Wetlands And The Future Of Mormonism

[Buckeye]

Today I read a comment by Don Bradley recommending this blogpost by Paul Malan: Wetlands and the Future of Mormonism (https://medium.com/@ungewissen/wetlands-the-future-of-mormonism-f1c1b3b62256). The post reviews some powerful insights from environmental scientiest Hank Green: Thoughts from the Edge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WHRerf-lrw) and applies those insights to the LDS church.

 

You should read the whole thing. But to provide a short summary, Hank Green relates how boundary areas ("ecotones") are where life is found. Whether an ocean shoreline or a savannah treeline, the edge is where biodiversity is born. Yes, the immediate danger is greater at edges (think killer whales attacking seals), but the population as a whole does better living there than a monoculture. Also, edges that have the largest area of overlap (think the everglades instead of the cliffs of dover) provide exponentially greater returns.

 

Paul Malan applies these principles to our church. Joseph lived on the edge. He was constantly blending doctrines and ideas from his world and his revelations. But since his passing the church has turned into a monoculture where difference is excluded, expelled, excommunicated. Not surprising, novel teachings and growth have largely stagnated. While a monoculture can provide temporary safety and growth, over the long term it is a recipe for disaster. A single enemy can wipe out everything - whether a parasite like the asian carp invading the great lakes, or the internet unearthing a statement by the first presidency in 1949 which devestates a membership trained to believe leaders cannot lead them astray.

 

In his blog, Paul Malan emplores a more 'open tent' church where thoughts can be openly shared (I quote a few lines):

 

Mormons who try to adopt a more nuanced perspective are reluctant to share their view publicly. The church claims no centralized control over excommunication hearings, but Dehlin’s expulsion reinforces the de facto standard for its members: We don’t need you to conform, we just need you to appear to conform.

 

A real Mormon will have questions, but he won’t question. A real mormon may have doubts, but he doesn’t doubt. It’s ok to believe whatever you believe, but if you want your church to leave you alone, don’t say it out loud. To observers, the distinction seems like another new definition of integrity: Be true to yourself, if you must, but only in private.

 

I find these thoughts to be moving. For the hundredth time this past Sunday, I heard counsel from local leaders that we should not hide our church membership on Monday. Instead of saying we spent the weekend at kids soccer games we should talk about what we did at church.

 

The counsel is sound. But it also goes the otherway. My conversations on Sunday should not be limited to echoing what I know everyone will agree with, but rather sharing my real thoughts and beliefs, even when they divurge from others. I intend to put this counsel into effect in my life, both on Monday and on Sunday.

 

PS - I'm not sure how to blend this into this post, but it strikes me that Christ is an ultimate example of an ecotone. He stood at the convergence of godhood and humanity.

[thesometimesaint]

I think it is entirely possible to be a faithful member and have some unorthodox ideas within limits. As long as we don't dispute the Truth Claims of the Church, and claim they are Church doctrine.

Edited June 2, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Storm Rider]

There is a difference between creating an environment where people are free to learn, to discuss, to implement, and to explore truth versus an environment where there is no commitment to truth, but rather a commitment to free wheeling ideas and whatever makes you feel good. 

 

The Church of Jesus Christ is called to preach and teach the gospel.  For members to express their doubts and their troubles is healthy, but to allow individuals to lead members astray or down the wrong path is not acceptable.  God is living and he assists us in dealing with the problems and troubles of today.  Members need to listen, contemplate and follow the teachings of prophets, seers, and revelators.  If we choose not to follow we open ourselves to unnecessary problems and complications. 

 

All are invited to follow Christ, but none is invited to join and lead the membership astray.

[The Nehor]

So by that logic the most vibrant form of life would be those on the edge between God and Satan?

Yeah, I think this analogy is more then a bit strained.

[CV75]

Today I read a comment by Don Bradley recommending this blogpost by Paul Malan: Wetlands and the Future of Mormonism

Meh—without the wisdom to do so properly, engineering a wider edge more likely enables over-diversification, actually ruining the habitat by eventually homogenizing the whole system, either through invasion of dominant species or over-equilibrium.

 

On the other hand, Adam was given dominion over all the earth and its biomes so that natural processes could be understood and leveraged through divine inspiration. This is how God works, operating with natural, eternal laws.

 

PS - I'm not sure how to blend this into this post, but it strikes me that Christ is an ultimate example of an ecotone. He stood at the convergence of godhood and humanity.

