Reform Mormonism? The Future Splintering Of The Church?

[Paddy]

I would be more impressed if you could show that the growing percentage was among the more faithful, active and committed Mormons.

Anecdotally, at least here in Australia, many faithful members hold what could be seen as a contradictory view. Gay marriage is not viewed as a particularly big social or moral issue so many members support or are at least apathetic to gay marriage from a social point of view yet are apposed to it from a religious point of view.

[cinepro]

Someone out there needs to remain very active in the Church, to the point that he gets himself appointed at a relatively young age to the Council of the Twelve and ultimately rises to the presidency of the Church.  Along the way, while he keeps his real views pretty much to himself, he should identify like-minded fellow travelers and, to the extent that he can, place them in positions where they’re able to have influence.  Eventually, as the old guard die off, he needs to appoint several of his comrades to the Twelve.  Perhaps one or two reactionaries will hang on, but, if necessary, they can be excommunicated while overseas on mission tours, or something of that sort.  Then, securely established and thoroughly in command, he can announce the ordination of women, the abandonment of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as historical texts, the dropping of claims to special prophetic authority, and the immediate commencement of same-sex temple sealings.

 

The first half of this theory is inconsistent with the second half.  It also needlessly attributes some degree of duplicity to the "reformer."

 

Each of the proposed changes would need to be brought about not by decree or fiat, but instead by gradual policy changes and changes in emphasis. 

 

For example, women could first be invited to hold their children during baby blessings.  Then they could be invited to offer a "Mother's prayer" after the official blessing.  Then young women could be asked to help with duties we consider "priesthood duties" but which don't have a basis in scripture for being such.  "Mother's blessings" could then be talked about more and more, with it becoming acceptable for a mother to place her hands on her child's head when they are sick and a priesthood member isn't available.  And so on.  Eventually, women could be called to more and more callings in the ward, and as the idea of women in leadership positions over the men becomes more accepted, women could be called to Bishoprics (a non-priesthood calling).  Then, ultimately, they get the priesthood officially.

 

Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are easy.  Just stop emphasizing that they're "historical".  Focus on the good principles.  After a while (maybe even a generation or two), people will think it odd that it was ever considered such a big deal.  Also, redo the Pearl Of Great Price and get rid of the facsimiles.

 

We're already on the path to dropping claims of "special prophetic authority".  We no longer expect them to do miracles, prophecy of the future or anything weird like that.  We'll just continue to lower our expectations and offer justifications as to why these lower expectations are totally expected and faith-promoting.

 

Same-sex sealings will be a little trickier.  It will start by the acceptance of civil same-sex marriages.  Then, another class of sealing will be discovered that isn't a "marriage" sealing, but is more like a bond of eternal adoption to each other.  After all, we're all related by blood to our spouses anyway.  So same-sex couples can be "sealed" to each other, but no picture of them together wearing wedding dresses and/or tuxes in front of the Temple.

 

It also assumes the process hasn't already started. 

[why me]

Of course, having conversations about this is always good for the mind. It is a sort of therapy. But it is not very realistic. The church is a world wide church, much different than in 1844. But yes, if the church announced tomorrow that ssm would be allowed in the temple and women can now hold the priesthood, many would leave because it would seem just a little too worldly. But there would be no breakaway churches being formed.

Edited February 18, 2015 by why me

[KevinG]

The first half of this theory is inconsistent with the second half.  It also needlessly attributes some degree of duplicity to the "reformer."

 

It also assumes the process hasn't already started. 

 

It also assumes that the church is a purely political organization, run by and for men, without the leadership of a living God who inspires callings and policy.

 

For someone to think this way they have never experienced, or have forgotten, the process of even the most basic Bishop's or Quorum Presidency counsel.  If you want to be an influential Latter-day Saint then seek the will of the Lord.  

 

If you want to influence others through political means, then join a political party.

[KevinG]

But there would be no breakaway churches being formed.

 

No Heteroite movement?

[Avatar4321]

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.

you expect a break off for a racist reaction to hispanics from a church who has been proselytizing them since the book of Mormon revealed them to be from the house of Israel?

[why me]

No Heteroite movement?

No. If one was not on the internet one would get the impression that nothing has actually changed. It is still the same church that it was 3O years ago. Of course, reading the internet and looking at mormon sites one would think that great changes are happening. But when one attends a sunday meeting, nothing has changed. The internet discussions on mormon sites are overrated with a small group of mormons shooting nothing but spitballs in the wind through a straw.

 

The sunday meetings have continued as normal and the people who are vocal on the internet seem to tow the line during the meetings.

Edited February 18, 2015 by why me

[KevinG]

you expect a break off for a racist reaction to hispanics from a church who has been proselytizing them since the book of Mormon revealed them to be from the house of Israel?

 

That schizm would come as a great shock to the Spanish speaking branch here in the North Atlanta suburbs.  

[sethpayne]

"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.

 

Hmmm.  Well, I certainly agree that some "progressive" Mormons do hold some, many, or all of those views.  But that sure is a pretty long list to try and classify or group folks.

