The Increasing Size Of The Tent Of Mormonism

[Bob Crockett]

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.

I can assure you that I am not playing with words. I am merely taking exception to your words.

Your posts speak of multiple paths. Yet, the scriptures deny such doctrine. There is only one way, that is Jesus Christ, and that path is narrow.

There is only one path that leads to exaltation; one path by which we can become like unto our Father and our God, and if we ever attain to that which we are seeking—eternal life in His presence—we must walk in the path which He has marked out, and in no other, for no other will lead us back into His presence. We must every one walk in that path, and as we must all walk in it, therefore we must be united. -- Elder George P. Reynolds, delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, March 29th, 1885.

"And there is only one path that can keep one from peril, and it is the narrow path marked by the Lord Jesus Christ." Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes, 101.

"Now, there is only one way in which the commandments of God can be revealed unto us. God has not left this in doubt. He has not left us to grope in the dark respecting His methods of revealing His mind and will unto His children. In the very beginning of the work of God in these last days, to remove all doubt upon this subject, God gave revelations unto this Church in exceeding great plainness, and there was one principle that was emphatically dwelt upon and enforced, namely, that there was but one channel, one channel alone, through which the word of God should come to this people." George Q Cannon, Gospel Truth, 251.

The references are very many. The Church is the only way to exaltation, be it in this lifetime or the next. You seem to say that the Church exists only for a short period of time and that after this life there are other paths. But, perhaps it is more accurate to say that the Priesthood is the Church, and the Priesthood exists for all time and into the hereafter. "[T]he only saving forces on earth are the eternal principles of the everlasting gospel of Christ and the rights and powers of the priesthood of Almighty God. We of this church stand as the sole possessors of these mighty forces which we have for our own blessing, salvation, and exaltation, not only, but also we hold them in trust for all mankind." (Message of the First Presidency, October 3, 1942.)

"[T]here is only one way. . . .Unity never comes while each man charts his own course and walks in his own way. " Marion G. Romney, Learning for the Eternities, p. 150.

For what is worth. I realize that there isn't any swaying of your views. But, for those following tihs thread I point out that there is a movement among a very small group of Latter-day Saints and non-members to try and persuade the Church to be more inclusive, have a broader tent, and be more ecumenical. That's nothing new. The Godbeites wanted really the same thing. I just don't think the Church moving in your direction. The rigid law of chastity and the belief in a historical Book of Mormon aren't going to change at all.

However, I certainly subscribe to your view that there should be a better or different method of educating the Saints about the "rock in the hat" facts (although I learned that detail from my seminary teacher, later bishop, who was my dad) in the 1970s. I agree with your Givens excerpt that curriculum writers are not church historians. I disagree with Givens that research from the CHD is not filtering down to the curriculum writers. I don't think the CHD is in the business of publishing and analyzing its history; the CHD exists merely to collect and preserve its history. Turley's recent MMM book was published by Oxford Press, not by the Church, and not under the aegis of the Church. I am hard-pressed to think of any authoritative historical work coming out of the CHD, oither than Joseph Fiedling Smith's History; some scattered works during the Arrington administration, and BH Roberts' and Orson F. Whitney's output.

I think you and I agree more than we disagree, but you tend to couch your statements in universalism and to that I criticize.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

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.

Haven't done this one yet...I might mention sometime that some people feel this way, but since it is not something I believe (I believe it is an ancient religious text, so more than just inspired, but not all literal history because that isn't the way the ancients wrote their texts...which belief I have mentioned at church), I doubt it would be an issue.

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.

Been there, done that.

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

Been there, done that.

Please share your views that Lamanites were more a political party than a race of people

Been there, done that.

and that the Book of Mormon should be viewed more like metaphor than actual historical events.

Not my belief

That the cursing of Laman and Lemuel was not a changing of their skin color but again a metaphor.

Been there, done that.

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.

Been there, done that.

Be my guest in teaching the flood as a local event rather a universal occurance

Been there, done that.

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.....

