jkwilliams Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: Clearly, it relates to this portion of your post: IOW, those people don't matter. I've really been surprised at how many people I have met who are, for want of a better term, "new order Mormons," in that they want to stay in the church for various reasons but don't really believe in it. I suppose they should matter to members and leaders because there are more of them out there than you might think. 2
mfbukowski Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 1 hour ago, USU78 said: I'm not sure "change the narrative" really sez what he meant. Certainly there's no challenge to the foundational truths every Mormon, to be a believing Mormon, accepts: G-d exists; the Master exists; both are charged with a self-appointed duty to make loving bond pairs with each human that chooses to accept ("Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee"); JSJr had his theophany; and a very few other things that I won't take the time to list here. Accordingly, I think "refine the narrative" or "streamline the narrative" or perhaps "simplify the narrative," getting rid of all that socioreligioAmerican stuff that the boobirds/bigots make so much hay out of. Those sound like "changes" to me. I have no problem with any of those characterizations 1
rockpond Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I've really been surprised at how many people I have met who are, for want of a better term, "new order Mormons," in that they want to stay in the church for various reasons but don't really believe in it. I suppose they should matter to members and leaders because there are more of them out there than you might think. It's a trend that I see (anecdotally) increasing. It's something that even my bishop has commented on (and I'm confident that he's not aware of NOM).
HappyJackWagon Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I've really been surprised at how many people I have met who are, for want of a better term, "new order Mormons," in that they want to stay in the church for various reasons but don't really believe in it. I suppose they should matter to members and leaders because there are more of them out there than you might think. Belief is a wide spectrum. Even among "TBM's" there is wide disparity between what people believe is orthodox or not. We see it on this board all the time. But there seems to be a difference if a person is unorthodox leaning liberal and unorthodox leaning conservative. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Belief is a wide spectrum. Even among "TBM's" there is wide disparity between what people believe is orthodox or not. We see it on this board all the time. But there seems to be a difference if a person is unorthodox leaning liberal and unorthodox leaning conservative. Indeed. It takes all kinds, doesn't it? I was invited to a monthly lunch for people in various stages of belief when we lived in Houston. It was a group of about maybe 15-20 people, nice folks all of them. This one woman would always order cocktails and complain about how much time church callings took away from her and her husband. A good friend told me she was in his ward. She was RS president, and her husband was in the bishopric. I didn't believe him, but the next time we had lunch, I asked her, and she confirmed it. I'm not sure why they were still active in the church because whenever they went on any kind of vacation, they ditched the garments and drank a lot. I still laugh that I used to sit with a guy in Sunday School and priesthood meeting, and my girls used to babysit for him. It wasn't until a few years ago that I found out he had been a closet unbeliever at the time, as I had been.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) 21 minutes ago, ttribe said: Clearly, it relates to this portion of your post: IOW, those people don't matter. The post, as you quoted, refers to "NuOrder Mormonism," the term that salgare used in his post to me, and one that I interpret to mean a movement, philosophy, pressure group or faction and one that is implicitly at odds with the official and doctrinal positions of the Church. Since I don't believe the Church, which is governed by God through revelation to prophets and apostles, is subject or vulnerable to pressure group tactics, I regard such a movement as irrelevant as it pertains to the progress and ongoing operation of the Church. I don't believe -- nor do I agree that my post gives the impression -- that "those people don't matter." Obviously, all are precious in the sight of God. I notice you evaded my question: Quote But I wonder what you think "the underground" means in this context. Again, it is salgare, not I, who used that term. It's your choice not to respond to it. I will merely point out that you did fail to respond. Edited July 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: It's a trend that I see (anecdotally) increasing. It's something that even my bishop has commented on (and I'm confident that he's not aware of NOM). I feel for those people. I lasted about 2 years trying to "fake it till I make it," but I couldn't do it. At some point you have to choose to live authentically. At least I did.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I feel for those people. I lasted about 2 years trying to "fake it till I make it," but I couldn't do it. At some point you have to choose to live authentically. At least I did. In those two years were you trying to pressure the Church into changing to suit your preferences?
rockpond Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: In those two years were you trying to pressure the Church into changing to suit your preferences? Aside from Ordain Women, are you aware of other organized attempts to change the church?
