Interesting Oped In The Trib - Progressive Mormonism

[Duncan]

"The recurrence to fundamentals is essential to perpetuity"-Elder B.H. Roberts

[Robert F. Smith]

Some other names that have been applied to people with these attitudes:

- Middle way Mormons

- Liberal Mormons

- Mormons in name only

- Cafeteria Mormons

Obviously some of these are self-adopted descriptions and others are labels assigned by others.

What about the New Order Mormons? (NOMS), and the Cultural Mormons?  Where do they fit in?

[JAHS]

A response I gave in the comments section:

 

"In other words you want the Mormon Church to become more secular, like many other Christian churches have done, pandering to the wants of the people rather than what God wants. If everythng on your list was followed you would lose a lot more members than you would gain. Even if your tens of thousands number was true it doesn't compare to the other millions who are not "progressive"."

[mfbukowski]

As much as I wish it were the LDS church is not progressive. Not does it welcome such things. I once thought maybe i could help it change. How foolish of me. It is a top down authoritarian dogmatics religion. One who agitates for change is likely to get kicked out . Just ask John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, the Calderwoods, Rock Waterman and others who are on their way to getting the boot. It does not matters if ypur agitation is liberal or more conservative. Challenging the status quo in the LDS Church is just not welcome. Put up or shut up. If you have issues but want to stay just be quiet and smile.

 

2Cor 6:

 

 

1We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

2(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

3Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: 4But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, 5In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; 6By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, 7By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, 8By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true; 9As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; 10As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

 

Dang.

 

I can't find the word "agitate" in there anywhere- can you?

[Robert F. Smith]

As much as I wish it were the LDS church is not progressive. Not does it welcome such things. I once thought maybe i could help it change. How foolish of me. It is a top down authoritarian dogmatics religion. One who agitates for change is likely to get kicked out . Just ask John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, the Calderwoods, Rock Waterman and others who are on their way to getting the boot. It does not matters if ypur agitation is liberal or more conservative. Challenging the status quo in the LDS Church is just not welcome. Put up or shut up. If you have issues but want to stay just be quiet and smile.

Then explain Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and Dieter Uchtdorf, please.  And then account for "eternal progression":

 

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, online at http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Eternal_Progression ,

 

The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, yet it is fundamental to the LDS worldview. The phrase "eternal progression" first occurs in the discourses of Brigham Young. It embodies many concepts taught by Joseph Smith, especially in his king follett discourse. It is based on the proposition that "there is no such thing as principle, power, wisdom, knowledge, life, position, or anything that can be imagined, that remains stationary-they must increase or decrease" (Young, JD 1:350).

[Robert F. Smith]

A response I gave in the comments section:

 

"In other words you want the Mormon Church to become more secular, like many other Christian churches have done, pandering to the wants of the people rather than what God wants. If everythng on your list was followed you would lose a lot more members than you would gain. Even if your tens of thousands number was true it doesn't compare to the other millions who are not "progressive"."

Silly me -- I thought that Mormonism was the most progressive religion by far, which is why it is the most successful.

[mfbukowski]

A response I gave in the comments section:

 

"In other words you want the Mormon Church to become more secular, like many other Christian churches have done, pandering to the wants of the people rather than what God wants. If everythng on your list was followed you would lose a lot more members than you would gain. Even if your tens of thousands number was true it doesn't compare to the other millions who are not "progressive"."

God loves secular people too, we just need to speak their language to convert them.

[mfbukowski]

Silly me -- I thought that Mormonism was the most progressive religion by far, which is why it is the most successful.

I wish we could teach Mormons what they had but they are stuck using the same old sectarian vocabulary which drives people away from the church instead of making them understand it.

 

We have the restored gospel but we still use all the same terminology as the sectarians and want to prove we are just like them.   Go figure.

[mfbukowski]

Then explain Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and Dieter Uchtdorf, please.  And then account for "eternal progression":

 

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, online at http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Eternal_Progression ,

 

The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, yet it is fundamental to the LDS worldview. The phrase "eternal progression" first occurs in the discourses of Brigham Young. It embodies many concepts taught by Joseph Smith, especially in his king follett discourse. It is based on the proposition that "there is no such thing as principle, power, wisdom, knowledge, life, position, or anything that can be imagined, that remains stationary-they must increase or decrease" (Young, JD 1:350).