He is certainly our Mediator, but not to mingle exaltation with mortality.

 

I also think this article addresses the subject of diversity in far more intelligent way:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/unity-in-diversity

Edited June 2, 2015 by CV75

[Duncan]

I think you can bring up differences just in a nicer way and not adversarial. Not to say I am King Hoofluntz or anything but on sunday in Priesthood class, it was literally like 8 of us and it was combined. The teacher mentioned how apostles are selected and someone asked who the next Prophet would be. The teacher said something like it was always the senior apostle and so Pres. Packer and then someone mentioned something else and I can't recall now but I corrected them by saying the pattern of seniority in the Twelve and who is what hasn't always been like that as there were rearrangements in the 1870's with Orson Hyde and then with the chronology of who came in when and ordained an apostle. The teacher didn't know that and the discussion moved on but no one tarred and feathered me for bringing this up and it's really no big whoop anyways

[cinepro]

but Dehlin’s expulsion reinforces the de facto standard for its members: We don’t need you to conform, we just need you to appear to conform.

 

Dehlin's excommunication would only reinforce that for stupid people who were woefully misinformed about his statements and actions leading up to his expulsion (which, based on how people have been trying to spin it since it happened, is apparently what we are hoped to be).  The level of willful self-delusion about Dehlin and Kate Kelly and their excommunications is just off the charts.

Edited June 2, 2015 by cinepro

[LoudmouthMormon]

Pretty interesting to think about.  However:

 

But since his passing the church has turned into a monoculture where difference is excluded, expelled, excommunicated. Not surprising, novel teachings and growth have largely stagnated. 

 

Oh, maybe 100 years ago.  But if you want different, go to Mormons.org and type in some key words.  I don't see any shortage of people who self identify as, or talk about being influenced by:

 

Feminist

Buddhism

NRA

Hippie

suicidal

Brony

 

(Just 2 minutes of searching, terms just off the top of my head.)  None of these people seem to have been excluded, expelled, or excommunicated.  

[TheSkepticChristian]

The post reviews some powerful insights from environmental scientiest Hank Green: .

 

Hank Green is a brilliant guy 

 

 

But since his passing the church has turned into a monoculture where difference is excluded, expelled, excommunicated. Not surprising, novel teachings and growth have largely stagnated.

 

Yes, many of my fellow LDS think very similar. My Bishop said that he didn't believe in Evolution during ward conference 

Edited June 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[cinepro]

Today I read a comment by Don Bradley recommending this blogpost by Paul Malan: Wetlands and the Future of Mormonism (https://medium.com/@ungewissen/wetlands-the-future-of-mormonism-f1c1b3b62256). The post reviews some powerful insights from environmental scientiest Hank Green: Thoughts from the Edge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WHRerf-lrw) and applies those insights to the LDS church.

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.  The ecology is interesting, but it makes a terrible analogy to other "systems".  Can he give some examples of other groups of people (especially Churches) that he feels have done a good job of embracing the edges and thriving as a result?  Because I don't know if anyone has ever refuted the observation that conservative (i.e. stricter) christian churches tend to do better:

 

 

By the late 1960s, liberal Protestants began asking a rather difficult question. Why were the conservative churches growing? In retrospect, one aspect of the liberal Protestant crisis was reflected in that very question. The mainline Protestant denominations would have been better served by asking why their own churches were declining.

 

Commissioned by the National Council of Churches, researcher Dean M. Kelley set out to find out why conservative churches were growing, even as the more liberal churches were declining. In his 1972 book, Why Conservative Churches are Growing: A Study in Sociology of Religion, Kelley argued that evangelical churches grow precisely because they do what the more liberal congregations and denominations intentionally reject - they make serious demands of believers in terms of doctrine and behavior.

 

“Amid the current neglect and hostility toward organized religion in general,” Kelley noted, “the conservative churches, holding to seemingly outmoded theology and making strict demands on their members, have equalled or surpassed in growth the early percentage increases of the nation’s population.”

 

With amazing insight and candor, Kelley spoke for mainline Protestantism when he noted that it had been generally assumed that churches, “if they want to succeed, will be reasonable, rational, courteous, responsible, restrained, and receptive to outside criticism.” These churches would be highly concerned with preserving “a good image in the world” - and that meant especially within the world of the cultural elites. These churches, intending to grow, would be “democratic and gentle in their internal affairs” - as the larger world defines those qualities. These churches will intend to be cooperative with other religious groups in order to meet common goals, and thus “will not let dogmatism, judgmental moralism, or obsessions with cultic purity stand in the way of such cooperation and service.”

