Protecting Mormons online

[JLHPROF]

On Thursday, April 06, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Calm said:

There are no hits for "fundamentalist Christianity" on lds.org.  How does the Church claim to be something without actually claiming to be it?

Through the use of the word "restoration".
Even I'll admit that we claim to be following Christianity as it was in the days of Christ and the Apostles.
Just as the "fundamentalist Mormons" claim to be following Mormonism as it was in the days of Joseph and Brigham.

I think referring to the Church as "restoring the gospel of Jesus Christ" by definition makes us claim we are "fundamentalist Christians".

[cinepro]

On 4/5/2017 at 0:52 PM, juliann said:

It isn't about the messy stuff. It is about undoing the culture that has grown up around making everything look perfect. In other words, reframing expectations and accepting responsibility for ones own beliefs. I think it is ultimately a good thing despite how uncomfortable it is. 

That's a nice sentiment, but I don't think most LDS who believe Joseph Smith actually translated the Egyptian papyri to get the Book of Abraham are suffering from a "culture that has grown up around making everything look perfect."  They simply believed what Joseph Smith claimed and the Church taught and canonized for over a hundred years. 

And I don't think most LDS who are suffering from discomfort over Joseph Smith's polygamy are doing so because they want to "make everything look perfect."  They were simply taught (and continually reinforced) an image of Joseph Smith that didn't include him being sealed to other men's wives and girls as young as 14. 

As LDS, our "expectations" and "beliefs" are largely formed by the Church telling us "this is what you should expect" and "this is what you should believe."  If dealing with such issues as the BoA, polygamy, BoM historicity and early Church history etc. involve rejecting what the Church has told us to "expect" and "believe", then you have simply restated the problem, because that's exactly what people are doing.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Through the use of the word "restoration".
Even I'll admit that we claim to be following Christianity as it was in the days of Christ and the Apostles.
Just as the "fundamentalist Mormons" claim to be following Mormonism as it was in the days of Joseph and Brigham.

I think referring to the Church as "restoring the gospel of Jesus Christ" by definition makes us claim we are "fundamentalist Christians".

I disagree that the term "fundamentalist" is understood in that fashion sufficiently to allow it to be used as an alternative for "restored" or "restoration" or "primitive".

The history of the term has too much baggage such that it implies more than the actual terms used:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

That it is likely not used once by church leaders in the past 50 years (as demonstrated by LDS.org) would tend to support my position that it is not seen as an appropriate term.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

That's a nice sentiment, but I don't think most LDS who believe Joseph Smith actually translated the Egyptian papyri to get the Book of Abraham are suffering from a "culture that has grown up around making everything look perfect."  They simply believed what Joseph Smith claimed and the Church taught and canonized for over a hundred years. 

And I don't think most LDS who are suffering from discomfort over Joseph Smith's polygamy are doing so because they want to "make everything look perfect."  They were simply taught (and continually reinforced) an image of Joseph Smith that didn't include him being sealed to other men's wives and girls as young as 14. 

As LDS, our "expectations" and "beliefs" are largely formed by the Church telling us "this is what you should expect" and "this is what you should believe."  If dealing with such issues as the BoA, polygamy, BoM historicity and early Church history etc. involve rejecting what the Church has told us to "expect" and "believe", then you have simply restated the problem, because that's exactly what people are doing.

The BOA is its own animal, but as for polygamy and such....the reason that was never brought up was what I said, to keep things "perfect," correct? I guess the most common description is whitewashing. So I don't see what your disagreement is with the problems originating because of that. 

[cinepro]

41 minutes ago, juliann said:

The BOA is its own animal, but as for polygamy and such....the reason that was never brought up was what I said, to keep things "perfect," correct? I guess the most common description is whitewashing. So I don't see what your disagreement is with the problems originating because of that. 

From what I can tell, the reason stuff was "whitewashed" was because the leaders were correct in assuming that if members learned about that stuff, it would make them not want to be members of the Church anymore.  Obviously not everyone, but enough that it was better to try and hide it.

There are certainly many things that can be inoculated against,  just tell the members when they're young or in a Church setting, and they'll get used to the idea (i.e. be able to incorporate it into their view of the imperfect Church).  But there are probably some things which can't be inoculated against; they just run contrary to the basic "narrative". 