 

But if you have watched the Dehlin debate carefully you will see that many "progressive" Mormons took issue with Dehlin, and he with them.  How about the debate between the Young Mormon Feminists and FMH?  There were/are some very serious accusations out there around the very issues you mention.  So I think this entire idea of "progressive" Mormons somehow creating a new Church is completely unrealistic at the very least.  More like silly.

[Stone holm]

It would be very difficult to accept SSMs as Eternal Marriages in the Temple without completely throwing a lot of what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had to say about how the hereafter.  I suppose it is conceivable that Gays and Lesbians might try to set up a rival church, but don't think it very likely.  Having said that, I also realize that the Log Cabin Republicans exist so I can't completely discount it.  It has to be understood that there are two groups who are uncomfortable with the Church's activity with respect to SSM.  There is the group who sees no problem with simply accepting SSMs within the Covenant, etc (I am not in that group), then there is the group that doesn't think that we should have gotten involved in promoting anti-SSM legislation (I am in that group).  That latter group isn't going to become schismatics, and I really doubt that the former group is interested in forming a rival Church.  I do agree, that in the unlikely event the Church were to accept SSM within the Temple rites that it would probably result in a schism,  just as I agree that if the Church, were to receive a revelation that the Lord says its time to practice plural marriage again you would see a schism.  But history seems to suggest, that the break offs happen when the Church institutes a new position and the conservatives do not accept the new position.  Plural Marriage is adopted -- RLDS breaks off,  change in Priesthood Quorums Temple Lot breaks off,  Plural Marriage halted -- FLDS breaks off.   Name one schism in the Church that resulted in a group wanting something liberalized or changed and didn't get their way and they break off.  Can't think of a single one.

[KevinG]

Conservatives...

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Hmmm.  Well, I certainly agree that some "progressive" Mormons do hold some, many, or all of those views.  But that sure is a pretty long list to try and classify or group folks.

 

But if you have watched the Dehlin debate carefully you will see that many "progressive" Mormons took issue with Dehlin, and he with them.  How about the debate between the Young Mormon Feminists and FMH?  There were/are some very serious accusations out there around the very issues you mention. 

People tend to classify themselves.

 

Take this board, for example. There is a lot said here that I don't like, but I stick around anyway, because it's where I'm generally comfortable.

 

Most people who join a political party, I daresay, don't agree with each and every plank in the party platform.

 

And if the startup church were one that truly appealed to  (I don't like this term, but I'll use it anyway for want of another) progressives, it would likely be very easy to pick and choose what to embrace and what to ignore without suffering consequences of any substance. It would be a cafeteria Mormon's dream.

 

 

So I think this entire idea of "progressive" Mormons somehow creating a new Church is completely unrealistic at the very least.  More like silly.

 

Maybe so. But aren't we all sort of engaging in flights of fancy here?

 

At least I'm not pushing it as a plausible reality, as are those predicting temple sealings for same-sex "marriages" within 40 years (or 25, depending on whom you talk to).

 

By the way, here's the up-to-the-minute countdown clock reading: 39 years, 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 4 hours, 16 minutes, 30 seconds and counting down.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Ham Clam]

Hmmm.  Well, I certainly agree that some "progressive" Mormons do hold some, many, or all of those views.  But that sure is a pretty long list to try and classify or group folks.

 

But if you have watched the Dehlin debate carefully you will see that many "progressive" Mormons took issue with Dehlin, and he with them.  How about the debate between the Young Mormon Feminists and FMH?  There were/are some very serious accusations out there around the very issues you mention.  So I think this entire idea of "progressive" Mormons somehow creating a new Church is completely unrealistic at the very least.  More like silly.

For me, trying to watch this debate carefully is like being a babysitter in a room and all the kids are crying and going crazy. Which kids should I be paying attend to?

If you could point to some quality debate that would be great. 

[CV75]

An interesting blog post from our friend Daniel Peterson with an associated link.

 

The projected scenario he describes sounds vaguely familiar -- as though something similar had happened in real life fairly recently (wink, wink; nudge, nudge).

I understand the blog entry to be humorous, but I do think “reformist” malcontents have reimagined a backstory of abuse (much like Mosiah 10:12-17 and Alma 54:17), which is as much a delusion as the grandeur with which they assess their contribution to and prognosis for change. Too many devolve into cranks, haters and wolves, but even more miss out on enjoying their true potential.

[Stone holm]

Anecdotally, at least here in Australia, many faithful members hold what could be seen as a contradictory view. Gay marriage is not viewed as a particularly big social or moral issue so many members support or are at least apathetic to gay marriage from a social point of view yet are apposed to it from a religious point of view.

This captures beautifully and succinctly what I have been trying to explain about a segment of what might be called progressive Mormons. It is not all that contradictory, and I suspect it is very common outside the United States.

[Paddy]

This captures beautifully and succinctly what I have been trying to explain about a segment of what might be called progressive Mormons. It is not all that contradictory, and I suspect it is very common outside the United States.