 

Then, Kelley dropped his bomb: “These expectations are a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise, and arise from a mistaken view of what success in religion is and how it should be fostered and measured.”

 

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-conservative-churches-are-growing-49988/

 

If Paul Malan has better data that indicates that "open" and "big tent" churches that make few demands on their members when it comes to behavior or belief do better than those that do make such demands, I would love to see it.  Because the Church isn't an ecosystem, and the members aren't fish and turtles.

Edited June 2, 2015 by cinepro

[smac97]

Pretty interesting to think about.  However:

 

 

Oh, maybe 100 years ago.  But if you want different, go to Mormons.org and type in some key words.  I don't see any shortage of people who self identify as, or talk about being influenced by:

 

Feminist

Buddhism

NRA

Hippie

suicidal

Brony

 

(Just 2 minutes of searching, terms just off the top of my head.)  None of these people seem to have been excluded, expelled, or excommunicated.  

 

I can welcome all sorts of influences int he Church.  Feminism?  Yes.  Buddhism?  Check (I served my mission in Taiwan, so I had firsthand experience with the virtues of Buddhism).  NRA?  Sure.  Hippies?  I suppose so.  "Suicidal?"  Not sure what that means.  

 

But the influence of Bronies?  No.  And no.  There are limits to which fellowship can be extended.

 

 

-SMac

[The Nehor]

Pretty interesting to think about.  However:

 

 

Oh, maybe 100 years ago.  But if you want different, go to Mormons.org and type in some key words.  I don't see any shortage of people who self identify as, or talk about being influenced by:

 

Feminist

Buddhism

NRA

Hippie

suicidal

Brony

 

(Just 2 minutes of searching, terms just off the top of my head.)  None of these people seem to have been excluded, expelled, or excommunicated.

We have bronies in our midst?

We need an inquisition NOW! We must destroy them before they destroy us.

[cinepro]

Mormons who try to adopt a more nuanced perspective are reluctant to share their view publicly. The church claims no centralized control over excommunication hearings, but Dehlin’s expulsion reinforces the de facto standard for its members: We don’t need you to conform, we just need you to appear to conform.

 

It is also my impression that the awareness among active Church members of Dehlin's and KK's excommunications is very, very low. 

 

If we estimate 3 - 5 million active members, I doubt more than 10,000 actually care about Dehlin.  Maybe the story got more play in Utah, but in my suburban California ward, there are only two people I would be confident would know who Dehlin is, and that's because I told both of them.  And for those who did hear about it, I doubt they cared enough either way for it to "reinforce" anything.

 

I mean, when I hear that someone got excommunicated for adultery, I don't think "Wow, the Church is sending me a message that I better not commit adultery!"  I think "Wow, the idiot did something that they knew was against Church policy and doctrine, and that's what happens...I wonder what's for lunch..."

 

Likewise, I didn't hear about Dehlin's excommunication and think "Uh-oh, the Church is cracking down on people who have doubts and ask questions" (which, it is important to point out, some people might actually categorize me as...) 

 

I just thought "Wow, if you publicly announce that you don't believe in the Church's doctrines or truth claims anymore, and stop going to Church, and lead others to disbelief in the Church, then some leaders might consider that apostasy." Actually, the dictionary would also seem to consider that apostasy, so I'm not sure I can blame this one on just the Church leaders, because apparently Webster is in on this as well...

Edited June 2, 2015 by cinepro

[Buckeye]

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.  The ecology is interesting, but it makes a terrible analogy to other "systems".  Can he give some examples of other groups of people (especially Churches) that he feels have done a good job of embracing the edges and thriving as a result?  Because I don't know if anyone has ever refuted the observation that conservative (i.e. stricter) christian churches tend to do better:

 

 

 

If Paul Malan has better data that indicates that "open" and "big tent" churches that make few demands on their members when it comes to behavior or belief do better than those that do make such demands, I would love to see it.  Because the Church isn't an ecosystem, and the members aren't fish and turtles.

