New Order Mormons?

[inquiringmind]

What exactly are "new order" Mormons?

[Duncan]

Very simply they are Mormons who like the british band "new Order", Blue Monday was their big hit. They have meetings where they play the song and serve herbal tea and light refreshments

[JLHPROF]

What exactly are "new order" Mormons?

 

Not sure why you didn't just google this yourself.

 

http://www.newordermormon.org/

 

New Order Mormons are those who no longer believe some (or much) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons. New Order Mormons recognize both good and bad in the Church, and have determined that the Church does not have to be perfect in order to remain useful. New Order Mormons seek the middle way to be Mormon.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Duncan's explanation makes more sense.

[TAO]

In my experiences, they are generally synonymous with cultural Mormons (don't believe the church is correct, stay in for other reasons).  This may not be the case for all of them, of course.

[danieldemol]

I personally believe that liberalism is the path to progress in all religions

The "Community of Christ" priorly known as the RLDS are also quite liberal, perhaps them and New Order Mormons should do lunch together sometime

[mfbukowski]

What exactly are "new order" Mormons?

They are nothing "exact" at all.  They just think they are cooler than "old order" Mormons.

 

But seriously, they are usually identified as those who take much of what the church teaches as allegorical.  The only problem is that there are many who would not be caught dead being identified as "new order" who also take much of what the church teaches as allegorical.

 

So really I am sticking to the idea that they just want to identify themselves as cooler than those grumpy old literalists, when there really is no difference.

[mfbukowski]

I personally believe that liberalism is the path to progress in all religions

Uh, some religions are so "liberal" that they are barely religions at all.  I mean we all want peace love and unity, but is that religion?  If all religions are right then none are right, and we might as well all just be humanists and then theism itself really counts for nothing.

 

If "progress" is the abolition of religion, I suppose that would be "progress" then.

Edited October 16, 2013 by mfbukowski

[danieldemol]

To me peace, love, and unity have a lot to do with good religion.

That being said, being liberal means different things to different people.

For some people, it means that it is all true, for others that there are no facts, only interpretations.

For me it means none of that since I believe that there are both facts and truths, and by obvious corrolary, non-facts and falsities.

To me being liberal means that instead of something having to be either 100% true *or* 100% false, it may be some (or even potentially a large) percentage true, and that we as individuals should decide upon that which is true and that which is not for ourselves as opposed to being afraid to deviate from what a group considers to be true.

Edited October 16, 2013 by danieldemol

[jkwilliams]

They are nothing "exact" at all.  They just think they are cooler than "old order" Mormons.

 

But seriously, they are usually identified as those who take much of what the church teaches as allegorical.  The only problem is that there are many who would not be caught dead being identified as "new order" who also take much of what the church teaches as allegorical.

 

So really I am sticking to the idea that they just want to identify themselves as cooler than those grumpy old literalists, when there really is no difference.

Most people I know who consider themselves "new order" Mormons fit Duncan's description: for different reasons, they find value in their membership in the church, even if they don't really believe everything the church teaches. In fact, many NOMs I know don't believe in the church's teachings at all, regardless of allegory. But they stay because they believe they should.

By that definition, I'm a NOM, but I don't find a lot of value in the church at this point in my life. I just go so my wife doesn't have to go by herself.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I personally believe that liberalism is the path to progress in all religions

The "Community of Christ" priorly known as the RLDS are also quite liberal, perhaps them and New Order Mormons should do lunch together sometime

Following Christ and thinking it is not our Church to do with what we like; this is the path to progress in all religions, the path they choose. This for the original poster who (I believe) is not a Mormon...never heard of such a term. Edited October 17, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Scott Lloyd]

Uh, some religions are so "liberal" that they are barely religions at all.  I mean we all want peace love and unity, but is that religion?  If all religions are right then none are right, and we might as well all just be humanists and then theism itself really counts for nothing.

 

If "progress" is the abolition of religion, I suppose that would be "progress" then.

Let's all join hands and sing the John Lennon song "Imagine."

[thesometimesaint]

To me peace, love, and unity have a lot to do with good religion.

That being said, being liberal means different things to different people.

For some people, it means that it is all true, for others that there are no facts, only interpretations.

For me it means none of that since I believe that there are both facts and truths, and by obvious corrolary, non-facts and falsities.

To me being liberal means that instead of something having to be either 100% true *or* 100% false, it may be some (or even potentially a large) percentage true, and that we as individuals should decide upon that which is true and that which is not for ourselves as opposed to being afraid to deviate from what a group considers to be true.

 

Being of the more liberal persuasion I would say that Judaism is progress over nature worship; That Christianity is progress over Judaism; That LDS beliefs are progress over other forms of Christianity.

Edited October 16, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[jkwilliams]

Let's all join hands and sing the John Lennon song "Imagine."

