Church if I'm on the outside. At some point in the eternities God is going to have to tell it like it is to me. He'll have to judge me as a luke warm one or something. Why not send me packing from the start or early on so I don't bog things down in the long run?

All too often me staying in and with the Church is just causing confusion. I'm pretty much relegated to not saying anything in church at all--cause when I do everyone is turned off or annoyed it seems. My bishop told me I'm not his brother in the gospel anymore--which has caused me to wonder he may be on to something. Get rid of the me's and the Church will be better off. I show up. I try to be nice and participate. But I'm completely out of place. My mind doesn't belong. My heart is broken. my spirit is contrite. whats worse in all of this now? My oldest is exactly like me. I'm steering the poor kid in the wrong direction. And I have others to follow (they're too young to know anything now). So does increasing the size of the tent help or hinder? I can see both sides of this. I don't know the answer.

Like Johnnie cake, you also must live in my ward. I agree with a lot of what you've said. Maybe people like us are a drain. Though I haven't been outspoken at all. Just don't feel apart of it anymore. Feel like an outcast in my own mind. I want to be that person I use to be, but in a way I don't. Before in my little world, I didn't feel myself around people not of my faith or inactive. It's hard to explain, but I didn't feel like I had much in common, not enough for deep conversation at least. Sometimes I even felt a little ashamed, don't ask me why. There's a word for it. I'd even wonder why my 2 inactive sister's marriages were so much better than mine and my other active sister's marriages were. Ours were temple marriages, for crying out loud. I know this isn't the case with most LDS marriages. Or it could be all in my head. But it feels like some LDS women and men have roles to play or may even be pigeonholed a bit. Too many little rules, that aren't the end all be all, to follow. We've not had enough room to breath our own style or way of life. We are told what to do and how to do it. Like little children. Maybe that's it, I feel like a little child, we're told to be like a child and humble ourselves, I know it wasn't meant that way but still. It's like when I give my kids a list of chores, are we as adults getting that list of chores in church? So many things to think about. There is a lot of room for improvement in our lives living under the Mormon tent, that's for sure.

[Stone holm]

Again it is more a reflection of the cultural beliefs members have and not the framework that todays leaders (FP and Q12) demand we abide by.

Yeah, although I rarely agree with Johnnie Cake, I don't think that if someone stood up a preached this from the pulpit in our Ward that he or she would be doing much more preaching in our Ward and I don't think our Ward is that far from the general sentiment, in fact it is more liberal than many.

[DBMormon]

Saying we should be patience with people who question or deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon, does not mean that the Church is moving towards allowing this as an acceptable doctrinal stance. There are potential cultural baggage that we might dispense with such as gender stereotyping and the subordination of women. But the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not a question of cultural baggage, we do not need to destroy the tent in order to expand it. I would agree that the manuals are deplorable and we have gone too far with correlation, but what I am hearing here does not smack me as a good alternative.

I am not suggesting that is is heading towards a Doctrinal stance, but rather it will become more and more acceptable for some to hold that view while remaining firmly in the Church. That one could voice that belief without sending everyone into shock.

[Stone holm]

I am not suggesting that is is heading towards a Doctrinal stance, but rather it will become more and more acceptable for some to hold that view while remaining firmly in the Church. That one could voice that belief without sending everyone into shock.

Yeah, somehow I doubt that.

[HoldingOn]

Givens' best place would be the MormonStories interview - http://mormonstories...hful-mormonism/

the site is critcal at times but this interview is splendid

Bushman - You have to gather bits and pieces. you can get a little here - http://dan-christian...01_archive.html

