Book Recommendation

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

I expected to get a variety of recommendations. I did read the link you provided from Ostler. I am not sure how to take this "we have no doctrine" perspective. Am I correct in understanding this as an opinion of some LDS folks and not official teaching?

Blake Ostler and others are famous for pointing out that the Mormon Church has no orthodox doctrine or theology, but rather orthopraxy -- orthodox practice.  Religion for the Mormons is belief in actu, as it was for several ancient religions.  Some religions talk the talk, while Mormons walk the walk.  For Mormons, religion is a way of life, not just Sunday go-to-meetin.

For the Roman Catholics, for example, there is the formal systematic theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, and for Protestants the extensive writings of Luther and Calvin.  Mormons have no systematic theology, and many deny it can even be done -- perhaps an artifact of continuing revelation.  Also, it has proved impossible to create a systematic biblical theology, since there are multiple theologies in the Bible.  Go figure.  There are also multiple theologies in the Book of Mormon, as I point out in my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH . .

Edited March 30, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

I expected to get a variety of recommendations. I did read the link you provided from Ostler. I am not sure how to take this "we have no doctrine" perspective. Am I correct in understanding this as an opinion of some LDS folks and not official teaching?

All we have are the "opinions of some LDS folks" based on their testimonies. Perhaps you do not understand the problem.  If it was official teaching, it would be "doctrinal" that we have no doctrine, and that would be contradictory.

The problem is what defines "doctrine" in a church which has no creeds and relies totally on personal revelation of each principle of faith.  I would suggest you read this article carefully and then try to summarize what the "doctrines actually are, and you will not be able to.  http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine

Quote

 

The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants use the word "doctrine" in the same way. In the singular it always refers to the "doctrine of Jesus Christ" or to the "points of his doctrine" and means "that which will ensure the salvation of those who accept and act upon it." In the plural, it refers to the false teachings of devils or others (2 Ne. 3:12;28:9; D&C 46:7). The Book of Mormon uses "doctrine" in this special sense as the "doctrine of Jesus Christ" or the gospel (twenty-eight times). Jesus attributed his teaching to the Father: "This is my doctrine,…that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God" (3 Ne. 11:32-33). Later he declared, "This is the gospel which I have given unto you-that I came into the world to do the will of the Father,…and my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; …that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before the Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world" (3 Ne. 27:13-16; cf. D&C 76:40-42).

Thus, the "doctrine of Jesus Christ" is the only teaching that can properly be called "doctrine." It is fixed and unchanging. It cannot be modified or contradicted, but merely amplified as additional truths that deepen understanding and appreciation of its meaning are revealed. It is the basis on which the test of faith is made, and the rock or foundation of all other revealed teachings, principles, and practices.

Some of these other teachings comprise what is sometimes referred to as the Plan of Salvation, which is understood as the larger historical setting in which the "doctrine of Jesus Christ" is situated and hence best understood. This is the plan worked out by the Father from the beginning, centering on the Atonement of Jesus Christ as the necessary means by which all individuals are saved and exalted. All other revealed teachings are either aspects of the doctrine of Jesus Christ or extensions, elaborations, or appendages of it. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended unto heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" (TPJS, p. 121).

 

It's ok, it is hard to understand I suppose.  You will not understand it until you start asking questions about doctrine and everyone tells you "we don't believe that"

You will see soon enough. You will get an argument on any "doctrine" beyond the above.

THIS is the central point Evangelicals never seem to understand.  Evangelical critics continually say "but you believe thus and so" to be met with the reply "no, we don't" because some do believe the principle and others do not, OR the belief is highly nuanced,  and they miss the nuances. There are several threads right now on this forum where that is happening.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Blake Ostler and others are famous for pointing out that the Mormon Church has no orthodox doctrine or theology, but rather orthopraxy -- orthodox practice.  Religion for the Mormons is belief in actu, as it was for several ancient religions.  Some religions talk the talk, while Mormons walk the walk.  For Mormons, religion is a way of life, not just Sunday go-to-meetin.

