Stone holm Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I find it hard to believe that a socially liberal group would break off, I think they would tend to just leave period. However, I can imagine another conservative schism in America due to an influx of European cultural tendencies, or because of a racist reaction to Hispanics.
Sevenbak Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I find it hard to believe that a socially liberal group would break off, I think they would tend to just leave period. However, I can imagine another conservative schism in America due to an influx of European cultural tendencies, or because of a racist reaction to Hispanics.Isn't that essentially what is happening to some extent with the Ordain Women's movement? I could totally see a socially liberal group breaking off and doing their own thing. 1
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I find it hard to believe that a socially liberal group would break off, I think they would tend to just leave period. However, I can imagine another conservative schism in America due to an influx of European cultural tendencies, or because of a racist reaction to Hispanics. Isn't that essentially what is happening to some extent with the Ordain Women's movement? I could totally see a socially liberal group breaking off and doing their own thing. I gotta go with Stoneholm's conclusion on this. It seems unlikely that a socially liberal group would start a break off. That's kinda contrary to their purpose. Right now, it seems like the biggest threat of a schism is coming from Denver Snuffer and his supporters. Although, I admit that I haven't followed that movement very carefully. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 I gotta go with Stoneholm's conclusion on this. It seems unlikely that a socially liberal group would start a break off. That's kinda contrary to their purpose. Right now, it seems like the biggest threat of a schism is coming from Denver Snuffer and his supporters. Although, I admit that I haven't followed that movement very carefully.Snuffer scarcely registers on the radar. It's the "progressives" who are making the most noise trying to hijack the Church. I think they would be most likely to form their own startup church after a failed hostile takeover of this one. 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I believe a future schism in the church is inevitable, we have had them in the past and we will have them again. Though I could see a schism coming from a reform group of "progressive" Mormons, I think it is far more likely to come from a more religiously "conservative" group with views like that of Denver Snuffer or Rock Waterman. The problem is, if a leader were to break off from the church with a following, they would have to occupy the very top position in order to have a legal claim to any assets. I have a hard time believing anyone would be able to infiltrate the top leadership as brother Peterson suggests, ( how would you go about becoming a young apostle?). It would be more likely that someone would get into a high position and then change their views. A successful schism would require gaining assets as much as gaining people, because people are most likely to follow the money, or whichever leader owns the temples, meetinghouses, storehouses and malls. Without assets, the schismatic group would be required to do a lot of proselytizing in order to have any chance of competing with the mainstream, and they would have to gain non Mormon converts as well. That is the drawback a progressive style church has vs a conservative one. What would be the message? Who has authority (an important question in mormonism) if we aren't sure if there is a personal God? Imagine if John Dehlin decided to start a reform mormon church. He might get a good amount of attendance and support initially, but how would he keep members active in the long run? Many of his followers no longer believe in God, or are disillusioned with all religion. How would that level of belief play out in the nitty gritty of regular worship? And how would he attract any adherents that do not already come from a mormon background.I suppose one could replace buildings with the internet. One could hold gospel doctrine class on skype
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) What Peterson is describing here is nothing less than a Nephite dissenter/Gadianton robber type secret combination. While I believe the prophecies in the scriptures testify that a conspiracy of this sort will not ultimately succeed in accomplishing its designs, nevertheless, knowing the adversary is the original, most cunning and most successful master of deceit of all time, I wouldn't be very surprised if he attempted an "inside job" of this sort. If it does happen, I believe the conspirators will sooner or later be detected and cast out before the Church is irreparably harmed.It's an intriguing -- and disquieting -- thought. I agree such a conspiracy ultimately wouldn't succeed. But there may be some scary moments. Dan makes a veiled allusion to an institution he was very close to where a similar sort of thing did succeed. Edited February 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Snuffer scarcely registers on the radar. It's the "progressives" who are making the most noise trying to hijack the Church. I think they would be most likely to form their own startup church after a failed hostile takeover of this one. Who are the progressives? I don't see any united group of "progressives" that would have a desire or capability to break off and start up a new church.
