The Increasing Size Of The Tent Of Mormonism

[Stone holm]

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.

Remain LDS yes, in the sense of not throwing them out of the club. At what point do we cease to be Mormon in a meaningful sense?

[Teancum]

Remain LDS yes, in the sense of not throwing them out of the club. At what point do we cease to be Mormon in a meaningful sense?

I do not know. I think that is up to our eternal judge to decide. My dad has not attended Church for my entire life. He is agnostic. But he reads the scriptures, reads church history, accepts a visit from a home teacher and even pays tithing. But he never attends. He still thinks he is a Mormon.

[Stone holm]

I do not know. I think that is up to our eternal judge to decide. My dad has not attended Church for my entire life. He is agnostic. But he reads the scriptures, reads church history, accepts a visit from a home teacher and even pays tithing. But he never attends. He still thinks he is a Mormon.

And you say he is agnostic, why?

[Johnnie Cake]

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.

Believe yes....preach NO....and there is quite a difference between the two. In the church you can believe whatever you wish and still refer to yourself as Mormon...start preaching or even sharing your beliefs to others...and you'll soon find yourself on the outside of your "big tent" or find out how small that big tent really is.

As I mentioned earlier...my SP gave me a gag order commanding me not to discuss anything not found in scriptures or church sanctioned manuals with anyone including my own family...to which I responded...you can kiss my (insert word of choice)

Edited July 5, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[pmccombs1]

And because of that it is possible to look through the wrong stone like Hiram Page. So you do need authorised agents.

This simply removes the error by one degree. Rather than the wrong stone, why not "the wrong authorized agents?" Of course, there is no reliable way to know. That is to say, no external sign.

All justification of religious and moral principle is internal. Belonging used to be a matter of going along. Belonging was a verb; it was something you did. Long ago, nobody had even considered "right belief."

[pmccombs1]

And you say he is agnostic, why?

Well, I'm an agnostic and might at times fit the description provided by Teancum....

An agnostic is one who is without knowledge. That is what it means. Agnostics don't know.

[Brian 2.0]

As I mentioned earlier...my SP gave me a gag order commanding me not to discuss anything not found in scriptures or church sanctioned manuals with anyone including my own family...

Can this be done under the rules of Priesthood stewardship?

Can church disciple come from teaching certain concepts to you own children? Not in church and not publicly, but to your own children in your own home.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Johnnie Cake]

Can this be done under sanctioned rules of Priesthood stewardship?

Can church disciple come from teaching certain concepts to you own children? Not in church and not publicly, but to your own children in your own home.

Just sharing my personal experience with my SP....and this didn't occur in some obscure corner of the world...but right in the heart of Zion AKA wasatch front

[thesometimesaint]

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.

To thine own self be true.. is just as true today as when Shakespeare said it through Polonius in Hamlet.

It is a demand by Christ to us all. If we are unwilling to give our all for him. Then what hope do we have that his sacrifice will be enough for us? I will not stand before my God with anyone but Christ at my side.

We are not to be unequally yoked. If that person can not or will not live up to their commitments. What is the point in starting a long term relationship with them? Sure people can and do change their minds. I would still love them, and my heart ache for their return. But I can't force their return. Nor lie to them to get their grudging acceptance.

I can't think of a life more miserable than living with someone who rejects what I believe, and then tries to emotionally coerce me to stay. Worse yet for me to give up on what I believe just to still stay with that person.

God is merciful, but I don't believe that extends to those that willfully reject him. As our relationships in Heaven are by our own choice. What guarantees that spouses, family, and friends will want to be with us once we get there, particularly when they find out we've been faking it all along?

Of course some stories are true, whether they are literally so or not. Parables are true whether a particular person did them or not. By the same token I don't believe a person can dismiss Truth Claims of the Church and still consider themselves a faithful member of the Church. However I am in no position to judge, and wouldn't even if I was.

My "job" is to be a witness unto Christ at all times, and in all places, to give testimony of the Gospel and his Church. I'll let God do the judging.

We all see through that glass darkly and some more darkly than others. As I haven't moved any mountains lately my faith is much smaller than a grain of mustard seed. But I can't allow that to stop me me from seeing all that I can.

I believe Jesus is the Christ, in him Crucified, then three days later Resurrected. Everything else is just ancillary to that.

Jesus was all about telling people what they had to believe, and do in order to gain Eternal Life. To say otherwise is a doctrine of devils. He is very forgiving of our shortcomings and sins if we will but repent. If we will not then we get to pay the consequences, to the uttermost Farthing.

We are a large tent religion, there are many things that we can individually believe and still be in that tent. That being said straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to Gods' presence. That way leads through Jesus the Christ and his Church. There is no other way.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

I doubt very seriously that a member whom actively advocated that the truth claims in the BoM are false. Would long not be called into their Bishops office for a nice long talk.

But you are right I don't set policy, and am just as glad I don't.