No one has ever mentioned a problem with it for me.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

Given that BYU has one of the largest dinosaur bone collections in the world. Johnnie Cake statement is laughable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scWQWzIlsg

[thesometimesaint]

No one has ever mentioned a problem with it for me.

Me neither, and I'm far from reticent about stating my opinions.

[Stone holm]

Oh we don't have many young earthers, but questioning the historicity of the B of M? I already don't get asked to teach or give talks because of my maverick socialist/progressive views so am not going to test the waters with questioning the historicity of the B of M which I don't question and would probably challenge a member who did.

[thesometimesaint]

For me is it cut and dried. We accept JS as a prophet of God, and the Book of Mormon as the word of God. To dismiss the BoM as false, or inspired fiction, turns those beliefs on their head.

[Stone holm]

For me is it cut and dried. We accept JS as a prophet of God, and the Book of Mormon as the word of God. To dismiss the BoM as false, or inspired fiction, turns those beliefs on their head.

Agreed.

[DBMormon]

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."

This earth is a probationary state. Regardless of faith, this life will show whether one desires to press forward to improvement and an effort to cast off sin or whether one would prefer a peaceful plateau or even rebellion. Being a Mormon, while helpful to quicken this process, is not the only way to provide the experience needed. Life does that in and of itself.

[stemelbow]

For me is it cut and dried. We accept JS as a prophet of God, and the Book of Mormon as the word of God. To dismiss the BoM as false, or inspired fiction, turns those beliefs on their head.

I don't know...what's so cut and dried about those two claims? What does it mean that JS was a prophet of God? Does that mean we must accept his polygamy, for instance? Or that he didn't make mistakes with scripture?

What does it mean to say the Book of Mormon is the word of God? Does it mean we have to accept each of the pronouncements made throughout it? Does it mean we treat each little verse as if it's God speaking?

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know...what's so cut and dried about those two claims? What does it mean that JS was a prophet of God? Does that mean we must accept his polygamy, for instance? Or that he didn't make mistakes with scripture?

What does it mean to say the Book of Mormon is the word of God? Does it mean we have to accept each of the pronouncements made throughout it? Does it mean we treat each little verse as if it's God speaking?

That what is said in Scripture is Gods' word.

Yes you must accept the principle of polygamy. However we don't practice polygamy in our day.

The BoM itself doesn't claim that. That being said. No Lehites, no Christ in the BoM, The keystone of our religion is gone.

JS himself didn't claim perfection for himself. In fact just the opposite.

[Stone holm]

I don't know...what's so cut and dried about those two claims? What does it mean that JS was a prophet of God? Does that mean we must accept his polygamy, for instance? Or that he didn't make mistakes with scripture?

What does it mean to say the Book of Mormon is the word of God? Does it mean we have to accept each of the pronouncements made throughout it? Does it mean we treat each little verse as if it's God speaking?

Yes, I think we can accept his polygamy just like the prophets who followed. We can accept the B of M to be a historical record of the times it recorded. Does it mean that we have to accept the racist comments made in it as truth? No.

[Brian 2.0]

If the main goal is to bring people to Christ and his teachings, I see no harm if someone chooses to believe that the BOM is Gods word, but not a historical document. If that works for them, and they live by the precepts in it, why dismiss that approach?

For that reason alone, I see the church allowing that type of interpretation. I don't think they will outright preach it as a way to approach the BOM, but I don't think we will see much preaching AGAINST that approach, because you are basically invalidating a path that is bringing that person closer to Christ.

[stemelbow]

That what is said in Scripture is Gods' word.

But not literally His word, no?

Yes you must accept the principle of polygamy. However we don't practice polygamy in our day.

Why? I think one could think polygamy is an evil practice but still see JS as a prophet, no?

The BoM itself doesn't claim that. That being said. No Lehites, no Christ in the BoM, The keystone of our religion is gone.

then again, why must one accept that the BoM is historical if one accepts that it is an inpsired text?

JS himself didn't claim perfection for himself. In fact just the opposite.

yes.