Greg Prince - you can get a little here - http://www.pbs.org/m...ews/prince.html

````````````````````````````````````

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Screw work, now I know what I'm doing today!

[DBMormon]

Those who have it in this life and those who have it in the next life are ultimately the same cohort. But you must also agree (maybe not) that for you, yourself, that having it now makes you better off or more likely* to accept more light in the next life than if you were not a member. At some point it is better to see others as brothers and sisters to serve, not things to judge or to compete with.

* I really don't like using liklihood and probablity in relation to spiritual outcomes, because God's righteousness is always victorious, and the Atonement always works.

Love the last sentence. Agree with your statement. I am better off having the Church in my life as it has quickened my sanctification process, my becoming Christlike. But with or without the church in this life I am the same person and would of in the distant eternities have achieved the same end goal.

[DBMormon]

Yeah, somehow I doubt that.

If you look at the last 50 years it has already moved that direction. People like Greg Prince, Rock Waterman, Terryl Givens, Brad Wilcox are at worst tolerated and at best embraced. Their views may have been called into serious question by local leaders or higher in the late 80' early 90's as intellectualism was not as highly favored.

[DBMormon]

Yeah, although I rarely agree with Johnnie Cake, I don't think that if someone stood up a preached this from the pulpit in our Ward that he or she would be doing much more preaching in our Ward and I don't think our Ward is that far from the general sentiment, in fact it is more liberal than many.

My Ward has quite eagerly been willing to reconsider bad assumptions and expectations, or at the least live with others who share dramatically contrasting views from what they previously held as beliefs. My ward is made of mostly converts, Which may or may not say something.

Edited July 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[altersteve]

The Increasing Size Of The Tent Of Mormonism

We're definitely going to need a lot more STAKES.

*rimshot*

[Calm]

Greg Prince

Terryl Givens

Richard Bushman

`````````````

I'm new here. Please forgive me if this is not the place for this post.

Can anyone refer me to something written by these men that describes their belief/beliefs in Mormonism? I've read/heard/understand that they do not fit the traditional TBM mold -- but I'm curious to read in their own words (preferably in a consice document -- not an entire volume) where they "are" in regards to their faith in the foundational claims of the church. I'd prefer NOT to be referred to a podcast -- preferably something in writing -- but I'll take whatever resources the collective wisdom of the board can offer.

I'm particularly interested in Bushman as I'm about to start RSR. But Prince and Givens are next on my stack of books on the nightstand.

Thanks.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/396/richard-lyman-bushman

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1904/terryl-l-givens

[Brian 2.0]

Tell your fellow ward members that the earth is millions of years old rather than the scriptural backed 6,000.

On this point at least, I think young earth Memebers are in the small minority in my ward. If someone said in Sunday School that the earth was only 6,000 years old you'd see a LOT of hands shoot up to comment in the other direction. The memeber claiming 6,000 would be the one getting the weird looks, not the other way around.

But I am in Los Angeles so maybe were just all too comfortable with apostate thinking.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Johnnie Cake]

Yeah, although I rarely agree with Johnnie Cake, I don't think that if someone stood up a preached this from the pulpit in our Ward that he or she would be doing much more preaching in our Ward and I don't think our Ward is that far from the general sentiment, in fact it is more liberal than many.

Danger Will Robinson...it's a short slippery slope to apostasy ...first you tolerate ,than you agree, than you embrace. You're already on step 2

[CV75]

Love the last sentence. Agree with your statement. I am better off having the Church in my life as it has quickened my sanctification process, my becoming Christlike. But with or without the church in this life I am the same person and would of in the distant eternities have achieved the same end goal.

The last sentence is interesting, since it seems to say that one's person (spirit) has little to do with the design of his probationary state, and that one's probationary state has little to do with the eternities that are designed out of that. But I think that there is enough known about the relationship between our spirits, our testing and our outcome (God's work and glory) to suggest otherwise.

I think God puts us in the most suitable probationary state we are prepared for, provides His best guidance through that estate, and allows us to choose to follow Him. To say that the design of any other probabtionsry state would serve the same purpose for the same individual implies that God doesn't do all He can to match up our spirit with a congruent probabtion. But I see that as one of the blessings / benefits of the Atonement (from the founsdation of the world) -- we weren't just randomly tossed into chaos to see what would happen. Each was given "their estate."