Edited July 5, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Brian 2.0]

To thine own self be true.. is just as true today as when Shakespeare said it through Polonius in Hamlet.

I think you mean as God said it, through the Spirit, through Shakespeare, through Polonius in Hamlet.

[thesometimesaint]

True.

[Calm]

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

I've noticed.

[BlueDreams]

Believe yes....preach NO....and there is quite a difference between the two. In the church you can believe whatever you wish and still refer to yourself as Mormon...start preaching or even sharing your beliefs to others...and you'll soon find yourself on the outside of your "big tent" or find out how small that big tent really is.

For what it's worth, at least on the age of the earth and evolution. The general church response is that we don't know the age of the earth and how creation really went down. It could be that I'm in a student single's ward, but someone mentioning so would not be all that big of a deal. Of course my current ward is of the type that there are a number of more intriguing discussion/commentary. for example, One sister will always work thanks for a heavenly mother into each of her prayers and I've heard at least 5 discussions this year about deification.

But I remember hearing plenty of people mention that to some degree they believe in evolution or that the earth is/could be millions or billions of years old in a church setting of some sort. These ideas don't exactly rock the boat much for my cohort. Though they were mentioned in less of a confrontational manner, leaving room for other's ideas/opinions to also be valid. I personally have no issue with evolution and think the earth is very very old. That a 6,000 yr old earth makes no sense. And I'm ok recognize that everything we know about where and how we came to be is spotty. I've never have had a problem with it. I would probably find anyone preaching that evolution completely explains everything and all we are, physically is the organically grown product of millions of years of natural processes (with or without god in the mix)....cuz I think that would be going above and beyond what can be truly known doctrinally or scientifically. I have the same problem with those who pronounce a 6-day creation/6,000 year age as absolute for the exact same reasons.

With luv,

BD

Edited July 6, 2013 by BlueDreams

[DBMormon]

Believe yes....preach NO....and there is quite a difference between the two. In the church you can believe whatever you wish and still refer to yourself as Mormon...start preaching or even sharing your beliefs to others...and you'll soon find yourself on the outside of your "big tent" or find out how small that big tent really is.

As I mentioned earlier...my SP gave me a gag order commanding me not to discuss anything not found in scriptures or church sanctioned manuals with anyone including my own family...to which I responded...you can kiss my (insert word of choice)

I have had the opposite experience

[Hamba Tuhan]

Personally, I can't wait for the day when an atheist lesbian with two partners stands up at the pulpit as my bishop and preaches that, though God is dead and redemption through Christ was a figment of our imaginiation, we can still redeem our fellows and introduce heaven-on-earth by means of the coming Revolution. Then we'll finally know that, by increasing the size of our tent, we have indeed fulfilled our divine responsibility to take the message of Christ to greatest number possible.

[canard78]

Yes.

Eternity is a long time. Mormonism has a far more expansive view than some Mormons see. The idea that God would send 0.2% of his children to a safe harbour and all others to an unsafe one is ridiculous in my mind.

I'm going to open another thread on this topic.

It is very clear to me that Mormon doctrine teaches that all will have the ability (even in the next life) to be saved and even exalted. There is no such thing as torment without end. So therefore there can't also be limited progression. That would be the exact definition of being damned. Which I would find tormenting. And God has said this isn't going to happen.

I'll post a link to it once it's live.

[DBMormon]

Personally, I can't wait for the day when an atheist lesbian with two partners stands up at the pulpit as my bishop and preaches that, though God is dead and redemption through Christ was a figment of our imaginiation, we can still redeem our fellows and introduce heaven-on-earth by means of the coming Revolution. Then we'll finally know that, by increasing the size of our tent, we have indeed fulfilled our divine responsibility to take the message of Christ to greatest number possible.

I have already stated that the basics can't change, but bad assumption, things that are not true, can be done away with.

[DBMormon]

Eternity is a long time. Mormonism has a far more expansive view than some Mormons see. The idea that God would send 0.2% of his children to a safe harbour and all others to an unsafe one is ridiculous in my mind.

I'm going to open another thread on this topic.

It is very clear to me that Mormon doctrine teaches that all will have the ability (even in the next life) to be saved and even exalted. There is no such thing as torment without end. So therefore there can't also be limited progression. That would be the exact definition of being damned. Which I would find tormenting. And God has said this isn't going to happen.

I'll post a link to it once it's live.

Agreed!!!

[Stone holm]

Just sharing my personal experience with my SP....and this didn't occur in some obscure corner of the world...but right in the heart of Zion AKA wasatch front

That may explain that admonition. I cannot conceive of a Bishop issuing such a directive out here let alone an SP.

[Bob Crockett]

Agreed!!!

The fact that God troubles himself with an expensive mission program speaks directly against universalism. An effort must be made.

If there was universal salvation there would be no need for a bishop in Ohio urging members to endure to the end and urging nonmembers to repent and be baptized. Statements by prophets that the priesthood is the only path to God would not be necessary.

