Reel Infants- Should We Stay or Should We Go?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

A huge waste of time. And in the process Reel looks like a crybaby. What a monumental waste of time; with one side of his mouth "I want to stay, I love this Church" with other side of mouth "I can't do this anymore, this "narrative" is so wrong"....

That kind of back and forth is me too.  I think it's probably true I get too dramatic about it sometimes, as different things happen or someone says something here or there.  But crybaby?  Seems a bit too dramatic for me.  I dont' know what it is, most of the time.  I doubt I can articulate it very well, but I too love the Church, and want to stay some of the time, and other times I'm wondering what I'm doing by trying to make it work.  I believe some have used the scripture in revelation on me saying I'm luke warm.  I guess I am with the Church.  I just don't think the passage in Revelation is talking about Church association, so much as doing good things. 

Quote

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

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

OK, HappyJackWagon, the adjective "Crybaby" is well warranted when it takes over fifteen years for a decision to drag. I listened all those pods like you did. Reel, not only knew the facts from the getgo, he had every opportunity to make a decision to separate himself from the Church anytime, It wasn't like Church hid any facts from Reel....... I was in his shoes.....after seeing the evidence what did I do? Life is too short to torment yourself about the facts you know. Besides he has a successful podcast show and makes a living......I'm sorry if I'm coming across hard.....All he does is waste his time with torment. 

Are you sure that's all he does?  I don't think that's all I do.  It feels like you are trying to say his best decision is to leave if he's not going to be all the way in.  I'm not sure why that should be. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I did Google it and got a lot of support groups with no clear definition,....

You found "a lot of support groups" for NOMs?  Really?  

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This podcast specifically talks about New Order Mormons if you're looking for more info. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/new-order-mormons

And a decent article http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2012/07/the-threat-of-new-order-mormons/

The name isn't really that important though. It's just a label that is used as a shorthand to get a general idea that a person still participates in the church even if they are unorthodox or even unbelieving.

 

Thank you. The intro to the first link is similar to Wikipedia's definition. The second link seems to cover all the possibilities mentioned in this thread (any or all of the following: faith transition, apparent selectivity in belief and participation level, lost testimony, express doubts).

I didn't see where these sources identify anyone as coining the phrase and how it caught on.

I do appreciate the acknowledgement that the name isn't really important. But it seems to carry some weight with many nonetheless, so there may be something we're missing in ministering to those who use it to identify themselves, if only to understand why or how it offers them, presumably, a sense of commonality if not community.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

That kind of back and forth is me too.  I think it's probably true I get too dramatic about it sometimes, as different things happen or someone says something here or there.  But crybaby?  Seems a bit too dramatic for me.  I dont' know what it is, most of the time.  I doubt I can articulate it very well, but I too love the Church, and want to stay some of the time, and other times I'm wondering what I'm doing by trying to make it work.  I believe some have used the scripture in revelation on me saying I'm luke warm.  I guess I am with the Church.  I just don't think the passage in Revelation is talking about Church association, so much as doing good things. 

 

Look Stemelbow, I'm not the one who puts those Pods, (one after another) to solicit empathy. Few years ago it was J. Dehlin going through exactly the same motions, appealing for sympathy, to his credit he matured quickly. The changes Reel demands are unrealistic.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Look Stemelbow, I'm not the one who puts those Pods, (one after another) to solicit empathy. Few years ago it was J. Dehlin going through exactly the same motions, appealing for sympathy, to his credit he matured quickly. The changes Reel demands are unrealistic.

I don't think I've followed Reel as closely as you, so I'm not sure what changes he's demanded.  I think changes I hope for are probably considered unrealistic to many.  I don't care though.  I still hope.  I don't know if Bill is similar. 

We're all involved with something or a part of something larger than ourselves that can't possibly be in agreement with everything we think, feel, and do.  I also am not fond of some of the things happening in the society in which I live, am not supportive of all things the fed government does, nor am I fond of everything everyone in my family says and does.  But, it seems silly to me to jump ship from any of those.  I also find good in society and realize I benefit to some extent from being invovled in it as well.  All things we're a part of, hurt people, or have the potential to hurt people.  I think if matt from the podcast was honest he'd admit there are tons of things he's a part of that have hurt people too and he hasn't eschewed them so quickly and easily. 

Welcome to the world, I say.  It's not so black and white.  We're each complex characters going off of many conflicting ideas and motivations each day.  And we can only do so much.  If you don't like Bill's approach, then don't pay attention.  It seems like you've paid a lot of attention to him.  There are tons of others things for you to worry about.  You don't have to worry about what Bill thinks is his best way forward.  he can worry about that. 

[Atheist Mormon]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think I've followed Reel as closely as you, so I'm not sure what changes he's demanded.  I think changes I hope for are probably considered unrealistic to many.  I don't care though.  I still hope.  I don't know if Bill is similar. 