You can't get more progressive than that!!

[JAHS]

God loves secular people too, we just need to speak their language to convert them.

Yes, but with the list that was presented it would be a difficult task. Some of those things are just not going to happen to their satisfaction.

[JAHS]

She adds a rather obscure quote from Elder Hugh B. Brown:

 

"I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent — if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression."

 

The subject of the entire talk is on science and religion and was directed at students in their efforts to learn new things in their academic life.

 

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/brown-final.php

[Avatar4321]

I read this article this morning and thought..finally a realistic an unbiased article in a Trib that everyone would agree with.  Silly me..I am really surprised.  I thought it was a good take..thorough and non threatening.  President Monson will need some inspiration here as to what the best way is to proceed in light of all the questions/observations in this article.  The church of course believes in this inspiration but there are some good points here in the reality of perceptions and demographics of its membership.

Why on earth should we expect president monson to have read the article let alone basing future preaching on it? I expect.him to be teaching by the spirit

[strappinglad]

Why on earth should we expect president monson to have read the article let alone basing future preaching on it? I expect.him to be teaching by the spirit

 Come now, we all know that President Monson has his ' minions' and that they read everything and report the slightest deviance from orthodox thought.

[Sleeper Cell]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2735147-155/op-ed-what-do-progressive-mormons-want

 

So according to this article progressives are less likely to accept:

(1) obedience to authority above personal inspiration

(2) the LDS Church's unique restoration claims

(3) literal interpretations of scripture

(4) strict traditional observances (i.e. Sabbath observance, modesty, tattoos, Word of Wisdom, etc.)

(5) the unquestioned authority of the leaders of the LDS Church.

 

and Progressives want the Church to:

1. Increase gender equality

2. Apologize for the racist past and mistreatment of LGBT members

3. Accept married gay couples at all levels

4. Permit members to openly question the authority, teachings and decisions of LDS Church leadership

5. Provide financial transparency in the use of tithes

6. Address the mistakes of polygamy and de-canonize Doctrine & Covenants 132

7. Teach the truth and troubling facts of church history (specifically surrounding Joseph Smith)

8. Speak openly of Heavenly Mother

9. Use tithes and offerings more to help the poor and needy and less on capital projects (temples, churches, commercial buildings, etc.)

10. Stop excommunicating people for openly questioning or expressing doubts

 

 

Sounds pretty much like the Community of Christ (RLDS) Church -- with the added advantage that they never accepted D&C 132, or made the “mistakes of polygamy” in the first place.  

[canard78]

Are the socalled New Order Mormons considered part of this group?

 

 

What about the New Order Mormons? (NOMS), and the Cultural Mormons?  Where do they fit in?

 

I'm not really sure what a "cultural mormon" is. Someone who believes none of it but goes for social/cultural reasons??

 

A New Order Mormon... yes, possibly. It's a broad catch-all name. Generally self-adopted I think rather than assigned. The NOM group define themselves as:

 

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

 

 

I would imagine someone who considers themselves a NOM would probably agree with a lot of the statements in the article. Often people move to a NOM attitude/approach because they no longer believe the core tenets of Mormonism but remain active because their relationship depends on it.

[BlueDreams]

i consider myself probably more of a progressive mormon, but much of these lists don't fit me....the less likely list does fairly well though

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2735147-155/op-ed-what-do-progressive-mormons-want

 

So according to this article progressives are less likely to accept:

(1) obedience to authority above personal inspiration Yep....if God tells me to do something, I follow him first

(2) the LDS Church's unique restoration claims No, still do

(3) literal interpretations of scripture Depends the topic

(4) strict traditional observances (i.e. Sabbath observance, modesty, tattoos, Word of Wisdom, etc.) I'm kinda all over on that one. My sabbath is distinctive and is a "day of rest", but I like watching nature docs while I cook,  play computer games,  read fiction, and painting/other activities I find enjoyable that I don't do enough of the rest of the week...does that count? WoW....either I'm more strict than usual or I'm not observing "right" because I'm vegetarian and eat very healthy (I still have x-mas candy). "Modesty" is hit or miss, but I'm not strict either way. 