For the Roman Catholics, for example, there is the formal systematic theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, and for Protestants the extensive writings of Luther and Calvin.  Mormons have no systematic theology, and many deny it can even be done -- perhaps an artifact of continuing revelation.  Also, it has proved impossible to create a systematic biblical theology, since there are multiple theologies in the Bible.  Go figure.  There are also multiple theologies in the Book of Mormon, as I point out in my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH . .

 

 

Systematic theologies by definition rely on philosophy, and we eschew "the philosophies of men".  All we have is scripturally based.  The reason is that Luther or Calvin wrote "theology" but  since they did not assume the role of "prophet" they automatically defined what they wrote as "theology" rather than scripture.

Our great "founding theologian" was Joseph Smith who wrote "scripture", so automatically what we believe is based on "scripture" and not "theology" because we have defined our foujder, Joseph, differently than other groups.

I point this out here here: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

and quote Teryl Givens as follows:

Quote

In the first generation of the Mormon Church, the picture is especially complicated, for several reasons. First is because Smith hated dogma and tests of orthodoxy. A revelation declared him “a seer, translator, and prophet,” but his calling as a prophet was some years morphing into the virtual office of Prophet. (The first was a function of his revelatory experience; the second was an institutionally defined position in an ecclesiastical hierarchy.) Joseph Smith was as likely to promote openness as to exert his authority. He severely rebuked his own brother Hyrum for performing unauthorized rituals. But in another case, he “did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine” when a council met to discipline Pelatiah Brown for speculating on the meaning of portions of the book of Revelation. “It looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” … A popular joke has more than a hint of truth to it that Catholics espouse papal infallibility, but no Catholic believes in it. Joseph Smith espoused prophetic fallibility, but no Mormon believes in it. (18–19)

 

[Steve Noel]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

You should read this first, it will provide a good framework to place the other stuff you read in.  Make sure it is the most current one.

I did not know there was a "most current one." I will have to see. Thanks.

[Steve Noel]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

All we have are the "opinions of some LDS folks" based on their testimonies. Perhaps you do not understand the problem.  If it was official teaching, it would be "doctrinal" that we have no doctrine, and that would be contradictory.

The problem is what defines "doctrine" in a church which has no creeds and relies totally on personal revelation of each principle of faith.  I would suggest you read this article carefully and then try to summarize what the "doctrines actually are, and you will not be able to.  http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine

It's ok, it is hard to understand I suppose.  You will not understand it until you start asking questions about doctrine and everyone tells you "we don't believe that"

You will see soon enough. You will get an argument on any "doctrine" beyond the above.

THIS is the central point Evangelicals never seem to understand.  Evangelical critics continually say "but you believe thus and so" to be met with the reply "no, we don't" because some do believe the principle and others do not, OR the belief is highly nuanced,  and they miss the nuances. There are several threads right now on this forum where that is happening.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. This perspective is new to me. I will read through the link you provided. Part of what I'm trying to understand here is how much weight to give to the writings of LDS scholars and apologists. I went to Mormon.org and asked the missionaries about this perspective on Mormons having no doctrine. They told me it was misinformation and that what Ostler said was irrelevant. They then said the General Authorities and the Scriptures are the authorized source of LDS doctrine. They pointed me to the Gospel Topics essays at LDS.org and told me about the upcoming General Conference. To an outsider it appears that there are different "Mormonisms" within the LDS church. I recently read THIS long blog post by Dr. Roger E. Olson on his meetings with BYU scholars. He seems to imply that there is "official" Mormonism, BYU Mormonism, and lay Mormonism. I think this is what I'm trying to figure out.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Boanerges]

I might recommend Wrestling the Angel by Terryl Givens.