[Stone holm]

Eternity is a long time. Mormonism has a far more expansive view than some Mormons see. The idea that God would send 0.2% of his children to a safe harbour and all others to an unsafe one is ridiculous in my mind.

I'm going to open another thread on this topic.

It is very clear to me that Mormon doctrine teaches that all will have the ability (even in the next life) to be saved and even exalted. There is no such thing as torment without end. So therefore there can't also be limited progression. That would be the exact definition of being damned. Which I would find tormenting. And God has said this isn't going to happen.

I'll post a link to it once it's live.

I think you are perhaps taking some things out of context I have never heard it taught that once assigned a kingdom you can progress into a higher kingdom, you can progress only within that kingdom.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I have already stated that the basics can't change, but bad assumption, things that are not true, can be done away with.

And who gets to draw the separating line?

Edited July 6, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[smac97]

Greg Prince

Terryl Givens

Richard Bushman

All active LDS whose views are nuanced and not traditional.

What about active LDS whose views are nuanced and traditional? These are not mutually exclusive categories.

And is there any evidence that Greg Prince, Terryl Givens, and Richard Bushman were disciplined 20 years ago for their "not traditional"-ness?

Whether not believing a historical BOM,

LOL. So "not traditional" = "rejecting the core tenets of the faith?"

defining "True and Living" way different then the Church's traditional explanation,

Yep. Rejection of the faith = "not traditional." That's not me.

and other flexible ways of fitting in the tent of mormonism that are markedly different then what we have been taught in generations past.

In short, a MINO. A "Mormon In Name Only."

Membership in a community of faith ultimately requires acceptance of the core tenets of that faith.

A Mormon who thinks that bishops should be free to have facial hair may be "not traditional" but is still within the community. A Mormon who rejects what the Church teaches about and claims for itself (i.e. "True and Living") is moving beyond the boundaries of that community.

A Mormon who is open to the possibility of women receiving the priesthood may be "not traditional" but is still within the community. A Mormon who disregards the revelatory mechanism for governing the Church and obtaining revealed doctrines, and who instead resorts to public media campaigns against the Church as a mechanism for coercing the Church to make such a doctrinal change, is moving beyond the boundaries of that community.

A Mormon who differentiates between folk beliefs about the text of The Book of Mormon and the text itself may be "not traditional" but is still within the community. A Mormon who rejects what The Book of Mormon says about it, and what prophets have said about it, in favor of some sort of watered-down easy-believism (i.e. "inspired fiction") is moving beyond the boundaries of that community.

I reject the notion that there is an equivalency between piecemeal apostasy and being "not traditional." The latter is fine, and the Church can and should accommodate a diversity of viewpoints on issues where there is room for principled, reasoned, and doctrinally feasible disagreement. But people who reject the teachings of the Church, and then try to cloak that rejection as mere rejection of "tradition," are not being honest with themselves.

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

Today one can speak of allowing gays full fellowship in the church,

No doctrinal change there. Celibate homosexuals have always been allowed full fellowship. Now some of them may choose to self-identify as such without as much fear of social opprobrium.

But practicing homosexuals are not allowed full fellowship.

speak of allowing sisters priesthood,

First, note how you characterize this issue: "allowing" sisters the priesthood. As if there is an entitlement to the priesthood and the Saints, rather than God, get to make the decision.

Second, nobody is "preaching" such a thing. Not in Church meetings, anyway. There was that group of folks who scheduled a meeting - headlined by an excommunicated apostate - to discuss this topic. And they deliberately scheduled it to conflict with a General Conference session. I do not think this is a good thing.

Third, I think you materially overstate the popularity of this concept.

Fourth, church members taking it upon themselves to agitate against the Brethren is nothing new.

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 agree with the general sentiment that the Church is more tolerant of diverse viewpoints, but I disagree with you on the scope and breadth of that tolerance, or of the scope and breadth of diverse viewpoints amongst active and observant Latter-day Saints. A person can try to couch his rejection of the basic tenets of the faith as merely being "nontraditional," but I think that generally won't last very long. Such a person will either veer back to acceptance of the doctrines, or else veer further away from, and eventually out of, the Church. I am saddened by that, but it happens.

I see this tent enlarging as positive, as allowing others to hang on in spite if the difficult issues and still lead with faith.

Again, I agree with your sentiment, but not its scope.

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'm not sure what you mean by "some of the nonsense."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 6, 2013 by smac97

[Calm]

The idea that God would send 0.2% of his children to a safe harbour and all others to an unsafe one is ridiculous in my mind.

People can drown in the bathtub.

31.0% Drowning and submersion while in natural water

27.9% Unspecified drowning and submersion

14.5% Drowning and submersion while in swimming pool

9.4% Drowning and submersion while in bathtub

7.2% Drowning and submersion following fall into natural water

6.3% Other specified drowning and submersion

2.9% Drowning and submersion following fall into swimming pool

0.9% Drowning and submersion following fall into bathtub

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning#Epidemiology