The Increasing Size Of The Tent Of Mormonism

[smac97]

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

I've never been a young earther, nor were my parents. Life long church members all.

evolution

I agree with you here. Lots of movement on this amongst the body of the Church.

true means we have all truth

I disagree with you here. I've never heard such a thing taught, and I have heard contrary teachings many times.

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

I've never heard this one, either.

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

I've never heard this one. I've heard many things which contradict it (starting with Joseph Smith).

great and abominable church = Catholic

The only time I heard this growing up was when I read my Dad's first edition of Mormon Doctrine. I asked my Dad about it at the time and he said this was not correct.

10 years ago 90% of LDS would have accepted these and others, it is coming to an end.

I'm not sure about that (90% acceptance 10 yrs ago).

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.

You are largely correct.

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

As think this observation about Fowler's paradigm is an appropriate here:

"Some critics have charged that there is a subtle form of elitism inherent in Fowler's work. This criticism holds that there is a subtle but inescapable tendency for readers to place a higher value upon the higher stages of development. In other words, those who reach the higher stages must somehow be 'better' or 'more adequate' than those whose growth was arrested at earlier stages. Fowler himself has been concerned with this criticism and has strictly urged his readers to avoid using his theory as a means of valuing some people more highly than others."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

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.

Authorities have taught both. My memory says that Talmage was one who taught progression between, JFS was one who taught no progression between.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Progression_between_kingdoms_of_glory

Edited July 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with this. I think there are some lines which should not be crossed. It may not always be clear where that line is for example as to women and the priesthood, but there are some lines which should be obvious even to the most befogged person. Questioning the authenticity of the B of M is one of those lines.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think there are some lines which should not be crossed. It may not always be clear where that line is ...

Call me naive, but I think that's where living prophets may come in handy.

[DBMormon]

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.

Exhaltation is about becoming Christlike or sanctified.

1.) Becoming a member of the Church presents an opportunity to do that at a quicker pace.

2.) The Church provides blessing of fellowship, opportunities to serve, Opportunities to learn how to treat and love a larger family. One in which you didn't choose.

3.) The Church provides Comfort in hard times, encouragement

4.) It provides a beautiful covenant system where again the sanctification process can be quickened.

The goal is to become like Christ, but it is also to do so as quick as possible. The Church in this life, doesn't change the end result, but helps to get us there quicker.

5.) Ordinances must be recived by all and the more Church members, the faster Temple work for the dead is done. Is not getting someone from Spirit Prison to Paradise a worthwhile goal?

Now while you may disagree, these 5 ideas all provide enough reason that we should be excited and busy about the Lord's work.

[DBMormon]

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.

Actually several early apostles and other leaders felt this was the case. Whether true or not, I would expect God to not share that additional truth through revelation as it would slow down the progress of his Children. By thinking that there is no progression from Kingdom to Kingdom, I am likely to try harder in this life to progress towards Christ.

Either way, our effort should not slacken

[DBMormon]

And who gets to draw the separating line?

I get to do it for myself, and the Prophet gets to do it for the Church.

[DBMormon]

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?

Nope, and I see them as still outspoken and active on their theologies, same with Blake Ostler and others.

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

No they believe, have testimonies, and are active

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

yep, but what are the core tenants?

I believe a tenant is to believe the BOM is the Word of God, it is not to believe a historical BOM though that is the way 99% of us frame it.

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.

If leaders agree they are outside the actual tenants and not the ones we place.

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.

I am not referring to a Mormon who preaches it as truth in Chjurch, but rather shares their beliefs outloud that they would welcome it and pray it happens someday. I too would not be happy working around the proper channels.

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.

At one time Prophets thought there was a global flood, or other biblical stories were all 100% literal, and now not as much. So there is precedent.

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.

Mostly true, I would take it case by case. One must figure out if a leader is teaching it alone or if all 15 min unitedly are teaching it. And even then there are exceptions. In 1977 a man could have stated that Black men should have the priesthood, that he expected and prayed for it to happen and waited on the prophet for a revelation. He would be outside the current Doctrine but he would have been on solid ground saying that even if Leaders didn't like him doing so

But practicing homosexuals are not allowed full fellowship.

based on current Doctrine and the amount of Truth God has chosen to reveal. I am not for or against, only saying in a church led by revelation, Change is always possible

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.

sure. But I can hope and pray for a change I think is right and then wait on the Lord

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.

agreed

[DBMormon]

duplicate

Edited July 6, 2013 by DBMormon

[rongo]

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.