Asking the missionaries a question like that is interesting. No disrespect intended, I served and I have two sons who have served. We really can't expect 18-year-olds to have a true understanding of the gospel, the church, or where the two intersect. Their purpose is to convert people to the church, most of them only knowing what they have been taught without actually researching for themselves. I'm not surprised at their answer, but they will learn later in life that there are many different beliefs within Mormonism and I think that's the way Joseph Smith intended it to be. It's very hard to say "we believe" about very much, even the Articles of Faith which all start with that phrase - and that's partly because they are a bit vague and allow me to believe in some characteristics of God (for instance) while my neighbor might have a very different view (and yet we're both temple recommend holding Mormons).

Edited March 30, 2016 by Boanerges
fixed typo

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I expected to get a variety of recommendations. I did read the link you provided from Ostler. I am not sure how to take this "we have no doctrine" perspective. Am I correct in understanding this as an opinion of some LDS folks and not official teaching?

"We have no doctrine" has become a catch phrase for some individuals is my opinion of its use.  The Church has definite doctrines, yet it does not have a catechism or a specific body that independently determines doctrines and publishes their decrees.  We have no list of all doctrines taught or to be believed by members.  By independent the intent is to distinguish a group separate from the prophet and apostles who are empowered to define doctrine and reveal revelation on behalf of the Church itself.  The individual disciple of Jesus Christ must expand their knowledge of Jesus Christ and never stop in learning truth.  How can one limit truth and doctrine?

I agree with others that Robinson & Blomberg's "How Wide the Divide?" is a good place to start.  It sets the stage for the additional books for an Evangelical.  

Oh, that we could each real all the books that we would like.  There are so many from such a vast array of sources.  It is great to create lists and work at checking them off.  

Edited March 30, 2016 by Storm Rider

[volgadon]

Having no doctrine does not mean that we do not have things that we believe as a body. Confusingly, we even use the term doctrine quite a bit. There is even a book with that title which is now waning in popularity. The author, Bruce R. McConkie, got into hot water for the unsanctioned use of such an authoritarian title as it created the impression the opinions inside were how and what members should believe.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

What do you think of Millet? I actually have purchased several books from him. I also have a DVD where he does a discussion on theology with an evangelical pastor, Greg Johnson.

Briefly stated, Millet is a rock star to me. I would heartily recommend anything he has written.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I did not know there was a "most current one." I will have to see. Thanks.

It was revised several years ago.

The up-to-date version is accessible for free at lds.org.

If you have an iPhone or other mobile device, you should consider downloading the free app Gospel Library. It gives free access to most of the written content published directly by the Church. And there is a ton, including the scriptural standard works, lesson manuals and the periodicals going back to the early '70s.

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. This perspective is new to me. I will read through the link you provided. Part of what I'm trying to understand here is how much weight to give to the writings of LDS scholars and apologists. I went to Mormon.org and asked the missionaries about this perspective on Mormons having no doctrine. They told me it was misinformation and that what Ostler said was irrelevant. They then said the General Authorities and the Scriptures are the authorized source of LDS doctrine. They pointed me to the Gospel Topics essays at LDS.org and told me about the upcoming General Conference. To an outsider it appears that there are different "Mormonisms" within the LDS church. I recently read THIS long blog post by Dr. Roger E. Olson on his meetings with BYU scholars. He seems to imply that there is "official" Mormonism, BYU Mormonism, and lay Mormonism. I think this is what I'm trying to figure out.

I suggest you read your own post above which exactly summarizes the issue.

Pretend you did not write it, and draw your own conclusions.  Missionaries are babies in the gospel, children. Remember we have NO trained ministers and do not want any.

Three categories do not come close.  How about 15 million categories?  Again, remember that each principle should be verified by each member through personal revelation.  How many personal revelations would agree?

There are basic tenets which get defused around the edges.  That is what Joseph wanted, and that is what it should be.

Behave as a Mormon and live the lifestyle- THAT is what it is.

In fact think of everyone who calls themselves "Christian" and whom you would classify as such.  There is little uniformity of belief there- virtually none. Every congregation differes and that is why many go around searching for a church to join- these being a littl too much of one doctrine others being too much of another.  

Every Evangelical differs as much as every Mormon about the fine points.  It should be no mystery.