sethpayne Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Who are the progressives? I don't see any united group of "progressives" that would have a desire or capability to break off and start up a new church. I think Scott, like some anti-Mormons, is making broad generalizations about a group that is in fact, quite diverse. Such a group could never form a new Church because there isn't much two individual "progressive" Mormons agree on. Edited February 18, 2015 by sethpayne 1
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Popular Post Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) I think Scott, like some anti-Mormons, is making broad generalizations about a group that is in fact, quite diverse. Such a group could never form a new Church because there isn't much two individual "progressive" Mormons agree on.Im being no more broad brush than stone holm is when he talks about a "conservative schism" brought on by "an influx of European social influences" -- whatever that's supposed to mean -- and supposed racist reaction to more Hispanics in the Church (I've yet to see any sign of that; I think stone holm is living in the 1940s)."Progressives" is not a label I chose or a category I defined. That said, we are already seeing a somewhat loose but mutually supportive alliance between the Dehlinions, the Kellyites and those who want the Church to renounce aspects of the law of chastity pertaining to homosexual behavior. This could easily grow more cohesive as it begins to offer safe harbor to chronic complainers about lack of transparency in the Church, City Creek expenditure, policies pertaining to temple attendance and worship, doctrines regarding Sabbath Day observance, Word of Wisdom, scripture, etc. Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 5
Stone holm Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Im being no more broad brush than stone holm is when he talks about a "conservative schism" brought on by "an influx of European social influences" -- whatever that's supposed to mean -- and supposed racist reaction to more Hispanics in the Church (I've yet to see any sign of that; I think stone holm is living in the 1940s)."Progressives" is not a label I chose or a category I defined. That said, we are already seeing a somewhat loose but mutually supportive alliance between the Dehlinions, the Kellyites and those who want the Church to renounce aspects of the law of chastity pertaining to homosexual behavior. This could easily grow more cohesive as it begins to offer safe harbor to chronic complainers about lack of transparency in the Church, City Creek expenditure, policies pertaining to temple attendance and worship, doctrines regarding scripture, Sabbath Day observance, Word of Wisdom, scripture, etc.The Ordain Women movement may well see people leave or be excommunicated from the Church, but see no effort on their part to set up a rival church. We experienced similar protests in the 70's over the Priesthood ban, but that didn't result in a new Church, just people leaving or going inactive. As to the racism regarding Hispanics, that is based on the observations made by other members to me who have indicated that from outward appearances the racism against Mexican Americans in the west is more virulent now than that against the blacks. I don't see a schism on the horizon, but if one comes, I see it more likely to be from those who feel that the Church is becoming too liberal. With the exception of the former RLDS, now C of C, schisms have generally been in reaction to a change in traditions with the schismatics wanting to preserve a certain practice. Even the RLDS break off can be viewed as such and being Sidney Rigdon reacting to the plural marriage doctrine. While I do not see a rival church being set up by those wanting to ordain women, I could see a rival church being set up, if the Church decided to ordain women. One could even give the possibility of a schism as being one of the reasons for the long delay in ordaining those of African descent. 1
DragonLancer Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I believe a future schism in the church is inevitable, we have had them in the past and we will have them again. Though I could see a schism coming from a reform group of "progressive" Mormons, I think it is far more likely to come from a more religiously "conservative" group with views like that of Denver Snuffer or Rock Waterman. The problem is, if a leader were to break off from the church with a following, they would have to occupy the very top position in order to have a legal claim to any assets. I have a hard time believing anyone would be able to infiltrate the top leadership as brother Peterson suggests, ( how would you go about becoming a young apostle?). It would be more likely that someone would get into a high position and then change their views. A successful schism would require gaining assets as much as gaining people, because people are most likely to follow the money, or whichever leader owns the temples, meetinghouses, storehouses and malls. Without assets, the schismatic group would be required to do a lot of proselytizing in order to have any chance of competing with the mainstream, and they would have to gain non Mormon converts as well. That is the drawback a progressive style church has vs a conservative one. What would be the message? Who has authority (an important question in mormonism) if we aren't sure if there is a personal God? Imagine if John Dehlin decided to start a reform mormon church. He might get a good amount of attendance and support initially, but how would he keep members active in the long run? Many of his followers no longer believe in God, or are disillusioned with all religion. How would that level of belief play out in the nitty gritty of regular worship? And how would he attract any adherents that do not already come from a mormon background. There have been many schismatic breakoffs, but they have never taken with them any sizable portion of the membership with them. Nobody has been able to produce a convincing alternate prophet. On the other hand, among the schismatic groups themselves, it seems that Snuffer himself is gaining quite a following of his un-Church who don't really follow him but follow Christ, so they say, with a lot of people that were already excommunicants or schismatics or fundamentalists joining up with him. I think, however, he will have a hard time getting people from polygamist groups because his version of fundamentalism isn't polygamist. You can't follow a prophet, they say, only receive him. You can't create a Church, only form a community, so they say. Just the same old thing dressed up in fancy clothing/pretty package with a new kind of political correctness/feel goodedness. 1