We're all involved with something or a part of something larger than ourselves that can't possibly be in agreement with everything we think, feel, and do.  I also am not fond of some of the things happening in the society in which I live, am not supportive of all things the fed government does, nor am I fond of everything everyone in my family says and does.  But, it seems silly to me to jump ship from any of those.  I also find good in society and realize I benefit to some extent from being invovled in it as well.  All things we're a part of, hurt people, or have the potential to hurt people.  I think if matt from the podcast was honest he'd admit there are tons of things he's a part of that have hurt people too and he hasn't eschewed them so quickly and easily. 

Welcome to the world, I say.  It's not so black and white.  We're each complex characters going off of many conflicting ideas and motivations each day.  And we can only do so much.  If you don't like Bill's approach, then don't pay attention.  It seems like you've paid a lot of attention to him.  There are tons of others things for you to worry about.  You don't have to worry about what Bill thinks is his best way forward.  he can worry about that. 

The people I genuinely worry about are the good people. Reel is one of them. If I had a chance to give him one advice I'd say "Your demands are futile, don't even try" and I'd quickly explain "nobody is changing anything drastic, anytime soon, there's no rush to change anything". 

Last time I noticed Reel & his sympathizers are in minority to demand any changes. And there's another huge difference between my selfish types and Reel's activist types; He wants to help change the World for good. I say "It is futile".

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

The people I genuinely worry about are the good people. Reel is one of them. If I had a chance to give him one advice I'd say "Your demands are futile, don't even try" and I'd quickly explain "nobody is changing anything drastic, anytime soon, there's no rush to change anything". 

Last time I noticed Reel & his sympathizers are in minority to demand any changes. And there's another huge difference between my selfish types and Reel's activist types; He wants to help change the World for good. I say "It is futile".

Well shoot, on that logic none of us should try to do anything, because after all it is futile to try and accomplish something good in our own little spheres. 

I don't think Bill would agree with you.  And I don't agree either.  So I continue to try. 

[Atheist Mormon]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well shoot, on that logic none of us should try to do anything, because after all it is futile to try and accomplish something good in our own little spheres. 

I don't think Bill would agree with you.  And I don't agree either.  So I continue to try. 

stemelbow

Thank you for trying. Don't give up. 

[ALarson]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

Edit: I hesitate to ask this, but what does your teacher friend mean in referring to himself as a NOM? Does he visit a support group site?

I've never heard him refer to himself as a NOM.  I used him as an example because I know what he believes regarding the church (and also what he no longer believes) and this example related to what is being discussed on this thread.

Edited July 1, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

On 6/27/2017 at 3:10 PM, hope_for_things said:

Its a matter of interpretation and emphasis.  

Only if "interpretation and emphasis" = "wholesale disregard of..."

The WoW has some elements of it that are open to some substantial "interpretation and emphasis."   The meaning of "hot drinks" requires this.  The "sparing" consumption of meat, and consumption "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" requires this.  

But you are not calling for "interpretation and emphasis."  You characterized the Church's numerous revelatory/scriptural mandates pertaining to addressing apostasy in the Church as, in your words, "completely unnecessary," as "an artifact of old tradition that needs to be done away with."

Improving our understanding and interpretation and application of scriptural mandates is a wonderful thing.  Utterly ignoring and rejecting and disobeying those mandates, on the other hand . . . 

Quote

I can find many scriptures especially in the OT that we ignore the specific instructions on because they are considered unethical in our modern culture.  

We do not adhere to some of the mandates given in the OT (and even elsewhere) for a variety of reasons.  We have living prophets and apostles, whose instructions in our day supersede those given by past prophets and apostles.  The OT is often broadly characterized as containing the "Law of Moses," the parameters of which are anything but clear.  It includes things like the Covenant Code (Ex. 20:23-23:19), Deuteronomic Law (Deut. 12-26), the Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26), purity laws (Lev. 11-15), festival rituals (Deut. 16), regulations pertaining to sacrifices (Num. 28-29), and the ten commandments (Ex. 20:2-17; Deut. 5:6-21).  

Significantly, the Law of Moses "was in several senses fulfilled, completed, superseded, and enlivened by Jesus Christ. Jesus said, 'In me it hath all been fulfilled' (3 Ne. 12:17-18)."  So which portions of the ill-defined Law of Moses have been "fulfilled" or "superseded" is a matter of revelatory and learned guidance from those in authority, as opposed to summary rejection based on incompatibility with "our modern culture."

Quote

We don't need to take these scriptures you quote literally

But you aren't proposing a mere "figurative" (rather than "literal") approach to the numerous scriptural mandates regarding addressing apostasy in the Church.  You are proposing a wholesale rejection and disregard of those mandates.

Quote

and can interpret them differently or ignore them entirely.  

CFR.  What is the basis for this assertion?