Edited March 30, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

  The Church has definite doctrines, yet it does not have a catechism or a specific body that independently determines doctrines and publishes their decrees.  We have no list of all doctrines taught or to be believed by members.  By independent the intent is to distinguish a group separate from the prophet and apostles who are empowered to define doctrine and reveal revelation on behalf of the Church itself.  The individual disciple of Jesus Christ must expand their knowledge of Jesus Christ and never stop in learning truth.  How can one limit truth and doctrine?

 

Great post, and read it carefully.

"We have doctrine, but no list of beliefs (doctrine) and each member must expand their knowledge without limit".

In other words, we do not have "doctrine".

[Storm Rider]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Great post, and read it carefully.

"We have doctrine, but no list of beliefs (doctrine) and each member must expand their knowledge without limit".

In other words, we do not have "doctrine".

Do we teach anything about Jesus Christ?  Do we teach anything about the atonement?  Do we teach anything about priesthood?  Do we teach anything about scriptures?  Do we teach anything about the Plan of Salvation?  We have no doctrine?  Surely you jest! 

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I picked this up from a book swap site a few years ago. I haven't read it though. Thanks.

So much of Mormonism has its origins in Joseph Smith's teachings.  Many things that aren't even specified in scripture.

Books like Gospel Principles provide the summation of current teachings.  But those teachings frequently had their origin in Joseph's sermons, not just in his revelations as in the D&C.

I honestly think that the first step after the scriptures that anyone wanting to understand Mormonism should take is to study the best collections of Joseph's teachings.  Pretty much everything in Mormonism came either straight out of scripture or from his teachings.
Almost everything subsequent was reiteration or clarification of those things.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. This perspective is new to me. I will read through the link you provided. Part of what I'm trying to understand here is how much weight to give to the writings of LDS scholars and apologists. I went to Mormon.org and asked the missionaries about this perspective on Mormons having no doctrine. They told me it was misinformation and that what Ostler said was irrelevant. They then said the General Authorities and the Scriptures are the authorized source of LDS doctrine. They pointed me to the Gospel Topics essays at LDS.org and told me about the upcoming General Conference. To an outsider it appears that there are different "Mormonisms" within the LDS church. I recently read THIS long blog post by Dr. Roger E. Olson on his meetings with BYU scholars. He seems to imply that there is "official" Mormonism, BYU Mormonism, and lay Mormonism. I think this is what I'm trying to figure out.

Olson's essay is ok but misses a lot of nuances and missuses terms etc.  It is clearly an outsider perspective

Mc Conkie's "Mormon Doctrine" should not be considered a source- it was never authorized by the church.

Furthermore, in my circles, the word "Christian" is considered as having been stolen by Evangelicalism and most I know of no longer care if Evangelicals consider us "Christian" or not. 

In our opinion, the word no longer means what it should mean.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I did not know there was a "most current one." I will have to see. Thanks.

It is online.  It focuses more on scripture for supportive quotes and removes some of the speculation in the previous text.  It has been out since 2006 or so iirc.  It is also in my opinion better written, removing redundancies for example, but that in itself is not why you should use it, just a nice benefit of using it.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

I would highly recommend starting with Matthew Bowman's The Mormon People.  It is a great overview of Mormonism written in 2012 for a general audience by a very talented scholar.  http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-People-Making-American-Faith/dp/081298336X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459356511&sr=1-1&keywords=the+mormon+people

I would also recommend Brian Whitney's web site, http://mormonismincontext.org/  Great resource and overview of the history of Mormonism.   

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Do we teach anything about Jesus Christ?  Do we teach anything about the atonement?  Do we teach anything about priesthood?  Do we teach anything about scriptures?  Do we teach anything about the Plan of Salvation?  We have no doctrine?  Surely you jest! 

OK good point.  But those are broad categories, and I can point to many beliefs in those categories about which we have no defined beliefs whatsoever.

It was not my intent to argue about it.  The point is that many of those beliefs are not considered "doctrinal" in each category, and there is no way to arbitrate whether or not the point IS or is not doctrinal.