jkwilliams Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In those two years were you trying to pressure the Church into changing to suit your preferences? Nope. Why would I do that? If there's one thing I know, it's that no amount of "pressure" (whatever that means) I could mount would change the church in the tiniest degree. What a strange thing to say. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: Aside from Ordain Women, are you aware of other organized attempts to change the church? Oddly enough, I've consistently said that OW is based on a faulty assumption that church leaders make decisions based on input or pressure from "grass roots" organizations. They don't.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Nope. Why would I do that? If there's one thing I know, it's that no amount of "pressure" (whatever that means) I could mount would change the church in the tiniest degree. What a strange thing to say. Simmer down. I'm not accusing you. I'm just observing that you, in that sense, are apparently unlike some in salgare's so-called "NuOrder Mormonism" and its associated "underground." Why have an "underground" if your purpose is not to undermine or overturn the establishment? Edited July 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
stemelbow Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In those two years were you trying to pressure the Church into changing to suit your preferences? What's wrong with change? I thought reconstructing the narrative suggests change. If some outside group is so naughty they shouldn't considered because they want to see change, why aren't those players in the Church, perhaps even some who are top leaders, bad for working to change the overall narrative?
jkwilliams Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I'm just observing that you, in that sense, are unlike some in salgare's so-called "NuOrder Mormonism" and its associated underground. I don't know anyone who considers themselves to be "New Order" (I really dislike that term, btw, seems kind of pretentious) who is trying to pressure the church into changing. They stay for their own reasons, but none that I know are agitating for change. YMMV 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: Aside from Ordain Women, are you aware of other organized attempts to change the church? A movement can exist -- and be quite active -- more or less informally. It doesn't have to be "organized" in the sense that Ordain Women is -- staging theatrics, putting out press releases and otherwise drawing attention to themselves. Edited July 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Oddly enough, I've consistently said that OW is based on a faulty assumption that church leaders make decisions based on input or pressure from "grass roots" organizations. They don't. I would agree that there is no evidence of such. But our church leaders also don't operate in a vacuum. And challenges faced by the church often serve as the catalysts to further revelation.
jkwilliams Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: A movement can exist -- and be quite active -- more or less informally. It doesn't have to be "organized" in the sense that Ordain Women is -- staging theatrics, putting out press releases and otherwise drawing attention to themselves. I'm not seeing any kind of movement among the "new order" other than people who feel better knowing they're not alone in their "in the church but not of it" position.
jkwilliams Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 Just now, rockpond said: I would agree that there is no evidence of such. But our church leaders also don't operate in a vacuum. And challenges faced by the church often serve as the catalysts to further revelation. Sure, but challenges from within are usually seen as dissent and/or "ark steadying."
rockpond Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: A movement can exist -- and be quite active -- more or less informally. It doesn't have to be "organized" in the sense that Ordain Women is -- staging theatrics, putting out press releases and otherwise drawing attention to themselves. Okay... but you didn't really answer my question. In any case, I agree with JKWilliams that NOM isn't really an effort to change the church. Just a community centered around helping less-than-orthodox or non-believers find ways to stay in the church.
Gray Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I don't know anyone who considers themselves to be "New Order" (I really dislike that term, btw, seems kind of pretentious) who is trying to pressure the church into changing. They stay for their own reasons, but none that I know are agitating for change. YMMV I'm more of a Depeche Mode Mormon.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: Okay... but you didn't really answer my question. In any case, I agree with JKWilliams that NOM isn't really an effort to change the church. Just a community centered around helping less-than-orthodox or non-believers find ways to stay in the church. I think it goes beyond that, but as jkwilliams said, YMMV. By the way, I did answer your question by suggesting that, to exist, a movement does not have to look and act like Ordain Women. In fact, salgare's term "undergrounds" suggests operating under the radar. Edited July 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 1 minute ago, Gray said: I'm more of a Depeche Mode Mormon. But only on Blue Monday?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Sure, but challenges from within are usually seen as dissent and/or "ark steadying." And I think the Brethren over time have shown themselves to be fairly keen in their ability to distinguish between "challenges faced by the Church" and ark steadying -- and responding accordingly. Edited July 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Sure, but challenges from within are usually seen as dissent and/or "ark steadying." Definitely. This is why we see Dehlin/Kelly/Waterman/etc excommunicated whilst the Church simultaneously incorporates changes that were requested by those individuals.
jkwilliams Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: And I think the Brethren over time have shown themselves to be fairly keen in their ability to distinguish between "challenges faced by the Church" and ark steadying. Is there any kind of organized effort to change the church from within that would not be seen as "ark steadying"? I can't think of any.
Recommended Posts