Quote

Since scripture contains the cultural biases of its time and place, no reason to believe these are eternal practices that are unchangeable.

I never said the mandates about apostasy are "eternal practices."  But you are proposing that, in the here and now, the Church should utterly disregard (aka "reject" or "disobey") them "entirely" as being "completely unnecessary," and as "an artifact of old tradition that needs to be done away with."

Are we likewise at liberty to entirely ignore the Word of Wisdom?  The Law of Chastity?  Repentance?  The Atonement of Jesus Christ?  If we can evade some scriptural mandates by dismissing them as the products of "cultural biases," then - by your reckoning - can we ignore / reject / disobey these as well?

Quote

It might weaken the community, thats a possibility.  

Agreed.  We probably differ as to the likelihood of that possibility.

Quote

I believe it will strengthen the community in the long run, but possibly weaken things in the short term.  

I am interested in hearing your explanation for this.  Excommunications for apostasy (and other, lesser forms of discipline as well) are, to be frank, extraordinarily rare in the Church.

Quote

I think the entire church culture needs to go through a renaissance of sorts.  

Another topic for another time, I guess.

Quote

For the WoW since you gave that example, we totally ignore much of it today,

Not really

Quote

and we overemphasize parts of it and reinterpret other parts.  

In some ways, yes.  There are many people in the Church who have never touched tobacco (a substance specifically referenced in the WoW), but who have engaged in illicit use other harmful and addictive substances that are not mentioned in the WoW at all, but which are governed by it through "interpretation."

Quote

Thats a great example of how we pick and choose and change our emphasis over time.   Same with Tithing and Chastity.  All those interpretations have evolved and morphed significantly in less than 200 yrs of modern Mormonism.  

The Brethren do the substantive "pick{ing} and choos{ing}."  They change the "emphasis over time."  That is one of the most wonderful advantages to having living prophets and apostles.

But you are correct in some ways.  We should construe the scriptures and their application to us through the lens not only of prophetic guidance and instruction, but also through revelation.

For me, I utterly reject the notion that the Lord wants us to utterly disregard His various mandates regarding apostasy in the Church.  I find it a rarely-deployed, but nevertheless vital, function of sound leadership to address such things when they arise.

Quote

I don't think we're overall that far away about how we need to treat each other in the church.  Some slight differences on emphasis and probably some major differences on our ways of interpreting the gospel message, but hopefully we can learn from the interactions with one another and grow through trying to understand each other.  

Well put!

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 1, 2017 by smac97

[Atheist Mormon]

On 6/30/2017 at 3:24 PM, stemelbow said:

Well shoot, on that logic none of us should try to do anything, because after all it is futile to try and accomplish something good in our own little spheres. 

I don't think Bill would agree with you.  And I don't agree either.  So I continue to try. 

Of course, you should try always......

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/30/2017 at 11:59 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

The name isn't really that important though. It's just a label that is used as a shorthand to get a general idea that a person still participates in the church even if they are unorthodox or even unbelieving.

 

Should like-minded folks (individually or banded together in groups separate from and in opposition to  the Church) make suggestions or even demands on what Church authorities should do to alleviate their discomfort? Or should they and the Church agree to co-exist in kind of a state of detente?

Edited July 2, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Should like-minded folks (individually or banded together in groups separate from and in opposition to  the Church) make suggestions or even demands on what Church authorities should do to alleviate their discomfort? Or should they and the Church agree to co-exist in kind of a state of detente?

Just listen to each other for now..have a point of connection in or outside the church.  They have value and many believe that the church has great value.  Quit the anti stuff and then just listen...this goes both ways!  Just to have a point of understanding will keep friendships and ward families together..nothing wrong with that.

[Bernard Gui]

42 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just listen to each other for now..have a point of connection in or outside the church.  They have value and many believe that the church has great value.  Quit the anti stuff and then just listen...this goes both ways!  Just to have a point of understanding will keep friendships and ward families together..nothing wrong with that.

How would this look in a class situation?

[JulieM]

Dup

Edited July 2, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How would this look in a class situation?

Probably like the gospel doctrine class described by ALarson in this thread.  I'd love to have a teacher like that in my ward!!

Edited July 2, 2017 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How would this look in a class situation?

Best bet is outside of class....a get together..like a fireside.

[hope_for_things]

On 7/1/2017 at 10:35 AM, smac97 said:

Only if "interpretation and emphasis" = "wholesale disregard of..."

The WoW has some elements of it that are open to some substantial "interpretation and emphasis."   The meaning of "hot drinks" requires this.  The "sparing" consumption of meat, and consumption "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" requires this.  

But you are not calling for "interpretation and emphasis."  You characterized the Church's numerous revelatory/scriptural mandates pertaining to addressing apostasy in the Church as, in your words, "completely unnecessary," as "an artifact of old tradition that needs to be done away with."

