Mormonism - Edge Or Center

[JLHPROF]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2382761-155/op-ed-mormon-fringes-should-speak-up

 

In this thinly veiled progressive op-ed, a more interesting question lies.

 

Once again the false dichotomy between Joseph and Brigham is claimed:

 

The Mormon church grew up in a vibrant, violent ecotone, adapting to new influences and adopting new doctrine. When Brigham Young took over, he began a transition into a protective monoculture that has served itself well for generations.

 

and speaking of false dichotomies, that is what the opinion writer is also claiming that traditionalists such as myself are operating under:

 

We have to choose and defend our positions: Republican or Democrat? Faithful or apostate? Gay rights or strong families? Do we celebrate or vilify the dissenters in last week's General Conference? Members who voice more nuanced opinions are marginalized by those defending a monoculture that feeds on false dichotomies such as these.

 

But here are some interesting points worthy of discussion:

 

1. History is built on small shifts that have created huge change, and the Mormon church is at the edge of one of these shifts.

 

2. Each time a non-traditional Mormon lets her neighbor see her unique beliefs, she makes it easier for everyone in the congregation to be true to themselves.

 

3. where ideas and opinions and personalities can blend together to create something like an ideological wetland: hard to define, hard to cling to, and infinitely more valuable to the world than anything Mormonism has been able to offer so far.
 

 

Does this only apply to progressive Mormons?  What about the fundamentalists?  The TBM's?  The feminists?  Does allowing for "fringe" beliefs strengthen or weaken the Church?

Edited April 13, 2015 by JLHPROF

[CCRW]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2382761-155/op-ed-mormon-fringes-should-speak-up

 

Does this only apply to progressive Mormons?  What about the fundamentalists?  The TBM's?  The feminists?  Does allowing for "fringe" beliefs strengthen or weaken the Church?

 

Funny thing, I was going to start a thread asking if labels or divisions were starting to be more noticeable in the Chapel among members. 

 

Five years ago the mention of Dr. Shades Chapel Mormon verses Internet Mormon would bring on very heated debates where the apologist would insist that the same level of orthodoxy existed across the board.  There was no difference.

 

15+ years back in jest, Robert Kirby did an article on the 5 types of Mormons, suggesting even way back in those super orthodox days, that there where liberals among us.

 

And now JLHPROF is throwing out labels like Progressive (NOM?), traditionalists (JLHPROF with one wife?), fundamentalists (JLHPROF with two?), TBMs (chapel?), Feminists?

 

Is this level of diversity really starting to increase in the family wards?  Are the fringe numbers starting to thin out the orthodox (TBM?) numbers significantly?  Are these fringe groups the wolf?

 

Dang, no wonder labels suck.  Its darn hard to keep up with them.

 

eta: I'm asking this as I'm seeing a huge difference at this site from five years back.

Edited April 14, 2015 by CCRW

[Robert F. Smith]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2382761-155/op-ed-mormon-fringes-should-speak-up

 

In this thinly veiled progressive op-ed, a more interesting question lies.

 

Once again the false dichotomy between Joseph and Brigham is claimed:

 

and speaking of false dichotomies, that is what the opinion writer is also claiming that traditionalists such as myself are operating under:

 

But here are some interesting points worthy of discussion:

 

Does this only apply to progressive Mormons?  What about the fundamentalists?  The TBM's?  The feminists?  Does allowing for "fringe" beliefs strengthen or weaken the Church?

There has always been a surfeit of yokels within and outside of Mormonism trying to apply false labels, and much more besides.  What is true is that the Mormon Church has always been composed of dynamic, thought-provoking leaders at all levels, Joseph Smith being oddball in chief -- surrounding himself with powerful, individualistic men who could not be cowed (even by Joseph himself).  The genius of that approach has been that the leadership has always been topnotch and variegated.  So much the better that we tend to believe that they are chosen by inspiration.

 

We Mormons have always appreciated smart leaders who could not necessarily agree with each other (as with Orson Pratt and Brigham Young), yet remained faithful to the one Gospel.  We are a people and a Church which has witnessed battles among the Brethren over theology and science (Elders Widtsoe, Talmage, and Roberts versus Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and others), capped by the harsh social criticism of Church members by Hugh Nibley -- who strangely acted as a prophet to the Prophets -- who was attacked by virtual apostate Sterling M. McMurrin (who defended BYU and the Mormon people).

 

The Mormons are an ethnicity which practiced polygyny and communist economics in the 19th century, yet today are ultra-capitalist and practice hard core monogamy (staunchly opposing any hint of non-standard marriage).  With an open canon and continuing revelation, perhaps it could not be otherwise.