And that's for people who are already neck-deep into the Church and its culture.  When it comes to people who are looking into the Church from an outsider's perspective, all bets are off.  The Church might be able to salvage its existing membership to some degree, but unless it can find a way to bring in new converts that are strong in building the kingdom,  it's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, cinepro said:

From what I can tell, the reason stuff was "whitewashed" was because the leaders were correct in assuming that if members learned about that stuff, it would make them not want to be members of the Church anymore.

Once it started and a generation or two passed who had known much of it and didn't casually talk about such things with family members or at church plus percentage of converts who hadn't had the chance to absorb this stuff along with the air they breathed, I would agree that any leader that knew could very well be reluctant to share it because they assumed that.  However at that point it is possible that many leaders and writers for manuals and magazines didn't know the details, so were just passing on tradition like the rest of unaware lay members.

----

I was still getting a lot of it in my family from grandparents and casual conversation and I was born in late 50s and did not live in the Mormon Corridor.  I would like to know where the decision was made to knowingly not share more details and how much was that and how much was just an insistence of only allowing one interpretation as the  right one.  I tend to look at the Ensign to see when keeping things simple took over as a churchwide practice, before I would say certain leaders were fond of pushing their own perception as the way things were, but I am not sure what time their perspective became to a certain extent dogma for the Church in general.  I am wondering if the key time and event was the second edition of Mormon doctrine making the late 60s the turning point (given the 70s still had complex articles in the Ensign) or if it was earlier, but slower in developing.  The compiling of Doctrines of Salavation occurred mid50s.  It has been awhile since I read Essentials in Church History (1922) and I don't know how popular that was or if it engaged in presenting a tamer history though I expect it does, though given it was on my grandparents' shelf, it was likely at least moderately so in both respects.

****Essentials says pretty much nothing about the practice of plural marriage save a claim for date received and it wasn't practiced before it was commanded and then just vague people were sealed stuff.  I don't know of earlier popular in the church history books did the same thing, but given the significant detail that he put into describing antipolygamy material while much less attention to the actual practice and minuscule Nauvoo period, it seems likely a very conscious decision to leave out significant parts of history.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Calm

[pogi]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Through the use of the word "restoration".
Even I'll admit that we claim to be following Christianity as it was in the days of Christ and the Apostles.
Just as the "fundamentalist Mormons" claim to be following Mormonism as it was in the days of Joseph and Brigham.

I think referring to the Church as "restoring the gospel of Jesus Christ" by definition makes us claim we are "fundamentalist Christians".

While we do believe in Christian fundamentals, we are not considered "fundamentalist". Fundamentalist religions look backwards while Mormonism is a progressive religion, we look forward. Plus Calm is right, fundamentalism has too many negative connotations to be associated with the term. 

Edited April 7, 2017 by pogi

[Danzo]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Holland seems a little schizophrenic lately, sometimes he has a great talk like this last conference, but then he has another talk that's completely lacking in empathy, I'm thinking of the Arizona meeting with the famous "taffy pull" quote that he gave last year. 

How is your record on giving talks, do you hit it out of the park every time?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

From what I can tell, the reason stuff was "whitewashed" was because the leaders were correct in assuming that if members learned about that stuff, it would make them not want to be members of the Church anymore.  Obviously not everyone, but enough that it was better to try and hide it.

There are certainly many things that can be inoculated against,  just tell the members when they're young or in a Church setting, and they'll get used to the idea (i.e. be able to incorporate it into their view of the imperfect Church).  But there are probably some things which can't be inoculated against; they just run contrary to the basic "narrative". 

And that's for people who are already neck-deep into the Church and its culture.  When it comes to people who are looking into the Church from an outsider's perspective, all bets are off.  The Church might be able to salvage its existing membership to some degree, but unless it can find a way to bring in new converts that are strong in building the kingdom,  it's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I don't think it was nearly that clear-cut. The Church has flirted in the past with being much more open (church magazines in the 70s for example) but members did not seem that interested. Those who were gospel 'nerds' (for lack of a better term) found the information and played with it. The kind of information that was being hid never really fit into the three hour block in the same way Catholic priests rarely teach about the Crusades after Mass. That does not mean there is not a good defense or explanation for the Crusades, just that it is an in-depth topic not suited for that forum.

Now with everyone on the internet and not just a bunch of early adopters people want information. The church is releasing a lot of it and I believe the apostles when they say they are releasing it as quickly as they can. Some just want more data. Some are looking to prove the gospel to others. Some seek spiritual insights. Some are looking for an excuse to leave. Some read and find their faith shaken. Some still do not care. I see it as hopefully maturing the Church membership.

I am not convinced we need hordes of new converts to keep the Titanic from sinking. I hope the great harvests in the Mission field are not over but they might be. If so, we will survive and that probably means the Savior returns sooner which I hope for.....as soon as I have done a little repenting.  

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Holland seems a little schizophrenic lately, sometimes he has a great talk like this last conference, but then he has another talk that's completely lacking in empathy, I'm thinking of the Arizona meeting with the famous "taffy pull" quote that he gave last year. 

I kind of like his taffy-pull quote. It helps a different kind of person or someone in a different situation. Some people need a sweet compassionate plea and some people need more of a "Suck it up, Buttercup!" message. I know I have needed the latter at least as often as I have the former.

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by The Nehor

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I disagree that the term "fundamentalist" is understood in that fashion sufficiently to allow it to be used as an alternative for "restored" or "restoration" or "primitive".

The history of the term has too much baggage such that it implies more than the actual terms used:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

That it is likely not used once by church leaders in the past 50 years (as demonstrated by LDS.org) would tend to support my position that it is not seen as an appropriate term.

Not only that, but Mormonism is not fundamentalist by any definition of theology. It leans towards liberal theology. A fundamentalist approach to religion cannot include things like modern revelation and additional scripture. 

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

There are safe spaces as I mentioned the A Thoughtful Faith community I'm involved in has moderators that make sure it stays a safe space.  I imagine that everyone's definition of safe is different.  I don't agree with your assessment.  

My complaint is the huge difference in how he treats believers and non-believers. Whether you call it a safe space or not depends upon what you think is necessary for feeling safe I suppose. I'm sure those with doubts feel good to have someone angry and shrill echoing their doubts. I don't think that's particularly conducive to talk. While it may keep some in the church I think it also leads many out. Which is why I think it not safe.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

My complaint is the huge difference in how he treats believers and non-believers. Whether you call it a safe space or not depends upon what you think is necessary for feeling safe I suppose. I'm sure those with doubts feel good to have someone angry and shrill echoing their doubts. I don't think that's particularly conducive to talk. While it may keep some in the church I think it also leads many out. Which is why I think it not safe.

Angry and shrill?  When?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Not only that, but Mormonism is not fundamentalist by any definition of theology. It leans towards liberal theology. A fundamentalist approach to religion cannot include things like modern revelation and additional scripture. 

I was going to say this as well, but when the link I was using didn't go there (sola scripture, etc), I cut it.  Glad to see you and Pogi mention it.  it needed to be said.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Not only that, but Mormonism is not fundamentalist by any definition of theology. It leans towards liberal theology. A fundamentalist approach to religion cannot include things like modern revelation and additional scripture. 

I don't like the term fundamentalism because of what it suggests hermeneutically - quite at odds with Mormonism. However there are some ways it's apt. Fundamentalism in the late 19th century was opposed to the rise of liberal theology that tended to demythologize the scriptures. While I think Mormons are fine with some aspects of higher criticism, the traditional foe of Christian fundamentalism, I think we have a skepticism and distrust closer to fundamentalism even if it's not the same thing. The big difference is the lack of traditional fundamentalist doctrines but since those applying it to Mormonism use it to emphasize doctrines that more secular critics dismiss it probably fits by way of analogy. The term is at least better than literalism which obscures far more than it reveals.

The key doctrines of Christian fundamentalism are Biblical inspiration & scriptural infallibility, virgin birth, Christ's death was atonement for sin, bodily resurrection, reality of miracles of Jesus. In more recent decades young earth creationism has become a facet. Of those only the virgin birth, resurrection and miracles are fully embraced by Mormons. Mormons accept inspiration but have a more fallibilistic conception of scripture (Ether 12). The atonement for sin is a bit more complicated too with many Mormons emphasizing Gethsemene much more than the cross. We do believe in atonement for sin but not typically the way fundamentalist Evangelicals do. (Especially not those in the Calvinistic tradition)

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Angry and shrill?  When?

Several of the podcasts I've listened to I came away feeling that. I don't recall all of them although I vaguely recall the Brant Gardner one being rather disappointed in how Brant was treated. Honestly I stopped listening some years ago (around the time of the Gardner one)

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Several of the podcasts I've listened to I came away feeling that. I don't recall all of them although I vaguely recall the Brant Gardner one being rather disappointed in how Brant was treated. Honestly I stopped listening some years ago (around the time of the Gardner one)

The one in which Dehlin spent 5.5 hours giving free publicity to Gardner's book?

I don't recall that one so I can't comment without listening to it.  But that was over 5 years and 400 podcasts ago.  If you haven't listened since then, it doesn't seem like you are really qualified to speak to where Dehlin is at (or has been at for a long time). 

I'm an active listener and I don't think he is ever angry and shrill in the podcasts.  I can't speak to what he may be like in person since I only listen to his podcasts. 

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

Not only that, but Mormonism is not fundamentalist by any definition of theology. It leans towards liberal theology. A fundamentalist approach to religion cannot include things like modern revelation and additional scripture. 

If "modern revelation" and "additional scripture" are two signs of a Church that isn't fundamentalist, then I have bad news for you.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Holland seems a little schizophrenic lately, sometimes he has a great talk like this last conference, but then he has another talk that's completely lacking in empathy, I'm thinking of the Arizona meeting with the famous "taffy pull" quote that he gave last year. 

Maybe it's a matter of the all-too-human tendency on the part of the listener to embrace what one already agrees with while resisting the hard truths. This, of course, is nothing new as pertaining to accepting the declarations and teachings of God's prophets. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

If "modern revelation" and "additional scripture" are two signs of a Church that isn't fundamentalist, then I have bad news for you.

 

Given the weight given to scripture in the Christian world, additional scripture ever hundred years or so is quite liberal, imo.  I would not be surprised if academics viewed it that way as well since so many mainstream or traditional/historic Christian faiths haven't had new scripture for almost 2000 years.

As far as "modern revelation" goes, that depends on how one defines it.  If one allows leadership of a faith to define what constitutes it, for the LDS Church it is a constant presence in the councils as reported.  Whether one believes that it actually happens is irrelevant in determining whether or not a church's theology is fundamentalist or not.

[Teancum]

On 4/4/2017 at 0:55 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

So you see no difference in this discussion board and John Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcasts?  Have you listened to several hours of his podcasts?  What is the format of his podcasts?  Does he prepare for his interviews by reading books and doing research?  Have you heard him discuss the rationale and assumptions for his program?  Is there anything different about how this discussion board was founded and functions?

How many hours of Dehlin's podcasts have you listened too?

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How many hours of Dehlin's podcasts have you listened too?

I'm guessing maybe one or two. I remember he didn't care for John Dehlin's style of interviewing much.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

How many hours of Dehlin's podcasts have you listened too?

About seven hours, in addition to reading detailed analyses of his work, along with his own writings on his trial (a couple of hours of reading).  I have also communicated with him personally.  I have discussed him and his work on this board several times as well.

[rockpond]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

About seven hours, in addition to reading detailed analyses of his work, along with his own writings on his trial (a couple of hours of reading).  I have also communicated with him personally.  I have discussed him and his work on this board several times as well.

It would be fairly difficult to understand Dehlin and/or his podcasts having listened to only 7 hours (less than 1%).  Not that you are claiming such an understanding... just speaking generally to the board.

If you chose 7 hours of podcasts that were back in those early years (he began in 2005) you'd encounter someone very different than the podcast host in the middle years and again a new host in the latter years when he is trying to focus his attention on goal that is entirely different than where he started.

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It would be fairly difficult to understand Dehlin and/or his podcasts having listened to only 7 hours (less than 1%).  Not that you are claiming such an understanding... just speaking generally to the board.

If you chose 7 hours of podcasts that were back in those early years (he began in 2005) you'd encounter someone very different than the podcast host in the middle years and again a new host in the latter years when he is trying to focus his attention on goal that is entirely different than where he started.

Can I just say that JD's podcasts are way too long? I don't get how he gets people to agree to sit down and talk for 5-6 hours.