Heh. I had my iPod on shuffle in my car this morning, and that's the song that came up first. Must be a sign.

[thesometimesaint]

All due deference to the great music talent John Lennon was but that song is pure tripe.

[jkwilliams]

Being of the more liberal persuasion I would say that Judaism is progress over nature worship; That Christianity is progress over Judaism; That LDS beliefs are progress over other forms of Christianity.

I don't think my Jewish relatives would appreciate that thought. Nor would my non-LDS Christian friends. Just saying.

FWIW, my sister is much happier in her Jewish faith than she was in the LDS church. I'd say that, for her at least, Judaism is progress over LDS beliefs.

[jkwilliams]

All due deference to the great music talent John Lennon was but that song is pure tripe.

It's definitely simplistic, but it works if you see it, as Lennon did, as "positive prayer" for a better world.

If you think about it, the celestial kingdom will have no countries, no possessions, no different religions, no greed, no hunger, and so on. And if Mormon doctrine is true, almost all will be in God's kingdom, so there won't be a real division between heaven and hell.

For me, Lennon's song is just a simple expression of hope for what most people believe anyway. I suppose it depends on how you present it as to whether it's tripe or not.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's definitely simplistic, but it works if you see it, as Lennon did, as "positive prayer" for a better world.

If you think about it, the celestial kingdom will have no countries, no possessions, no different religions, no greed, no hunger, and so on. And if Mormon doctrine is true, almost all will be in God's kingdom, so there won't be a real division between heaven and hell.

For me, Lennon's song is just a simple expression of hope for what most people believe anyway. I suppose it depends on how you present it as to whether it's tripe or not.The lyrics clearly advocate disbelief in the very concept of heaven or hell and the disappearance of religion.

 

The lyrics clearly advocate disbelief in any concept of heaven or hell and the disappearance of religion.

 

If there is no heaven, how could there be a celestial kingdom?

 

Sorry, John, but your spin just doesn't work, on any level.

[jkwilliams]

The lyrics clearly advocate disbelief in any concept of heaven or hell and the disappearance of religion.

 

If there is no heaven, how could there be a celestial kingdom?

 

Sorry, John, but your spin just doesn't work, on any level.

I must be an apologist.

I'm just going by what Lennon said: it was a prayer for a better world. He also said he wasn't against religious belief, but that he was arguing against religious conflict: "If you can imagine a world at peace, with no denominations of religion—not without religion but without this my God-is-bigger-than-your-God thing—then it can be true."

As I said, it's simplistic and kind of trite, but it sort of works if you don't take it so literally. Again, I sound like an apologist.

[mfbukowski]

To me being liberal means that instead of something having to be either 100% true *or* 100% false, it may be some (or even potentially a large) percentage true, and that we as individuals should decide upon that which is true and that which is not for ourselves as opposed to being afraid to deviate from what a group considers to be true.

I guess my point is that if that is the standard which establishes being "liberal", then I don't know anyone who is not "liberal" by that standard, even the most religiously conservative people I know.

[mfbukowski]

In fact, many NOMs I know don't believe in the church's teachings at all, regardless of allegory.

It's really hard to NOT believe in allegories.

Edited October 16, 2013 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think my Jewish relatives would appreciate that thought. Nor would my non-LDS Christian friends. Just saying.

FWIW, my sister is much happier in her Jewish faith than she was in the LDS church. I'd say that, for her at least, Judaism is progress over LDS beliefs.

 

I'm also sure that Jews don't appreciate what Jesus said on the subject either. My nonLDS family and friends don't appreciate JS. That is their right to worship as they please. But I'm not going to change what I believe just to please them.

 

That she finds her life happier as a Jew. That's fine with me. She can believe whatever she wants. That can and should have no effect on my religion.

 

Ps. My sister is a commited Atheist. I still love her and we spend thanksgiving and Christmas together.

Edited October 16, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

Let's all join hands and sing the John Lennon song "Imagine."

I was only marginally religious at the time that came out, and later became an atheist, but I was never very happy with that song. It was just so dang SMUG

[Scott Lloyd]

I must be an apologist.

I'm just going by what Lennon said: it was a prayer for a better world. He also said he wasn't against religious belief, but that he was arguing against religious conflict: "If you can imagine a world at peace, with no denominations of religion—not without religion but without this my God-is-bigger-than-your-God thing—then it can be true."

 

 

Sure sounds like back-pedaling.

 

Sorry. I really was -- and still am -- a Beatles fan. I just think John should have kept to  what he did best and stayed away from philosophy and politics.

[Damien the Leper]

Uh, some religions are so "liberal" that they are barely religions at all.  I mean we all want peace love and unity, but is that religion?  If all religions are right then none are right, and we might as well all just be humanists and then theism itself really counts for nothing.

 

If "progress" is the abolition of religion, I suppose that would be "progress" then.

 

You mean like the UCC? The Unitarians Considering Christ?