 

No analogy is perfect, but I'll take a stab at answering. Contrast the United States to European countries over the past 3 centuries. The US would be much more of an ectone, where different faiths are allowed to co-exist, morph, come into existence, and die off. European countries have tended to have more state-owned religions with strict boundaries. So, for example, being a Lutheran in the US is more "dangerous" than being a Lutheran in Norway, because here your kids are more likely to here other view points and maybe convert away. Granted, faith may be dying off in both systems (see the recent Pew report), but the European system has been dying firstly and most quickly.

[Traela]

We have bronies in our midst?

We need an inquisition NOW! We must destroy them before they destroy us.

There is a thriving Brony group at BYU-I. If they have infiltrated Rexburg, it's already too late.

[churchistrue]

What happened in 1949?

[Senator]

What happened in 1949?

 

Well lets see.....

 

Unemployment in the US was at 3.8%

The cost of a first-class stamp was 3 cents

The Yankees beat the Dodgers 4-1

The Soviet Union begins testing neuclear weapons

Cable television debuts......

 

 

.....what else?

[The Nehor]

There is a thriving Brony group at BYU-I. If they have infiltrated Rexburg, it's already too late.

Burn the school down and salt the grounds. It is the only way to be sure.

[DonBradley]

Cinepro,

 

It's not my article, and even if it were I wouldn't necessarily feel the need to defend everything in it. But I believe in this one the author indicates that whether a given species survival strategy is a good one (or not) is dictated by the surrounding conditions. A strategy might work very well in some circumstances and very poorly in others. The LDS "monoculture" has worked extremely well when Mormondom has been somewhat culturally sequestered from the larger world. But in our present world, a monoculture is increasingly maladaptive since (almost by definition) it lacks a diverse range of types that can thrive in the face of a diverse range of incursions or threats.

 

One example of this lack of isolation is that while Latter-day Saints at one time got almost all their information about the church from the church itself, present-day Latter-day Saints have an ever-increasing amount of information about the church available to them through news media and the Internet. That the church itself recognizes this seems evident from the way it now channels information through the media, via Public Affairs, aimed not only at non-members but also at church members.

 

 

Don

[strappinglad]

IIRC , the response of Christ to Satan went something like this:

" Brother , I understand what you are saying and think you have made some good remarks. Perhaps we can get together and come to a meeting of the minds on your more salient points. My tent door is always open to new ideas. "

Yes, I do believe that is how it went.

[rodheadlee]

In long distance sailing, the edge is the crunchy bits, it' best to avoid the crunchy bits. Those lights you see on shore at night represent danger, you may feel safer near those lights but you're not. I know some good sailors in a great boat that went aground and there was loss of life, it was very sad. It was due to inattention to the helm, letting current set the boat too close to shore. By the time trouble was recognized, it was too late. 

[DonBradley]

IIRC , the response of Christ to Satan went something like this:

" Brother , I understand what you are saying and think you have made some good remarks. Perhaps we can get together and come to a meeting of the minds on your more salient points. My tent door is always open to new ideas. "

Yes, I do believe that is how it went.

 

If you were Christ and those who with different perspectives from you in the church were Satan, you might have a point.

 

Instead, you are part of the body of Christ, and so are they.

 

Don

[Gray]

I believe they're called "moisturelands" 

[churchistrue]

For most of the lifetime of Mormonism, people joined and stayed with the church because of the truth claims.

 

The information age is threatening Mormon truth claims, and a growing number of people are and will in the future choose Mormonism for reasons other than truth claims.

 

For Mormonism to retain this group without losing those that still prioritize truth claims will be very tricky.  This is the big challenge the church faces.

 

Some things that I think will be important:

--deemphasize truth claims

--be a bit more progressive on political issues, because the "so sayeth God, so sayeth the prophet" isn't working as well anymore

--don't lose the uniqueness of the church

--make people want to be Mormon but don't lose too much of the things that make it hard to be Mormon, ie “a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.” 

 

Sounds easy right?  

[Buckeye]

What happened in 1949?

 

That's when questions arose whether the racial priesthood/temple ban was doctrine or policy. In response, the First Presidency declared that the exclusions were doctrine and also said the justifications for the exclusions were doctrine. Those justifications have now been renounced in the Church's essay on the race and the priesthood. The church has not expressly renounced or reaffirmed whether the ban itself was God's will, leaving members to decide for themselves.

 

 

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency ^[1]

 

^{http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements}