"ProgMormons"

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The term I used was "political." It makes a difference.

I don't think it does.  The Church is not reasonably described as being "by definition political."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think it does.  The Church is not reasonably described as being "by definition political."

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh it is, a church is political, in general. A church deals with the organisation of power between people. Of course, it does not always involve public government, but churches including the LDS church have done so at critical periods. Even when they do not represent public government, they do generally stake claim at a government of what is believed to be a kingdom, even if it is only a spiritual kingdom.

To me, growing up LDS, it was this spiritual government which was axiomatic and to which all other governments had any hope of validity, contingent upon their righteousness. The US government, for example, is believed to be made possible by God and for the purpose of making the Restoration and church, or the government of God on earth, possible. And it is believed that eventually the world will be reclaimed by one government with Christ returning to be its head in person.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

I don't think it does.  The Church is not reasonably described as being "by definition political."

Oh it is, a church is political, in general.

Not in any normative sense of the word.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

A church deals with the organisation of power between people.

Seems like you're equivocating.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course, it does not always involve public government, but churches including the LDS church have done so at critical periods.

I acknowledge that the early days of the Church enmeshed civil and ecclesiastical authority in some ways.  But that hasn't been the case for a very long time.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Even when they do not represent public government, they do generally stake claim at a government of what is believed to be a kingdom, even if it is only a spiritual kingdom.

Again, seems like you're equivocating and/or misusing the term "political."

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

To me, growing up LDS, it was this spiritual government which was axiomatic and to which all other governments had any hope of validity, contingent upon their righteousness.

I don't know what this means.  The Church governs itself.  That's all. It is not "political" in any normative sense of the word.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

The US government, for example, is believed to be made possible by God and for the purpose of making the Restoration and church, or the government of God on earth, possible.

Yes.  The US Government is "political."

The Church, however, is not.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

And it is believed that eventually the world will be reclaimed by one government with Christ returning to be its head in person.

Eventually, but not now.  In any meaningful sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Islander]

On 7/28/2016 at 8:25 AM, jkwilliams said:

This morning I was greeted with a Facebook birthday notification for a woman I have known since my days at the BYU Reading/Writing Lab and the English MA program there. Sadly, she passed away almost 2 years ago, leaving a husband and two boys. She died a faithful member of the church.

It struck me that she was always what some around here call a "progressive Mormon" or "progMormon." She definitely was much more politically liberal than I have ever been. She was a feminist who struggled with the role of women in the church, and she once caused a minor uproar in a literary theory class by saying that the only way women could exercise any authority in the church was to "strap on a plastic penis." Reading some of her old Facebook posts, I note that she supported Ordain Women, was pro-choice, and supported equal rights for gays and lesbians. But she loved the church and was a temple worker who repeatedly expressed her joy at doing temple ordinances. Her boys were/are active in Scouting and priesthood activities, and she looked forward to their serving missions someday.

I thought of how some people consider such "progressive Mormons" as pretty much the same as apostates. I find that hard to reconcile with the faith she showed so much and so constantly. I'm not asking for personal judgments of her or me or anyone else, but I'm trying to make sense of why otherwise faithful members are often condemned and ridiculed because they seek change in the church. Either way, she was a wonderful woman, and I miss her.

I had a friend in that category that since has left the Church. I suggest that some members allow themselves to be unduly influenced by the political and ideological current prevailing in the world at large rather than remain close to the word of the Lord. 

I Romans 13:1-2 we read: ”Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

Whatever upheaval, social engineering, trend or fad the world decides to try, God will not be moved by it. Whatever changes take place in the Church are inspired by revelation and not for political expedience. At the end, they find themselves swallowed up by the ideology of the world and surrendering their faith in exchange for, really nothing. 

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,” Rom 1:21-22

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not in any normative sense of the word.

Seems like you're equivocating.

I acknowledge that the early days of the Church enmeshed civil and ecclesiastical authority in some ways.  But that hasn't been the case for a very long time.

Again, seems like you're equivocating and/or misusing the term "political."

I don't know what this means.  The Church governs itself.  That's all. It is not "political" in any normative sense of the word.

Yes.  The US Government is "political."

The Church, however, is not.

Eventually, but not now.  In any meaningful sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well in my orthodox LDS beliefs it was deeply political. The most important things are...the gospel is. Coming from that perspective, it's hard to say progressived have made it so. Mormonism made itself so.

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/14/2020 at 2:42 PM, Islander said:

I had a friend in that category that since has left the Church. I suggest that some members allow themselves to be unduly influenced by the political and ideological current prevailing in the world at large rather than remain close to the word of the Lord. 

 

A lot of people get caught up in the politics or other issues of the day that they lose perspective.  All of it is temporal. In the spirit world, there are no republicans or democrats or Americans or Italians. There are no immigration, tax, or other issues many of us that focus so much time on.  All of those issues have no application in the spirit world.  I wonder what those who spent their lives hyperfocused  on these temporal issues will do when they die.  All the issues they cared about are no longer relevant.  They must exist with a huge void as spirits as all that they cared about has vanished away.

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/14/2020 at 3:19 PM, Meadowchik said:

Well in my orthodox LDS beliefs it was deeply political. The most important things are...the gospel is. Coming from that perspective, it's hard to say progressived have made it so. Mormonism made itself so.

Is this how you are using “political?” From Lexico (Oxford)....

4derogatory Relating to, affecting, or acting according to the interests of status or authority within an organization rather than matters of principle.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is this how you are using “political?” From Lexico (Oxford)....

4derogatory Relating to, affecting, or acting according to the interests of status or authority within an organization rather than matters of principle.

Not really. I don't think of the meaning in a derogatory sense. Personally, I am drawing from a definition taught to me decades ago as a student. It was about politics being about the relations between people, about how we manage interactions in social contexts. It is obviously a very broad meaning of the word but is also consistent with much of its use. "Office politics" is a common example of it. 

Mormonism began with the founding of a church, which is in essence a gathering of believers united under a specific set of politics, not in the sense that SMAC described above as "normative," but in the sense of human beings having a system that organises the way they relate to each other. These progressive Mormons are simply employing well-understood values used often in a liberal politics context. Yet, interestingly, liberal politics can often align pretty well with Christian values. And so using language that intersects with both can be a genuine and in good faith effort to engage in Mormonism's cultural language.

[Rain]

On 5/14/2020 at 1:42 PM, Islander said:

I had a friend in that category that since has left the Church. I suggest that some members allow themselves to be unduly influenced by the political and ideological current prevailing in the world at large rather than remain close to the word of the Lord. 

I Romans 13:1-2 we read: ”Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

Whatever upheaval, social engineering, trend or fad the world decides to try, God will not be moved by it. Whatever changes take place in the Church are inspired by revelation and not for political expedience. At the end, they find themselves swallowed up by the ideology of the world and surrendering their faith in exchange for, really nothing. 

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,” Rom 1:21-22

This happens with those in the "conservative" direction as well.

And just because one person who is progressive and follows the "fads of the world" (or conservative and follows the "fads of the world") leaves the church dosen't mean they all will.

Those who are humble and follow either progressive or conservative fads of the world will eventually learn better.

Unless I missed it, this woman JKWilliams mentioned was still strong in her faith when she died and taught her children to be that way as well.  

[Kenngo1969]

I like what Elder (now President) Dallin H. Oaks is reported to have said once: He said that he sees some truth in liberalism and some truth in conservatism, but no salvation in any of them.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Not really. I don't think of the meaning in a derogatory sense. Personally, I am drawing from a definition taught to me decades ago as a student. It was about politics being about the relations between people, about how we manage interactions in social contexts. It is obviously a very broad meaning of the word but is also consistent with much of its use. "Office politics" is a common example of it. 

Mormonism began with the founding of a church, which is in essence a gathering of believers united under a specific set of politics, not in the sense that SMAC described above as "normative," but in the sense of human beings having a system that organises the way they relate to each other. These progressive Mormons are simply employing well-understood values used often in a liberal politics context. Yet, interestingly, liberal politics can often align pretty well with Christian values. And so using language that intersects with both can be a genuine and in good faith effort to engage in Mormonism's cultural language.

Seems like you are using this, then....(from Oxford Lexico)....?

1.3Activities within an organization that are aimed at improving someone's status or position and are typically considered to be devious or divisive. ‘yet another discussion of office politics and personalities’

Edited May 18, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Seems like you are using this, then....(from Oxford Lexico)....?

1.3Activities within an organization that are aimed at improving someone's status or position and are typically considered to be devious or divisive. ‘yet another discussion of office politics and personalities’

Not quite. 

[Islander]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

This happens with those in the "conservative" direction as well.