(5) the unquestioned authority of the leaders of the LDS Church. Nope, not a fan of that.

 

and Progressives want the Church to:

1. Increase gender equality Yep, sounds good (may specify to gender equity)

2. Apologize for the racist past and mistreatment of LGBT members Don't really care as long as we rectify by moving forward and denouncing false teachings about said topics

3. Accept married gay couples at all levels Nope

4. Permit members to openly question the authority, teachings and decisions of LDS Church leadership Mixed feelings on that, But I'm guessing her outlook would differ from mine, so no.

5. Provide financial transparency in the use of tithes Don't really care either way. 

6. Address the mistakes of polygamy and de-canonize Doctrine & Covenants 132  No-ish

7. Teach the truth and troubling facts of church history (specifically surrounding Joseph Smith) yes-ish (gospel topics is good enough for me and I just don't care that much,....but it's not a terrible idea)

8. Speak openly of Heavenly Mother Yes! sounds great. Although having more revelation about Her would be a better start IMO

9. Use tithes and offerings more to help the poor and needy and less on capital projects (temples, churches, commercial buildings, etc.) Neutral on this one

10. Stop excommunicating people for openly questioning or expressing doubts That sounds like a loaded statement; so no.

 

1. Do you consider this article accurate - which points are and which points are not?

 

I think it's throwing too large of an umbrella mash several ideas and camps into one....that may or may not actually agree or have similar stance. So no, I don't think it's accurate...at least for me. 

2. Do you consider these ideas and ideals to be in keeping with the restored gospel and scripture and if not, what is the source of such ideas and ideals?

 

Some yes, some no. For example more revelation on HM follows the idea of learning line upon line and seeking answers/revelation from the Lord. So in the ball game. I think my less authoritative stance stems from feeling that, ideally, we are to be more self-regulated and seek out what we personally need for our circumstances. Not sure about the rest....besides I think I'd rather paint for the rest of the night...much more relaxing. My guess is that it correlates better with a specific subset of progressive mormons than all who may apply.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited July 20, 2015 by BlueDreams

[JAHS]

I'm not really sure what a "cultural mormon" is. Someone who believes none of it but goes for social/cultural reasons??

 

A New Order Mormon... yes, possibly. It's a broad catch-all name. Generally self-adopted I think rather than assigned. The NOM group define themselves as:

 

 

I would imagine someone who considers themselves a NOM would probably agree with a lot of the statements in the article. Often people move to a NOM attitude/approach because they no longer believe the core tenets of Mormonism but remain active because their relationship depends on it.

For some reason the following scripture comes to mind:

 

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Rev 3: 16-17)

Edited July 20, 2015 by JAHS

[mfbukowski]

Yes, but with the list that was presented it would be a difficult task. Some of those things are just not going to happen to their satisfaction.

"They" are individuals just as we are.  Some will, some won't but if we don't learn a new vocabulary none will.

[canard78]

For some reson the following scripture comes to mind:

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Rev 3: 16-17)

Having walked a "middle way" (give it any name you like) for several years, I can promise you there's nothing luke-warm about it at all. People in that kind of situation often study longer and wrestle more deeply than they ever did when more orthodox.

I put far more time and effort into my Gospel Principles lessons last year than I used to when teaching it several years earlier when I was more orthodox and more easily able to "wing it"

[Damien the Leper]

So are they saying the Church should accept gay marriage but say polygamy and eternal marriage and exaltation are wrong?   Right is wrong and wrong is right.  I say let them join the Community of Christ Church.  Much of what they are asking is already there.

And Community of Christ is growing as more Latter-day Seekers are drawn to the Covenant and the Mission Initiatives. Conversion to Community of Christ is less about progressiveness and more about a broadening and deepening relationship with Christ and His mission.

[mormonnewb]

Ummmm...no way.  I hope to live a long time, but I don't expect to ever live long enough to see members permitted to "openly question" the authority, teachings and decisions of LDS Church leadership.

 

Are you sure?  Didn't Elder Christofferson specifically say that members can openly support the legalization of gay marriage (even on social media) and not be subject to Church discipline?