 

Paul Malan has it right in at least one respect:  The edges are more fertile, and it is precisely the wards and branches outside Utah which produce the best that Mormonism has to offer (the "real Church").  Utah and SLC are too overwhelmed by paranoid, divisive, and false polarization (leading to the absurd belief that "liberal" and "conservative" are actual categories).

 

Malan lives too near the epicenter of conformity to understand this.  He is part of that fabled monoculture, and his essay gives it legs.

[CCRW]

You make some good comparisons.  I'm not familiar with your reference to Nibley, McMurrin and members?

 

I keep wanting to think it's a diversity of level of belief, you know like the Fundamentalist really believes and the liberal really does not.  Some way old biased thinking.  Or is this a new dynamic in the modern Chapel?

 

Also, I was surprised to see that Paul is from my town, which has historically been high density Chapel Mormons.  I would be shocked if his ward had much diversity in levels of belief.

Edited April 14, 2015 by CCRW

[Avatar4321]

One day I hope these divisions end and we no longer have any -ites or -isms

[BCSpace]

There are no such divisions.  There are only LDS of varying degrees of personal apostasy from the systematic theology. I consider myself to be approximately 5% apostate. Others might think me to be more.

[CCRW]

There are no such divisions.  There are only LDS of varying degrees of personal apostasy from the systematic theology. I consider myself to be approximately 5% apostate. Others might think me to be more.

Is the Cafeteria concept valid here?  For example in your case is there 5% of the Restored Gospel as known and understood today that you don't eat? (a core individual) and yet some percentage of the ward only likes 5% of the feast (fringes)?

[thesometimesaint]

You make some good comparisons.  I'm not familiar with your reference to Nibley, McMurrin and members?

 

I keep wanting to think it's a diversity of level of belief, you know like the Fundamentalist really believes and the liberal really does not.  Some way old biased thinking.  Or is this a new dynamic in the modern Chapel?

 

Also, I was surprised to see that Paul is from my town, which has historically been high density Chapel Mormons.  I would be shocked if his ward had much diversity in levels of belief.

 

I think we're more diverse than that yet more uniform in many ways. I think as long as you can truthfully and accurately answer the Baptismal questions you're a LDS. If you can truthfully and accurately answer the Temple Recommend questions then by any meaningful measure your a TBM. Whether you sit on the front rows of the Chapel like I do, or on the  back rows like some of the families with very young children sometimes do.

Edited April 14, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Robert F. Smith]

You make some good comparisons.  I'm not familiar with your reference to Nibley, McMurrin and members?

..............................................

The best introduction to Hugh Nibley is via the wonderful biography by his son-in-law Boyd Petersen, Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life (SLC: Kofford, 2002).  Much of what I am referring to took place in the 1950s and early 60s, including formal debates between Nibley and McMurrin, with a backdrop to the infamous hearings of Senator Joseph McCarthy.  Nibley kept up his social criticism right on into the 1980s, and I was able to attend his brilliant Fall 1983 BYU Commencement Address (several of the Brethren were on the dais), "Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift," Dialogue, 16/4 (Winter 1983):12-21, which is available in DVD, and online at https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/12231110/leaders-to-managers-the-fatal-shift-dialogue-a-journal-of-/3 .  See the comment by Jason Nelson-Seawright, "Hugh Nibley: Mormon Dissident," By Common Consent, April 6, 2007, online at http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/04/06/hugh-nibley-mormon-dissident/ .

 

Here is just a taste of the real, fearless Hugh Nibley, on that very occasion:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSjE2Ks38uE .

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Quote

 

1. History is built on small shifts that have created huge change, and the Mormon church is at the edge of one of these shifts.

 

2. Each time a non-traditional Mormon lets her neighbor see her unique beliefs, she makes it easier for everyone in the congregation to be true to themselves.

 

3. where ideas and opinions and personalities can blend together to create something like an ideological wetland: hard to define, hard to cling to, and infinitely more valuable to the world than anything Mormonism has been able to offer so far.

 

 

Does this only apply to progressive Mormons?  What about the fundamentalists?  The TBM's?  The feminists?  Does allowing for "fringe" beliefs strengthen or weaken the Church?

 

I think the monoculture he was referring to was traditional, orthodox, TBMness. The fringe ecosystems would include a vast variety of heterodoxy, including, fundamentalists, progressives, feminists etc.

 

I agree with the article's assertion that as more people openly speak and live in the fringe others become more comfortable with the fringe concepts. We can argue about whether that is good or bad but it seems obvious that acceptance increases for these "fringe" principles as invidivudals in the monoculture recognize and respect individuals on the fringe.

 

The truth is there is already a wetland but there are varying degrees of unorthodoxy or cafeterianism but many of those living on the fringe of the fringe are afraid to be recognized. Gradually the wetlands expand. It's inevitable.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................................................................