Olson's essay mentions the famous couplet by Snow and says it is not "doctrinal".  Is it or not?  Do we know much about it or preach it?

Evangelicals flip out at the doctrine of exaltation.  Is it doctrinal or not?

Don't bother to answer those questions- they were rhetorical.  Just think of the Hinckley interview.  Very confusing.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

...................................................... Part of what I'm trying to understand here is how much weight to give to the writings of LDS scholars and apologists. I went to Mormon.org and asked the missionaries about this perspective on Mormons having no doctrine. They told me it was misinformation and that what Ostler said was irrelevant.

Bear in mind that those young men have never heard of Ostler, much less read him, and they would not be allowed to while on their missions.  They have no idea what he is saying.  However, your reference to them does raise another title which you would find very helpful:  Preach My Gospel (LDS Church, 2004), which is the main source for LDS missionary work.  You can find it free online at https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1WPDB_enUS505US505&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=preach my gospel pdf .

They then said the General Authorities and the Scriptures are the authorized source of LDS doctrine. They pointed me to the Gospel Topics essays at LDS.org and told me about the upcoming General Conference. To an outsider it appears that there are different "Mormonisms" within the LDS church. I recently read THIS long blog post by Dr. Roger E. Olson on his meetings with BYU scholars. He seems to imply that there is "official" Mormonism, BYU Mormonism, and lay Mormonism. I think this is what I'm trying to figure out.

There is no "official" Mormonism, even though all of us have our own opinions on what it might be (if we could tie it down).  Only by the power of the Holy Spirit can you know what Mormonism really is in a general way, or even in particular issues about which you have prayed.

 

[Storm Rider]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

OK good point.  But those are broad categories, and I can point to many beliefs in those categories about which we have no defined beliefs whatsoever.

It was not my intent to argue about it.  The point is that many of those beliefs are not considered "doctrinal" in each category, and there is no way to arbitrate whether or not the point IS or is not doctrinal.

Olson's essay mentions the famous couplet by Snow and says it is not "doctrinal".  Is it or not?  Do we know much about it or preach it?

Evangelicals flip out at the doctrine of exaltation.  Is it doctrinal or not?

Don't bother to answer those questions- they were rhetorical.  Just think of the Hinckley interview.  Very confusing.

I don't think we are arguing, but we may be speaking past one another.  The Church is not a fount of unending doctrine addressing all points from beginning to end as other churches have in their catechism.  The Church has bedrock, or foundational doctrines.  Beyond that point the Church may teach some things as doctrine, but not require them of its membership.  In this context I think we agree completely with one another.  We preach Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected can in many ways be are most fundamental teaching because it opens the door to so many other doctrines and teachings.  The door to doctrine is open and is not closed or limited in any way.

[Nevo]

7 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I went to Mormon.org and asked the missionaries about this perspective on Mormons having no doctrine. They told me it was misinformation and that what Ostler said was irrelevant. They then said the General Authorities and the Scriptures are the authorized source of LDS doctrine.

The missionaries aren't wrong. My advice is to look at what the Church itself teaches, rather than relying on the pronouncements of message board gadflies like mfbukowski (whose views often fall well outside of mainstream Mormonism).

Mormon youth and young adults receive 4–8 years of religious instruction in the 9 basic doctrines outlined here: https://www.lds.org/manual/basic-doctrines/basic-doctrines?lang=eng. These doctrines are reinforced in Sunday classes that use the Come, Follow Me curriculum. Church educators are charged with teaching "the doctrines and principles of the gospel as found in the scriptures and the words of the prophets," so Mormons do have doctrine.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Nevo

[cinepro]

13 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I expected to get a variety of recommendations. I did read the link you provided from Ostler. I am not sure how to take this "we have no doctrine" perspective. Am I correct in understanding this as an opinion of some LDS folks and not official teaching?

Read the quote in my signature.

The problem isn't that we have no "doctrine".  The problem is that most LDS believe they should believe all LDS Doctrine (because Doctrine is partly defined as something that is "true", so obviously we should believe something that is "true"), but then there are certain things that look like they are Doctrines, but to some people are obviously not true.