Interestingly the members here would not consider themselves 'progressive'.

[Calm]

Interestingly the members here would not consider themselves 'progressive'.

Progressive is usually used as a label for those who agree with you.

[omni]

The first half of this theory is inconsistent with the second half. It also needlessly attributes some degree of duplicity to the "reformer."

Each of the proposed changes would need to be brought about not by decree or fiat, but instead by gradual policy changes and changes in emphasis.

For example, women could first be invited to hold their children during baby blessings. Then they could be invited to offer a "Mother's prayer" after the official blessing. Then young women could be asked to help with duties we consider "priesthood duties" but which don't have a basis in scripture for being such. "Mother's blessings" could then be talked about more and more, with it becoming acceptable for a mother to place her hands on her child's head when they are sick and a priesthood member isn't available. And so on. Eventually, women could be called to more and more callings in the ward, and as the idea of women in leadership positions over the men becomes more accepted, women could be called to Bishoprics (a non-priesthood calling). Then, ultimately, they get the priesthood officially.

Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are easy. Just stop emphasizing that they're "historical". Focus on the good principles. After a while (maybe even a generation or two), people will think it odd that it was ever considered such a big deal. Also, redo the Pearl Of Great Price and get rid of the facsimiles.

We're already on the path to dropping claims of "special prophetic authority". We no longer expect them to do miracles, prophecy of the future or anything weird like that. We'll just continue to lower our expectations and offer justifications as to why these lower expectations are totally expected and faith-promoting.

Same-sex sealings will be a little trickier. It will start by the acceptance of civil same-sex marriages. Then, another class of sealing will be discovered that isn't a "marriage" sealing, but is more like a bond of eternal adoption to each other. After all, we're all related by blood to our spouses anyway. So same-sex couples can be "sealed" to each other, but no picture of them together wearing wedding dresses and/or tuxes in front of the Temple.

It also assumes the process hasn't already started.

Forget McKinsey & Co., the brethren would be wise to hire you for consulting purposes...for a small fee of course.

[Scott Lloyd]

Forget McKinsey & Co., the brethren would be wise to hire you for consulting purposes...for a small fee of course.

why would they want to do that?

[Stone holm]

Interestingly the members here would not consider themselves 'progressive'.

Progressive is a relative term, a recently retired Supreme Court Justice who was appointed as a conservative was offended by the fact that when he retired he was considered a liberal, even though his legal stances had not changed. I tend to use progressive as the opposite of regressive.

[Robert F. Smith]

Sounds like an opportune time for me to establish the CoCBoAp

(Community of Christ, Book of Abraham professing)

I'll be accepting applications for FP, Q12, and Presiding Patriarch

just as soon as I get my headquarters set up on a fishing boat

anchored outside the U.S. three mile limit.

UD

Isn't that what L. Ron Hubbard did?

[sethpayne]

For me, trying to watch this debate carefully is like being a babysitter in a room and all the kids are crying and going crazy. Which kids should I be paying attend to?

 

 

I don't know if I could recommend paying attention to anyone at this point.  

 

If you could point to some quality debate that would be great. 

 

 

Well, I don't want to clutter up this thread but I have found the discussion/debate regarding the role of LGTB "allies" between the Young Mormon Feminists and the Feminist Mormons Housewives to be interesting. 

[stemelbow]

I think one problem with Peterson's "plan" is that many of those things are likely to happen before someone young could rise to the position of prophet.

That's what I was thinking when I read it. Just wait. No need for anyone to be sneaky. As we grow, SSm will be so common and accepted it'll be silly to think it was every fought against. The Church itself will be opening it's arms to gay people like never before claiming things like, sexual orientation is an eternal component of mankind.

[Uncle Dale]

Isn't that what L. Ron Hubbard did?

 

Not sure what Elron's position was on facsimile no 2 and

Kolob -- though I'm sure that Xenu was at the council of

the gods session attended by Lucifer.

 

Another attendee at that grand conclave (or, at least a

godly lieutenant, viewing proceedings from the gallery):

 

 

 

Like the sun in his meridian splendor, Joseph Smith shown a full man, at home, among his friends, in the fields, on the bench, or before the world; a pattern parent; a worthy friend; a model general; a righteous judge, and the wisest man of the age, sustained by truth, and "God was his right hand man." Surely, as one of the holy ones commissioned by his father among the royal seventy, when the high council of heaven set them apart to come down and "multiply and replenish this earth," he was the "last," and who knows but the "greatest," for he declared -- we -- knew not who he was! So, I may say, as the last is to be first, and the first last in eternal rotation, that Joseph Smith, who was Gazelem in the spirit world, was, and is, and will be in the endless progress of Eternity: -- the Prince of Light. 'Tis so, and who can dispute it? ... (from the 1844 funeral oration for Joseph Smith, Jr.)

 

In the CoCBoAp, our New Lectures on Faith will, of course, clarify the

proper relationship between Lord Xenu and The Prince of Light.

 

UD

[omni]

why would they want to do that?

Just a joke