Uncle Dale Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 It was intended as a joke.Or, as one staunch, fundamentalist RLDS once said of CoC,"Do they want to be called Communitarians or just simply The Latter Day Liberals?"UD
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 The Ordain Women movement may well see people leave or be excommunicated from the Church, but see no effort on their part to set up a rival church. We experienced similar protests in the 70's over the Priesthood ban, but that didn't result in a new Church, just people leaving or going inactive. As to the racism regarding Hispanics, that is based on the observations made by other members to me who have indicated that from outward appearances the racism against Mexican Americans in the west is more virulent now than that against the blacks. I don't see a schism on the horizon, but if one comes, I see it more likely to be from those who feel that the Church is becoming too liberal. With the exception of the former RLDS, now C of C, schisms have generally been in reaction to a change in traditions with the schismatics wanting to preserve a certain practice. Even the RLDS break off can be viewed as such and being Sidney Rigdon reacting to the plural marriage doctrine. While I do not see a rival church being set up by those wanting to ordain women, I could see a rival church being set up, if the Church decided to ordain women. One could even give the possibility of a schism as being one of the reasons for the long delay in ordaining those of African descent.The party line among those who want to see temple sealings for same sex "marriage," seems to be that there is no doctrine or law against it, it's just that current Church leaders can't get past their own culturally induced biases and prejudices. I could see a schismatic "church" being formed based on that reasoning alone; stranger things have happened. Add to that those who want desperately to change the Church in other ways to suit their own preferences, and the movement picks up steam. The chief hindrance would be startup costs. It's not easy to get the capital to build your own temples or other church infrastructure; far less costly to snag someone else's in an ideological coup. Hence, Dr. Peterson's fanciful, improbable but not entirely inconceivable scenario. 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Isn't that essentially what is happening to some extent with the Ordain Women's movement? I could totally see a socially liberal group breaking off and doing their own thing.I just don't understand why those in Ordain Women don't join the CoC church. They ordain women already and it been around for a while.
carbon dioxide Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 The Ordain Women movement may well see people leave or be excommunicated from the Church, but see no effort on their part to set up a rival church. We experienced similar protests in the 70's over the Priesthood ban, but that didn't result in a new Church, just people leaving or going inactive. As to the racism regarding Hispanics, that is based on the observations made by other members to me who have indicated that from outward appearances the racism against Mexican Americans in the west is more virulent now than that against the blacks. I don't see a schism on the horizon, but if one comes, I see it more likely to be from those who feel that the Church is becoming too liberal. With the exception of the former RLDS, now C of C, schisms have generally been in reaction to a change in traditions with the schismatics wanting to preserve a certain practice. Even the RLDS break off can be viewed as such and being Sidney Rigdon reacting to the plural marriage doctrine. While I do not see a rival church being set up by those wanting to ordain women, I could see a rival church being set up, if the Church decided to ordain women. One could even give the possibility of a schism as being one of the reasons for the long delay in ordaining those of African descent.I think the majority in the Church could accept the ordination of women if they really felt that it was something God wanted to happen to further the church than an organization of women on the internet who wanted to further their own social or personal status. My big problem with ordain women is not their desire but methodology in achieving their desire. That methodology I find to be satanic. Now if the Church was to go wacko and started accepting SSM or even allow it to be performed in temples, ward buildings, ect that would spark a deep schism where I could easly see 75% plus members leaving or rejecting it.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I think the majority in the Church could accept the ordination of women if they really felt that it was something God wanted to happen to further the church than an organization of women on the internet who wanted to further their own social or personal status. My big problem with ordain women is not their desire but methodology in achieving their desire. That methodology I find to be satanic. Now if the Church was to go wacko and started accepting SSM or even allow it to be performed in temples, ward buildings, ect that would spark a deep schism where I could easly see 75% plus members leaving or rejecting it. You found their methodology to be satanic? Did you know that they were trying to follow the admonition of scripture and the prophet? I agree that full acceptance of SSM right now could potentially cause a schism in the church. Although, I think that if it came by way of revelation, the schism would not be as great as you describe. Also, based on some of the recent polls in Utah and my personal experience, I think the percent of LDS who are becoming accepting of gay marriage is growing every year.