So we're faced with either not believing a true Doctrine, or reclassifying what looks like a Doctrine into something else (usually "policy", "teaching", "tradition" or "fallible opinion".)  Multiply this by every LDS who thinks certain Doctrines aren't true, and you end up with very few things about which it could be said that all LDS agree are Doctrines.

 

Regarding specific book recommendations, if you want to know about the LDS Church and its teachings in 2016, I would avoid historical books about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  Their teachings are the seeds of what we teach and do now, but you have to be able to connect the dots (the same is true for the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price).  Millet's books are probably the best as far as being written specifically for a non-LDS audience. 

But if you want to read what LDS ourselves read to learn and teach the Doctrine, then the Gospel Principles manual is probably the best (and most authoritative) place to start, and then explore subjects that you find interesting in more depth elsewhere.  It shows how current LDS leaders interpret the scriptures and teachings of past prophets on specific subjects:

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

 

7 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. This perspective is new to me. I will read through the link you provided. Part of what I'm trying to understand here is how much weight to give to the writings of LDS scholars and apologists. I went to Mormon.org and asked the missionaries about this perspective on Mormons having no doctrine. They told me it was misinformation and that what Ostler said was irrelevant. They then said the General Authorities and the Scriptures are the authorized source of LDS doctrine. They pointed me to the Gospel Topics essays at LDS.org and told me about the upcoming General Conference. To an outsider it appears that there are different "Mormonisms" within the LDS church. I recently read THIS long blog post by Dr. Roger E. Olson on his meetings with BYU scholars. He seems to imply that there is "official" Mormonism, BYU Mormonism, and lay Mormonism. I think this is what I'm trying to figure out.

If it makes you feel better, insiders also see different "Mormonisms" within the LDS Church.  Until the internet came along, "official" Mormonism was really the only voice, but now the "BYU Mormons" and "lay Mormons" all have a voice on discussion boards like this one, which is what makes it so fun (as long as you aren't looking for consistency).

[Kevin Christensen]

16 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

If it makes you feel better, insiders also see different "Mormonisms" within the LDS Church.  Until the internet came along, "official" Mormonism was really the only voice, but now the "BYU Mormons" and "lay Mormons" all have a voice on discussion boards like this one, which is what makes it so fun (as long as you aren't looking for consistency).

Before the internet there was a such a thing as Dialogue, Sunstone, The 7th East Press, samizdat, Xerox, Fawn Brodie, Sam Taylor, the Lost Generation writers, libraries, bound periodicals, used bookstores, the Tanners, Hugh Nibley, the Swearing Elders, and normal human and cultural diversity.  If you look you can even see such things as conflicts between Joseph Smith and Cowdery, Hiram Page and his little stone, a rich tradition of controversial literature etc.  The internet made some things easier to find, and made publishing much easier, and angst easier to broadcast, but the diversity has always been there.  On that topic, see People of Paradox by Terryl Givens, 

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Before the internet there was a such a thing as Dialogue, Sunstone, The 7th East Press, samizdat, Xerox, Fawn Brodie, Sam Taylor, the Lost Generation writers, libraries, bound periodicals, used bookstores, the Tanners, Hugh Nibley, the Swearing Elders, and normal human and cultural diversity.  If you look you can even see such things as conflicts between Joseph Smith and Cowdery, Hiram Page and his little stone, a rich tradition of controversial literature etc.  The internet made some things easier to find, and made publishing much easier, and angst easier to broadcast, but the diversity has always been there.  On that topic, see People of Paradox by Terryl Givens, 

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I didn't say those things didn't exist, I was only pointing out that they weren't a "voice" in the Church.  30 years of Sunstone and Dialogue weren't enough to get the Church to write the essays.  It was the internet that did that.

 

But the biggest difference is that in the pre-internet era, all those things were underground, and on the fringe.  The internet is giving voice to people with unconventional views who express them unreservedly alongside their insistence that they are still "faithful LDS".