You obviously tip towards your perceived "100s of these" and things that "should be flexible." Yet, you have also stated multiple times

example: post #118 ---- I have already stated that the basics can't change

that "the basics cannot change." Can you give more examples of what you think are "basics that cannot change?" You already have stated that one of these, in your view, is that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God (while you don't hold it necessary to believe it is historical).

[BookofMormonLuvr]

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.

There is universal salvation (except the Sons of Perdition)...

43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him. (D&C 76)

What there is not is universal exaltation in Celestial Glory.

Edited July 6, 2013 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Johnnie Cake]

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

Personally, I think it's a good thing that science has helped us reject these false religious truths-myths. Has the opposite ever happened? Has a religious claim ever replaced a confirmed scientific truth? I don't know if any

[Teancum]

And you say he is agnostic, why?

Because he says he is.

[Teancum]

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.

I was not saying that someone who openly advocated that the BoM is false or even inspired fiction would not run into problems. But a person can hold that view and talk about it I think with close friends, family, on the internet and still be accepted as LDS.

[Teancum]

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.

D&C 76 and 19 seem to suggest that salvation, at least to a certian level of reward it universal. Granted in LDS doctrine some may have to suffer before they receive their reward but their final state for all but a very few is not enduring punishment. Of course if you equate exaltation as salvation that is a bit different. But LDS doctrine seems one of the more universal among varying Christian sects.

[volgadon]

Tenants live in houses. Tenets are beliefs.

[Stone holm]

Tenants live in houses. Tenets are beliefs.

Yeah, well the auto-miscorrect on this site is a wonder to behold.

[canard78]

People can drown in the bathtub.

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

I don't really get the metaphor?

[canard78]

Tenants live in houses. Tenets are beliefs.

We recently ran a workshop for a client which they wanted to distill into '10 tenets of XYZ.'

I was close to drawing blood from my knuckles at the number of people who evidently thought it was a landlord convention.

[Stone holm]

We recently ran a workshop for a client which they wanted to distill into '10 tenets of XYZ.'

I was close to drawing blood from my knuckles at the number of people who evidently thought it was a landlord convention.

Ah well such big words.

[DBMormon]

You obviously tip towards your perceived "100s of these" and things that "should be flexible." Yet, you have also stated multiple times that "the basics cannot change." Can you give more examples of what you think are "basics that cannot change?" You already have stated that one of these, in your view, is that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God (while you don't hold it necessary to believe it is historical).

BOM is word of God as you stated

Joseph Smith had a vision

Joseph brought forth truths that God revealed to him.

The LDS church is led by those who God has authorized.

They have keys over the ordinances

Ordinances on some level are necessary

that's a start

[thesometimesaint]

Personally, I think it's a good thing that science has helped us reject these false religious truths-myths. Has the opposite ever happened? Has a religious claim ever replaced a confirmed scientific truth? I don't know if any

If you want facts take a science class. If you want truth take a class on religion.

The Saints have no problem with science, and we have no reason to fear it. Look to science to explain the how God did it, and look to God for why he did it.

[CV75]

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.

Your probationary state is your second estate, and no one else's; and you only get one. You posited that you could have any number of circumstances for your estate and still enjoy the same outcome (eventually) because you are the same person. But the very fact that "you are the person that you are" defined your probabtionary state (the "times, bounds and habitations") under God in the first place. You are only the one and only person with your set of one and only eternal attriubtes, and this established your one and only probationary state. Saying something like "If I were born in 2000 BC on an island in the middle of nowhere, as opposed to 20th century USA and converting to Mormonism, I would still inherit exaltation because I am who I am," is like saying, "If I weren't who I am, I would still inherit exaltation because I am who I am." You can only judge yourself, for who you are, whih includes your very own, unique probationary state.

[Johnnie Cake]

Tidy meme....but does it really stand up to scrutiny? Not so much...since as I stated earlier religion is filled with falsehoods and myth...hardly where one would go were they truly seeking empirical truth. But that's not to suggest that religion is devoid of truth, just not empirical truth. Guess that's why there's so many religions all conflicting with each other

[Stone holm]

BOM is word of God as you stated

Joseph Smith had a vision

Joseph brought forth truths that God revealed to him.

The LDS church is led by those who God has authorized.

They have keys over the ordinances

Ordinances on some level are necessary

that's a start

By the first was it the word of God as recorded on gold plates hidden in a hillside?