And just because one person who is progressive and follows the "fads of the world" (or conservative and follows the "fads of the world") leaves the church dosen't mean they all will.

Those who are humble and follow either progressive or conservative fads of the world will eventually learn better.

Unless I missed it, this woman JKWilliams mentioned was still strong in her faith when she died and taught her children to be that way as well.  

It is a very fine line. Imagine that a a member of the Church begins to feel antagonistic and frustrated with Church doctrine and policy. There is very little room there for a dissenting opinion if, as most believe, the Church is led by living prophets and revelation. If you find yourself on the other side of truth you are indeed walking on quick sand. 

What I saw, in the case of my former friend, was that she began to drift away from the main stream of the Church. And she started to associate (on line and in person) with peoples and ideas that pulled her further and further away; taking on issues and strident positions that were completely opposed to Church's teaching. It was a long process that took years, but eventually she thought it impossible to bridge the ideological gap and eventually left. That is likely the outcome when we begin to think we know better than the Lord's anointed. 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

It is a very fine line. Imagine that a a member of the Church begins to feel antagonistic and frustrated with Church doctrine and policy. There is very little room there for a dissenting opinion if, as most believe, the Church is led by living prophets and revelation. If you find yourself on the other side of truth you are indeed walking on quick sand. 

What I saw, in the case of my former friend, was that she began to drift away from the main stream of the Church. And she started to associate (on line and in person) with peoples and ideas that pulled her further and further away; taking on issues and strident positions that were completely opposed to Church's teaching. It was a long process that took years, but eventually she thought it impossible to bridge the ideological gap and eventually left. That is likely the outcome when we begin to think we know better than the Lord's anointed. 

Yes, but this doesn't have anything to specifically do with being progressive.  Conservatives have this problem as well. 

[Islander]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Yes, but this doesn't have anything to specifically do with being progressive.  Conservatives have this problem as well. 

I guess it is possible. But the thread was about "ProgMormons", so called, in this case. Such as the ones that hold views that are outside the current teaching and doctrine of the Church influenced by current "progressive" politics and ideology. I don't know what a "conservative" would look like in this context.

[BlueDreams]

On 5/18/2020 at 6:31 PM, Islander said:

I guess it is possible. But the thread was about "ProgMormons", so called, in this case. Such as the ones that hold views that are outside the current teaching and doctrine of the Church influenced by current "progressive" politics and ideology. I don't know what a "conservative" would look like in this context.

Probably anyone who holds onto a specific ideology or view of the church. A small example are people who are/were struggling to change their view of church that's been happening to one that is home centered. Holding to older perspectives or takes on doctrine as the church progresses in the "ongoing restoration" can be just as problematic as those who move too fast and beyond what the church teaches. Both can end up missing the mark, per se. 

 

with luv,

BD

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/18/2020 at 9:09 AM, Meadowchik said:

Not quite. 

Could you provide a short explanation of you use of the words? It seems to be unique.

[Islander]

22 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Probably anyone who holds onto a specific ideology or view of the church. A small example are people who are/were struggling to change their view of church that's been happening to one that is home centered. Holding to older perspectives or takes on doctrine as the church progresses in the "ongoing restoration" can be just as problematic as those who move too fast and beyond what the church teaches. Both can end up missing the mark, per se. 

 

with luv,

BD

True. Some have a hard time letting go of cultural traditions that have nothing to do with established doctrine and can become disgruntled over organizational changes. Point well made. 

Thank you.

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Could you provide a short explanation of you use of the words? It seems to be unique.

I already did and you responded to it. I'll bold the most explanatory imo portions.

 

On 5/18/2020 at 12:22 PM, Meadowchik said:

Not really. I don't think of the meaning in a derogatory sense. Personally, I am drawing from a definition taught to me decades ago as a student. It was about politics being about the relations between people, about how we manage interactions in social contexts. It is obviously a very broad meaning of the word but is also consistent with much of its use. "Office politics" is a common example of it. 

Mormonism began with the founding of a church, which is in essence a gathering of believers united under a specific set of politics, not in the sense that SMAC described above as "normative," but in the sense of human beings having a system that organises the way they relate to each other. These progressive Mormons are simply employing well-understood values used often in a liberal politics context. Yet, interestingly, liberal politics can often align pretty well with Christian values. And so using language that intersects with both can be a genuine and in good faith effort to engage in Mormonism's cultural language.