[DBMormon]

If the main goal is to bring people to Christ and his teachings, I see no harm if someone chooses to believe that the BOM is Gods word, but not a historical document. If that works for them, and they live by the precepts in it, why dismiss that approach?

For that reason alone, I see the church allowing that type of interpretation. I don't think they will outright preach it as a way to approach the BOM, but I don't think we will see much preaching AGAINST that approach, because you are basically invalidating a path that is bringing that person closer to Christ.

agreed!!! Moroni 7 - Way to Judge - what brings one closer to Christ is of God and what divides them further is of the devil. It is not about anything but that, what BRings you closer to Christ is good, it is sanctifying, it is a positive.

[Nevo]

Can anyone refer me to something written by these men that describes their belief/beliefs in Mormonism? . . . I'm particularly interested in Bushman as I'm about to start RSR.

In addition to the link to Mormon Scholars Testify that calmoriah already provided, I also strong recommend his essays, "The Social Dimensions of Rationality," and "My Belief."

[CV75]

If the main goal is to bring people to Christ and his teachings, I see no harm if someone chooses to believe that the BOM is Gods word, but not a historical document. If that works for them, and they live by the precepts in it, why dismiss that approach?

For that reason alone, I see the church allowing that type of interpretation. I don't think they will outright preach it as a way to approach the BOM, but I don't think we will see much preaching AGAINST that approach, because you are basically invalidating a path that is bringing that person closer to Christ.

I agree, and for the same reason wonder why any other issues with “church history” and "correllation" aren’t given the same latitude if they, too are a path that brings people closer to Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

If the main goal is to bring people to Christ and his teachings, I see no harm if someone chooses to believe that the BOM is Gods word, but not a historical document. If that works for them, and they live by the precepts in it, why dismiss that approach?

For that reason alone, I see the church allowing that type of interpretation. I don't think they will outright preach it as a way to approach the BOM, but I don't think we will see much preaching AGAINST that approach, because you are basically invalidating a path that is bringing that person closer to Christ.

Our goal is to bring people to Jesus the Christ through by means of his Church. So it becomes problematic to exclude the very institution God uses to bring us to him.

I don't see the Church taking action against a member unless they continue to promote their beliefs as Church beliefs after counsel.

[Johnnie Cake]

For me is it cut and dried. We accept JS as a prophet of God, and the Book of Mormon as the word of God. To dismiss the BoM as false, or inspired fiction, turns those beliefs on their head.

I think that what this thread is showing is that the claim of Mormonism being open to a large tent of conflicting philosophies...is in reality quite false. Mormonism must remain philosophically tight for Mormonism to be what it claims to be...anyone who thinks that the church can, does or will accommodate a Large Tent is just using "Jedi Mind Tricks" on themselves to rationalize Mormonism into an acceptable epistemology for their particular idiosyncratic brand of Mormonism.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[DBMormon]

I think that what this thread is showing is that the claim of Mormonism being open to a large tent of conflicting philosophies...is in reality quite false. Mormonism must remain philosophically tight for Mormonism to be what it claims to be...anyone who thinks that the church can, does or will accommodate a Large Tent is just using "Jedi Mind Tricks" on themselves to rationalize Mormonism into an acceptable epistemology for their particular idiosyncratic brand of Mormonism.

I disagree.

One can believe in a 6000 year old earth or a billions of years old earth

One can believe Evolution and One can disbelieve it

One can believe in no death before the fall in regards to all life or just Adam and Eve's condition

There are 100's of these. Your right in that there are set things that can not change. But there is much that is and should be flexible.

[thesometimesaint]

I think that what this thread is showing is that the claim of Mormonism being open to a large tent of conflicting philosophies...is in reality quite false. Mormonism must remain philosophically tight for Mormonism to be what it claims to be...anyone who thinks that the church can, does or will accommodate a Large Tent is just using "Jedi Mind Tricks" on themselves to rationalize Mormonism into an acceptable epistemology for their particular idiosyncratic brand of Mormonism.