 

The truth is there is already a wetland but there are varying degrees of unorthodoxy or cafeterianism but many of those living on the fringe of the fringe are afraid to be recognized. Gradually the wetlands expand. It's inevitable.

Karl Marx said that the communist millennium was inevitable.  He said that automatic harmony was inevitable.  However, that Mr. FeelGood approach has not so often worked out the way it was supposed to.  Seems it wasn't inevitable after all.

[Teancum]

There are no such divisions.  There are only LDS of varying degrees of personal apostasy from the systematic theology. I consider myself to be approximately 5% apostate. Others might think me to be more.

  yep

 

I think you are more than 50%.

[JLHPROF]

  yep

 

I think you are more than 50%.

 

Gosh, what does that make the rest of us...

[The Nehor]

There are no such divisions.  There are only LDS of varying degrees of personal apostasy from the systematic theology. I consider myself to be approximately 5% apostate. Others might think me to be more.

 

There is no systematic theology to apostasize from.

 

There are some truths you can be apostate about of course.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

apostasy

[ əˈpästəsē ]

 

NOUN

noun: apostasy · plural noun: apostasies

the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

 

"Apostacy" in and of itself isn't a bad word. A catholic who joins the LDS church is apostate of Catholicism. An early American Revolutionary was apostate to the principles of the monarchy. An LDS member who doesn't agree that it isn't a divine commandment for women to have only one pair of earings may be apostate to the principle of prophetic infallibility, which really isn't a correct principle at all. Members can be apostate to an organization, church, or government, like the catholic or the revolutionary or the LDS without being apostate to Christ. I think that is the only form of apostacy that is absolutely negative.

[thesometimesaint]

The number earrings has never been part of LDS doctrine. President Hinckley was expressing a personal opinion, much like Paul often did.

[Gray]

The number earrings has never been part of LDS doctrine. President Hinckley was expressing a personal opinion, much like Paul often did.

 

Technically anything they teach is doctrine, but not all doctrine is important or even true. 

[thesometimesaint]

Technically anything they teach is doctrine, but not all doctrine is important or even true. 

 

Technically no.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

 

To the best of my knowledge the number of earrings has never been put to the Church to be considered doctrine.

Edited April 15, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[HappyJackWagon]

The number earrings has never been part of LDS doctrine. President Hinckley was expressing a personal opinion, much like Paul often did.

Isn't it in the For the Strength of Youth?

 

In any case, it's interesting that in BY's day an apostate would not accept plural marriage and in our day an apostate would.

[thesometimesaint]

Isn't it in the For the Strength of Youth?

 

In any case, it's interesting that in BY's day an apostate would not accept plural marriage and in our day an apostate would.

 

It's pretty simple for me. IF I was a young person looking for that first "Real Job". I'd think long and hard about having multiple earrings hanging on my ears for that interview. An old retired guy like me not so much. I personally don't have any earrings so it's no big deal to me either way.

 

Actually in BY's day many more members of the Church didn't live polygamously, and some apostates did live it. In our day apostates and never LDS do also. Personally I have no desire for more than the one wife I've have. Imagine more than one Mother-In-Law. Sorry mom you know I love you very much. No one else could have raised such a wonderful daughter that I married.

[Gray]

Technically no.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

 

To the best of my knowledge the number of earrings has never been put to the Church to be considered doctrine.

 

Doctrine is synonymous with teachings, by any ordinary use of the word. However, if by doctrine you mean "officially binding teachings" then there is no systematic way of arriving at what is doctrine. There are many different formulations you can use to arrive at "official doctrine" but all of them break down eventually. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Doctrine is synonymous with teachings, by any ordinary use of the word. However, if by doctrine you mean "officially binding teachings" then there is no systematic way of arriving at what is doctrine. There are many different formulations you can use to arrive at "official doctrine" but all of them break down eventually. 

Ah, but could we propound some synchronic form of doctrine based on what one could be disciplined for contravening?  Could we also track the permutations of it diachronically?  In the Wittgensteinian sense . . . 

[Robert F. Smith]

There is no systematic theology to apostasize from.

 

There are some truths you can be apostate about of course.

Tell it to Alice's Red Queen!

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................

 

In any case, it's interesting that in BY's day an apostate would not accept plural marriage and in our day an apostate would.

That is correct in both a synchronic and diachronic sense.  Or, as Kay Kyser used to say:  "That's right -- You're wrong!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz3_V5Vx4EQ .

[thesometimesaint]

Doctrine is synonymous with teachings, by any ordinary use of the word. However, if by doctrine you mean "officially binding teachings" then there is no systematic way of arriving at what is doctrine. There are many different formulations you can use to arrive at "official doctrine" but all of them break down eventually. 

 

Not really. IE; http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Ten_Lost_Tribes/Location

 

According to the Church itself we determine doctrine by common consent.

SEE http://www.mormonwiki.com/Common_consent