Improving our understanding and interpretation and application of scriptural mandates is a wonderful thing.  Utterly ignoring and rejecting and disobeying those mandates, on the other hand . . . 

Sorry for the delay, just got back from a nice vacation.  

Actually, I do think we disregard many things in scripture, especially the OT, but there are others as well.  I don't have any problem saying that those things we disregard are things that our current society views as antiquated and outdated and in some cases barbaric.  Thanks to modern reformations of Christianity, we are no longer committing institutional genocide and conquering infidels.  So, "utterly ignoring and rejecting" is the MO for much of scripture, and thats a good thing in many cases. 

The caveat to all this is when do we reject and ignore scripture and when do we need to take scripture seriously in an effort to evaluate our personal morality and make sure we aren't being prideful or hurtful of others.  For me this brings us back to a discussion about what is "core" to the gospel message, and I would define that as doing the most good for the most people, or the great two commandments to love God and love your neighbor.  This is what makes the gospel a living gospel in my life.  This tension between the good and bad in the tradition of Mormonism and Christianity.  Its a constant evaluation to listen to my conscience and evaluate what is good, and this is a daily struggle.  

On 7/1/2017 at 10:35 AM, smac97 said:

But you aren't proposing a mere "figurative" (rather than "literal") approach to the numerous scriptural mandates regarding addressing apostasy in the Church.  You are proposing a wholesale rejection and disregard of those mandates.

I can see utility in all three approaches, literal, figurative and wholesale rejection.  

On 7/1/2017 at 10:35 AM, smac97 said:

CFR.  What is the basis for this assertion?

Seems like a strange CFR, maybe I'm not understanding what you want me to prove in this context.  I was saying that we can choose to interpret the scriptures you quoted differently or conversely we could reject them entirely.  This is my opinion on how to interpret scripture, there are many interpretations which many different people could accept as valid.  Maybe if you can clarify what exactly you want me to CFR, then I can add some additional commentary.  

On 7/1/2017 at 10:35 AM, smac97 said:

I never said the mandates about apostasy are "eternal practices."  But you are proposing that, in the here and now, the Church should utterly disregard (aka "reject" or "disobey") them "entirely" as being "completely unnecessary," and as "an artifact of old tradition that needs to be done away with."

Are we likewise at liberty to entirely ignore the Word of Wisdom?  The Law of Chastity?  Repentance?  The Atonement of Jesus Christ?  If we can evade some scriptural mandates by dismissing them as the products of "cultural biases," then - by your reckoning - can we ignore / reject / disobey these as well?

I think we should be careful and thoughtful about all of this.  I wouldn't just say we should ignore everything that on first blush we think is antiquated.  I also think we should get multiple opinions and consider all the implications of changing traditions.  But I do think that the ongoing restoration is calling us to constantly re-evaluate our traditions, doctrines, teachings and update them through inspiration and in response to the conditions we live in today.  This is a beautiful doctrine, but I haven't seen it work well in practice in my lifetime.  We have lots of opportunities to improve with respect to living this doctrine of modern revelation.  

On 7/1/2017 at 10:35 AM, smac97 said:

In some ways, yes.  There are many people in the Church who have never touched tobacco (a substance specifically referenced in the WoW), but who have engaged in illicit use other harmful and addictive substances that are not mentioned in the WoW at all, but which are governed by it through "interpretation."

I totally agree, and often we find substitutes that are arguably worse than the original (i.e. sodas with tons of sugar and stimulants as a coffee or tea replacement).  I believe in the WoW, and if we are committed to living healthy lives, which is the spirit of this wise counsel, we ought to live a healthy lifestyle instead of being focused on specific prohibitions, we ought to learn to live healthy through nutrition and exercise and balance.  

On 7/1/2017 at 10:35 AM, smac97 said:

The Brethren do the substantive "pick{ing} and choos{ing}."  They change the "emphasis over time."  That is one of the most wonderful advantages to having living prophets and apostles.

But you are correct in some ways.  We should construe the scriptures and their application to us through the lens not only of prophetic guidance and instruction, but also through revelation.

For me, I utterly reject the notion that the Lord wants us to utterly disregard His various mandates regarding apostasy in the Church.  I find it a rarely-deployed, but nevertheless vital, function of sound leadership to address such things when they arise.

I think the brethren are hesitant to make any changes, an unfortunate consequence of the Mormon tradition of succession that has developed over time.  I think the traditions keep them from innovating in any significant way.  To me this is more a disadvantage than an advantage.  

I do agree that we shouldn't reject what God wants us to do, I'm not advocating that.  But it looks like we just disagree about how we interpret what God wants and is calling us to do.  That is the burden of personal revelation I guess, we have to discern the will of God, and we know from history just how challenging it is to do this.  Best wishes, and thanks for the conversation!