No Jedi mind tricks. It is really simple. If you don't believe the Truth Claims of this, any other religion, or any group of people for that matter. Why belong? Life is too short spending it on things you don't believe. As I tell my atheistic friends. My religion helps me to be a better person in this life. If they are correct and it is just this life then the abyss. I've still lived the life I want, and none of us will know any differently.

Mormonism is a big tent religion, but it is a religion.

Edited July 5, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[DBMormon]

No Jedi mind tricks. It is really simple. If you don't believe the Truth Claims of this, any other religion, or any group of people for that matter. Why belong? Life is too short spending it on things you don't believe. As I tell my atheistic friends. My religion helps me to be a better person in this life. If they are correct and it is just this life then the abyss. I've still lived the life I want, and none of us will know any differently.

Mormonism is a big tent religion, but it is a religion.

Well Said

[Stone holm]

No Jedi mind tricks. It is really simple. If you don't believe the Truth Claims of this, any other religion, or any group of people for that matter. Why belong? Life is too short spending it on things you don't believe. As I tell my atheistic friends. My religion helps me to be a better person in this life. If they are correct and it is just this life then the abyss. I've still lived the life I want, and none of us will know any differently.

Mormonism is a big tent religion, but it is a religion.

Absolutely correct. No religion, and perhaps especially Mormonism, has to be big enough to accomodate just any belief including beliefs which suggest that it is false. This feels really odd to be saying since I am normally attacking cultural baggage, but religion has certain core beliefs. For Mormons one of those core beliefs is that Joseph Smith obtained with the assistance of an Angel a set of gold plates which purported to be a history of three groups of people and that these people all believed in the coming of Christ and that some actually saw Christ appear someplace in the Western Hemisphere. These plates reveal how the people of that time believed and acted as abridged by Mormon. Now it is possible that those people didn't accurately record their history or were influenced by bias -- just as we have some faux historians manfufacturing a distorted view of our own history today. But to say that Joseph of Smith just wrote a fictional story that inspires people -- that pretty much cuts against some pretty fundamental beliefs.

I think Thomas Jefferson was a pretty amazing person. He published a revision of the Bible which left Christ as a teacher of ethics and stripped Him of Divinity. One might accept Jefferson's approach as being Christian in that his intent was to get people to lead Christ like lives. But though Jefferson was a Deist, I would hesitate to call him Christian, after all did not many non-believing Jews say as much of Christ?

[pmccombs1]

No Jedi mind tricks. It is really simple. If you don't believe the Truth Claims of this, any other religion, or any group of people for that matter. Why belong?

That's a good question, and I have no doubt that many disaffected, active Mormons ask it all the time. There are different answers. For instance, I know several people who have some relationships that will either stand or fall based on faithfulness to the Church. Jesus once said, "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household." That sort of family-wrecking went on in the early Christian church in a spectacular way, and it still happens frequently as an effect of merely "changing one's mind" about a particular religious narrative or tradition. It is surprising how many human relationships are predicated on one's allegiance to a certain figure, brand of orthodoxy, or institution.

Some who value their relationships above the act of being true to oneself will choose to remain faithful and active in the Church even while not believing in its teachings. I suppose many of them would love to leave but have found that "not belonging" extends far deeper than merely membership in the Church. That, of course, is unfortunate.

Life is too short spending it on things you don't believe. As I tell my atheistic friends. My religion helps me to be a better person in this life. If they are correct and it is just this life then the abyss. I've still lived the life I want, and none of us will know any differently.

That is good advice, but sometimes one becomes a better person simply by being and participating, without even knowing or believing in certain literal antecedents or consequents.

Some stories are true stories regardless of whether they really happened or not. They are true just because they make us better people.

Do not forget that, when Jesus was asked to define truth, he gave no answer. It was sufficient for Him, regarding truth, that we should know it when we see it. Or better yet, know it when we do it.

I believe in the prophet Joseph Smith, but probably not in the same way that others believe. In fact, they might call what I have "unbelief" according to their own standard. But still, I see something that strikes me as truth.

Will Campbell once asked a man, "What do you believe?" to which he was offered the strange reply of, "Yeah."