 

http://www.religionnews.com/2015/03/17/mormons-free-back-gay-marriage-social-media-lds-apostle-says/

 

In fact, ever since the Supreme Court decision last month, my profile pic on FB has been a pink equal sign.  And I hate to admit it, but in the days following the decision, I did more than my fair share of "spiking the ball" on FB.  Now, it might just be a case of bishop roulette.  Or it might be the result of my unique privilege in this Church, but I see other members posting their agreement (and/or support) of SSM and even organizations/causes that the Church has explicitly given the "thumbs down" to.

 

Ordain Women comes to mind, most immediately.  Being a supporter (or even a board member) of OW will not automatically result in church discipline.  Of course, it sometimes does, so bishop roulette is still in play to some extent.  However, it does seem that "the long-awaited day has arrived"; at least, provided that you have a "cool" bishop/SP, and of course, you don't start a popular podcast and stay out of the New York Times.

Edited July 20, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Bobbieaware]

Having walked a "middle way" (give it any name you like) for several years, I can promise you there's nothing luke-warm about it at all. People in that kind of situation often study longer and wrestle more deeply than they ever did when more orthodox.

I put far more time and effort into my Gospel Principles lessons last year than I used to when teaching it several years earlier when I was more orthodox and more easily able to "wing it"

That's a clever response but likely an intentionally disingenuous and misleading one as well. Since you are an acknowledged lukewarm believer (if even that) in the LDS faith, it would seem to me the likely reason why you're spending extra time with the Gospel Principles lessons is because you're busy being hyper-critical and picking every single statement apart -- much like you do regularly right here on this board. So zealously cultivating a lukewarm and noncommittal attitude toward the LDS Church is not even in the same ballpark as being zealous, fervent and fully believing in the LDS Church. All the above being said, I'm open to correction if my analysis is wrong.

[Boanerges]

I consider myself progressive and agree with most of the first list. I am an active TR holding guy with a leadership calling. My bishop and my SP are very aware of my stance on many of these subjects, support for gay marriage civilly but not forcing any church to perform or recognize them, for instance. On the topic of gay marriage I'll say that our AA70 said pretty much the same thing in a leadership meeting not too long ago and reiterated Christofferson's point that it is OK for members to have that opinion. I think the columnist was attempting to give a general description of what constitutes a progressive Mormon, not a checklist of what a progressive Mormon must do or believe. In other words, there is not set of questions that goes something like "Do you believe in personal inspiration above obedience to authority?" in order to join the club (which doesn't exist). I think some of you might be surprised at how many might believe at least some of those things at that list.

 

The second list is a summary of a survey taken. I participate at NOM and StayLDS and I vaguely remember a similar survey some months ago on NOM but not StayLDS. Some of the data could be culled from posts on those and other sites, I suppose. Either way I don't believe all of those and I don't know anyone who does buy all of them (but there probably are some who do). I couldn't care less about financial transparency. I think the church in recent years has made moves toward gender equality and more involvement of women in decision making, I don't advocate for women receiving the priesthood (if and when God wants to do that). Again, I don;t think one needs to push a party agenda on all or any of those things to be considered progressive - the list was apparently derived from what some people believe.

[canard78]

That's a clever response but likely an intentionally disingenuous and misleading one as well. Since you are an acknowledged lukewarm believer (if even that) in the LDS faith, it would seem to me the likely reason why you're spending extra time with the Gospel Principles lessons is because you're busy being hyper-critical and picking every single statement apart -- much like you do regularly right here on this board. So zealously cultivating a lukewarm and noncommittal attitude toward the LDS Church is not even in the same ballpark as being zealous, fervent and fully believing in the LDS Church. All the above being said, I'm open to correction if my analysis is wrong.

You're quite the charmer aintcha Bobbie...

As for your assumptions about the nitpicking content of lessons, have a look for yourself. The actual lessons were more fluid with more questions and interaction but this illustrates the way I used the Gospel Principles manual and other LDS sources to make the lesson as engaging as possible while still feeling I was teaching in a way that was authentic to my faith.

For example, a lesson on agency:

http://manyotherhands.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-thoughtful-gospel-principles-chapter.html?m=1

And one on the atonement:

http://manyotherhands.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/a-thoughtful-gospel-principles-chapter.html?m=1

These were taught with my leader's full awareness and support of the approach I was taking.