carbon dioxide Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 You found their methodology to be satanic? Did you know that they were trying to follow the admonition of scripture and the prophet? I agree that full acceptance of SSM right now could potentially cause a schism in the church. Although, I think that if it came by way of revelation, the schism would not be as great as you describe. Also, based on some of the recent polls in Utah and my personal experience, I think the percent of LDS who are becoming accepting of gay marriage is growing every year.Acceptance in what way. Acceptance that gays should have a legal right to a civil marriage or that gay marriage is not sinful or is an acceptable alternative form of marriage in the eyes of God. Even though I personally do not consider gay marriage to be real marriage, I am ok with the legal part of it based on my libertarian side of me. Here is what I find satanic about the ordain women group. Not saying the people involved are satanic or evil but the methodology employed is. We believe in revelation but revelation comes in a specific manner or way. God house is one of order and not confusion. So if God wanted women to be ordained, he would perhaps inspire the apostles to ask of him or God would reveal it to them without being asked. The change comes from the top down. True change does not come from the internet or social media. The Church is not a democracy nor are its doctrines and practices open to change just because a group of members push it to change. Satan on the other hand would author a change through protest and campaigning for change. Satan would want the LDS Church to be one that simply could be changed by organizations like Ordain Women. With that process, he could change doctrines and practices in all manner of ways. I love my dogs. I would love to have them sealed to our family just as we had our adopted son sealed to us. Should I start a group called "Seal Pets" to get the Church to start sealing pets who want it. Where would this all end if members could force change on the Church? Ordain Women do not present God house as one of order. They just infuse more confusion, contention, and debate. By their fruits ye shall know them. Is Ordain Women bringing the Church together or driving a wedge in the Church? 3 Nephi 11:28-29: "And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." One the scale of 1-10. One being that no disputations and no contention and 10 being 100% disputation and contention, where does Ordain Women fall in the scale of what they have done and continue to do. I put it about a 7.5. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Also, based on some of the recent polls in Utah and my personal experience, I think the percent of LDS who are becoming accepting of gay marriage is growing every year.Not everybody who claims membership in the Church is very active in or committed to it. Recently, a significant percentage of the public in general has become more accepting of gay "marriage." Societal trends are reflected to some degree among the members of the Church, but more so among the less committed, less active. Such a thing is hardly surprising. It's possible that your growing percentage of LDS are largely those whose prior opposition to same-sex "marriage" had little or nothing to do with their membership in the Church, but they are now merely following the societal trend. That is to say, their Church membership had little or nothing to do with their opinion before, and it has little or nothing to do with their opinion now. I would be more impressed if you could show that the growing percentage was among the more faithful, active and committed Mormons. Edited February 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) I just don't understand why those in Ordain Women don't join the CoC church. They ordain women already and it been around for a while. It does seem like a perfect fit for them, as it does for those who want gay sex legitimized, those who reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, those who want to see Joseph Smith de-emphasized, etc. But as Dr. Peterson pointed out in a response to a respondent on his blog, it's likely that the prospect of seizing control of the much larger, far more visible Utah-based church is just too delicious to let pass by. Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Acceptance in what way. Acceptance that gays should have a legal right to a civil marriage or that gay marriage is not sinful or is an acceptable alternative form of marriage in the eyes of God. Even though I personally do not consider gay marriage to be real marriage, I am ok with the legal part of it based on my libertarian side of me. Here is what I find satanic about the ordain women group. Not saying the people involved are satanic or evil but the methodology employed is. We believe in revelation but revelation comes in a specific manner or way. God house is one of order and not confusion. So if God wanted women to be ordained, he would perhaps inspire the apostles to ask of him or God would reveal it to them without being asked. The change comes from the top down. True change does not come from the internet or social media. The Church is not a democracy nor are its doctrines and practices open to change just because a group of members push it to change. Satan on the other hand would author a change through protest and campaigning for change. Satan would want the LDS Church to be one that simply could be changed by organizations like Ordain Women. With that process, he could change doctrines and practices in all manner of ways. I love my dogs. I would love to have them sealed to our family just as we had our adopted son sealed to us. Should I start a group called "Seal Pets" to get the Church to start sealing pets who want it. Where would this all end if members could force change on the Church? Ordain Women do not present God house as one of order. They just infuse more confusion, contention, and debate. By their fruits ye shall know them. Is Ordain Women bringing the Church together or driving a wedge in the Church? 3 Nephi 11:28-29: "And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." One the scale of 1-10. One being that no disputations and no contention and 10 being 100% disputation and contention, where does Ordain Women fall in the scale of what they have done and continue to do. I put it about a 7.5. I think that toward the end Kate Kelly moved toward the contentious end of that scale. But in the beginning their intent was to encourage the prophet to ask on their behalf. From what I recall that idea was based on the scriptural admonition to knock, on the idea that President Hinckley once floated that women did not have the priesthood because there was no "agitation" for it, and based on these quotes from our history.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Not everybody who claims membership in the Church is very active in or committed to it. Recently, a significant percentage of the public in general has become more accepting of gay "marriage." Societal trends are reflected to some degree among the members of the Church, but more so among the less committed, less active. Such a thing is hardly surprising. It's possible that your growing percentage of LDS are largely those whose prior opposition to same-sex "marriage" had little or nothing to do with their membership in the Church, but they are now merely following the societal trend. That is to say, their Church membership had little or nothing to do with their opinion before, and it has little or nothing to do with their opinion now. I would be more impressed if you could show that the growing percentage was among the more faithful, active and committed Mormons. Agreed. I have found among my very active friends and family an increasing acceptance of gay marriage but that is obviously anecdotal. I'm not aware of any studies that delineate it in the way you describe (which, I agree, is an important clarification while also recognizing that someone who supports gay marriage likely has an increased probability of being less active because it's more difficult to stay active when you hold to such beliefs).
why me Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 The only place where a breakoff could occur would be Utah. But even then, it would be doomed to fail. Worldwide it would not happen. So, the church is rather safe from such breakoff groups. And I don't see the church changing any policies about ssm or women ordination etc.
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) I expect any schisms over changes in practices (SSM, FHE on Sunday, Dr, Pepper being added to the WoW...) will be just as large as the one in 1978 over race and priesthood. Anyone around here remember that one. Where the Church of Jesus Christ of Aryan Saints was formed? They use crackers to serve the Sacrament. When they say white shirts they really mean WHITE shirts. Their Word of Wisdom encourages the use of WHITE FLOUR! Their cub pack has a Pinewood Derby Master Race. The Relief Society can serve chocolate or vanilla cupcakes, but they aren't allowed to mix them. Edited February 18, 2015 by KevinG
Pahoran Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I think that toward the end Kate Kelly moved toward the contentious end of that scale. But in the beginning their intent was to encourage the prophet to ask on their behalf. From what I recall that idea was based on the scriptural admonition to knock, Well, they certainly are very much into knocking. They knock the leadership, they knock the members, they knock everyone who isn't on board with them. on the idea that President Hinckley once floated that women did not have the priesthood because there was no "agitation" for it, And the claim that he had issued some kind of "admonition" to "agitate" is a self-serving, manipulative falsehood. He was simply observing, to a non-LDS journalist, that there wasn't any real interest in the topic among believing Latter-day Saints. And, AFAICT, there still isn't. Regards, Pahoran
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Well, they certainly are very much into knocking. They knock the leadership, they knock the members, they knock everyone who isn't on board with them.And the claim that he had issued some kind of "admonition" to "agitate" is a self-serving, manipulative falsehood. He was simply observing, to a non-LDS journalist, that there wasn't any real interest in the topic among believing Latter-day Saints.And, AFAICT, there still isn't.Regards,Pahoran I didn't say that President Hinckley had admonished it. Just that he did float the idea or plant the seed. And they cited it among their reasons for doing what they did. Here's my point though... I'm not an OW supporter, not really a fan, I don't feel the need to defend against Kelly's excommunication. I just think that it isn't useful to try to put everyone in a black hat or a white hat (to borrow Greg Prince's analogy). And, for me, calling their methodology "satanic" is an attempt to put a black hat on them. And, AFAICT, there is interest in women's ordination among active LDS.
Recommended Posts