It took him aback. What could it mean? But it ended his theological prying, and he came to realize that it was OK for people to believe in their own way. He wrote that, "Today we are bombarded with a theology of certitude. I don't find much Biblical support for the stance of 'God told me and I'm telling you,' and if you don't believe as I do, you [don't belong]... From Abraham going out by faith, not knowing where he was being sent, to Jesus on the Cross, beseeching the Father for a better way, there was always more inquiring faith than conceited certainty."

To those who claim that one "must believe" in a certain way in order to be a Mormon, I say, "Nonsense." It is sufficient to be inspired by Mormonism and to live it and find satisfaction in participation, even in the presence of uncertainty or unbelief. For the participating unbeliever, there remains at least a seed of faith in something. A speck of faith has ever been the price of full participation, and those who require great signs and declarations of allegiance to the institution and its dogmas and offices, in order to receive the blessings of God, are running a club and not a Church.

[Stone holm]

That's a good question, and I have no doubt that many disaffected, active Mormons ask it all the time. There are different answers. For instance, I know several people who have some relationships that will either stand or fall based on faithfulness to the Church. Jesus once said, "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household." That sort of family-wrecking went on in the early Christian church in a spectacular way, and it still happens frequently as an effect of merely "changing one's mind" about a particular religious narrative or tradition. It is surprising how many human relationships are predicated on one's allegiance to a certain figure, brand of orthodoxy, or institution.

Some who value their relationships above the act of being true to oneself will choose to remain faithful and active in the Church even while not believing in its teachings. I suppose many of them would love to leave but have found that "not belonging" extends far deeper than merely membership in the Church. That, of course, is unfortunate.

That is good advice, but sometimes one becomes a better person simply by being and participating, without even knowing or believing in certain literal antecedents or consequents.

Some stories are true stories regardless of whether they really happened or not. They are true just because they make us better people.

Do not forget that, when Jesus was asked to define truth, he gave no answer. It was sufficient for Him, regarding truth, that we should know it when we see it. Or better yet, know it when we do it.

I believe in the prophet Joseph Smith, but probably not in the same way that others believe. In fact, they might call what I have "unbelief" according to their own standard. But still, I see something that strikes me as truth.

Will Campbell once asked a man, "What do you believe?" to which he was offered the strange reply of, "Yeah."

It took him aback. What could it mean? But it ended his theological prying, and he came to realize that it was OK for people to believe in their own way. He wrote that, "Today we are bombarded with a theology of certitude. I don't find much Biblical support for the stance of 'God told me and I'm telling you,' and if you don't believe as I do, you [don't belong]... From Abraham going out by faith, not knowing where he was being sent, to Jesus on the Cross, beseeching the Father for a better way, there was always more inquiring faith than conceited certainty."

To those who claim that one "must believe" in a certain way in order to be a Mormon, I say, "Nonsense." It is sufficient to be inspired by Mormonism and to live it and find satisfaction in participation, even in the presence of uncertainty or unbelief. For the participating unbeliever, there remains at least a seed of faith in something. A speck of faith has ever been the price of full participation, and those who require great signs and declarations of allegiance to the institution and its dogmas and offices, in order to receive the blessings of God, are running a club and not a Church.

Not sure i can go with you on this. While I agree we may devote too much time to crowd control, and certainly too much time with political ideology, It seems to me that God does at times work through ritual and prophecy. And because of that it is possible to look through the wrong stone like Hiram Page. So you do need authorised agents. On the other hand there seems to be a danger of bureaucracy when a Church gets mature and too large. It's sort of like a twist on the banking conundrum of too big to fail, there may be a rule of too big to be true. I don't think we are there quite yet, but we may be weakening.

[Teancum]

For me is it cut and dried. We accept JS as a prophet of God, and the Book of Mormon as the word of God. To dismiss the BoM as false, or inspired fiction, turns those beliefs on their head.

Well lucky for many you are not setting policy on this. It seems many of the apostles these days disagree at least as far as allowing those who may view the BoM as something less than what you believe to remain LDS.