And FWIW, my faith is not an "LDS faith" as you would define it. I don't have an LDS faith at all. I have beliefs and hopes, which form the basis for my faith, but they not defined by the LDS church or leaders, they're defined by personal spiritual experience and study.

[HappyJackWagon]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2735147-155/op-ed-what-do-progressive-mormons-want

 

So according to this article progressives are less likely to accept:

(1) obedience to authority above personal inspiration

(2) the LDS Church's unique restoration claims

(3) literal interpretations of scripture

(4) strict traditional observances (i.e. Sabbath observance, modesty, tattoos, Word of Wisdom, etc.)

(5) the unquestioned authority of the leaders of the LDS Church.

 

and Progressives want the Church to:

1. Increase gender equality

2. Apologize for the racist past and mistreatment of LGBT members

3. Accept married gay couples at all levels

4. Permit members to openly question the authority, teachings and decisions of LDS Church leadership

5. Provide financial transparency in the use of tithes

6. Address the mistakes of polygamy and de-canonize Doctrine & Covenants 132

7. Teach the truth and troubling facts of church history (specifically surrounding Joseph Smith)

8. Speak openly of Heavenly Mother

9. Use tithes and offerings more to help the poor and needy and less on capital projects (temples, churches, commercial buildings, etc.)

10. Stop excommunicating people for openly questioning or expressing doubts

 

So while I am very clearly NOT a progressive, I have two questions for the board:

1. Do you consider this article accurate - which points are and which points are not?

2. Do you consider these ideas and ideals to be in keeping with the restored gospel and scripture and if not, what is the source of such ideas and ideals?

 

There are a few that I can agree with, and quite a few that I vehemently disagree with.  So, discuss!

Thanks for sharing this JLHPROF. It's interesting to see the reactions on this board, from "yes, that sums it up" to "why don't they just leave and start their own church." (That's a nod to you Carbon Dioxide)

 

I actually find the list to be reasonable though there will naturally be diversity among progressives. I used to view that as a dirty word but now accept it.

 

1- Are we expected to accept things just because an authority has said it? What happens when different authorities disagree? I am responsible for my own actions and beliefs and will be unable to blame an "authority" for those areas where I am wrong so I should always seek my own inspiration and understanding. This will inevitably mean that I accept some things and reject others said by "authorities.

 

2 & 3- go hand in hand. Accepting a less literal version of scriptures and the truth claims in part of my experience though it will differ for others. When I recognize the fallibility of prophets and scribes and translators etc it seems only reasonable to expect that there will be error and a risk of accepting metaphor for literal/historical events. Flood, Jonah and the fish first vision (dream versus visitation) etc. There are very nuanced ways to view the truth claims and the scriptures. The truth is we all accept certain stories as non-literal. We just happen to disagree on some of those stories. Find me ANYONE who believes EVERY truth claim and every scriptural story as 100% literal/historical. I'll be shocked if you can find such a person. So this is simply a matter of degrees.

 

4- Strict obedience becomes less about being obedient to an authority and more about doing what I think is best for me and my family. I am my own authority in how I choose to keep the word of wisdom or keep the sabbath day holy etc. Instead of doing those things out of some sort of duty to be obedient, I now follow those faithfully because I believe it is good. So even though I don't see the WoW as any kind of eternal commandment but more of a church policy aimed at building a brand, I still keep it because it works for me and my family. Personally, I find this to be a thoughtful way to be faithful within the LDS community.

 

5- Unquestioned authority is dangerous. Every leader, no matter what their position in any organization should be humble enough to accept criticism and/or ideas for improvement. To think everything they do is God mandated is a silly notion to me.

 

To sum up what progressives or NOMs or whatever you want to call us, I'd say we want the church to be loving and open to all of God's children and recognize that we are all sinners. Therefore I am not better than you and you are not better than me. Christ is the source of salvation, not our works so diminishing some because their works (or sins) are different than yours is simply a manifestation of pride. For example, I don't see any reason to fight against legalized civil marriage for gays but that doesn't mean I require the church to accept gay temple marriage. those are 2 very different things.

 

 

I consider my current beliefs to be in keeping with my covenants to be a disciple of Christ. For years I lost sight of this and thought that obedience to the church was synonymous to faith in Christ. It wasn't.