Thoughts on Thoughts on NMS Poll Results

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I will submit myself as an example of one who believes every authoritative and authentic doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. But I don’t hold with folk doctrines, nor do I sustain conjecture. 

Same here, Scott.  However, as we know from long experience on this board, it isn't always clear which doctrines are authoritative and authentic.  The True Blue Mormons on this board cannot even agree fully on that, and I don't expect to see 100% agreement in this life.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Exiled said:

She does seem to be like some would call a "caferteria mormon."  

I suppose.  Not sure I'm comfortable with the label.

22 minutes ago, Exiled said:

What do you think of those who still consider themselves mormon but don't really follow, like so many jews or catholics?

I welcome them in fellowship, and hope they come back around to appreciating the spiritual/moral value of the Restored Gospel.

However, I will oppose them if they start to "proselytize" this sort of "secular" or "cafeteria" or "cultural" Mormonism, particularly if they do so by advocating (as Riess has) disobedience to the teachings of the Church.

22 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Should these just resign already?

I truly hope not.  I am a strong advocate of maintaining the boundaries of the Church, but also in making it as big a "tent" as possible.

22 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Would you be for taking these people off of the rolls or should they be left on even though they have alternative ideas?

That is not within my province.  I cannot speak to broad generalities, and what should happen with a specific individual is a matter for that individual and those who have stewardship over him/her.

22 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I guess my question is one that I brought up once to the class in gospel doctrine when I was teaching.

I'm not sure that's a helpful or useful question.  it is essentially inviting answers borne of judgmentalism and/or usurpation of stewardship.

22 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The church tells the youth and the members seemingly conflicting messages: be in the world but not of it, be careful who your friends are, etc., yet go out and befriend non-members for missionary work and try and bring back the less active by being their friends.  How is that resolved in your mind?

I don't see a conflict.  We have a generalized responsibility to be good examples, to love and serve others, to share the Gospel, and so on.  We also have a responsibility to resist sin and temptation, and to avoid dangerous or compromising circumstances.  By following the counsel of the leaders of the Church, and through the Spirit, and with common sense, these two responsibilities can be fulfilled simultaneously.

We can share the Gospel without putting ourselves in compromising situations.  I am reminded here of Matthew 10:16: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

22 minutes ago, Exiled said:

There is always the danger that the missionary will be converted to Jana Riess' brand of mormonism, yet is she worthy of leaving the 99 to seek her out or is there too much of a danger there?

Jana Riess has tremendous worth.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Same here, Scott.  However, as we know from long experience on this board, it isn't always clear which doctrines are authoritative and authentic.  The True Blue Mormons on this board cannot even agree fully on that, and I don't expect to see 100% agreement in this life.

In practice, I don't believe it is all that difficult. At least it has never been an issue for me.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I suppose.  Not sure I'm comfortable with the label.

I welcome them in fellowship, and hope they come back around to appreciating the spiritual/moral value of the Restored Gospel.

However, I will oppose them if they start to "proselytize" this sort of "secular" or "cafeteria" or "cultural" Mormonism, particularly if they do so by advocating (as Riess has) disobedience to the teachings of the Church.

I truly hope not.  I am a strong advocate of maintaining the boundaries of the Church, but also in making it as big a "tent" as possible.

That is not within my province.  I cannot speak to broad generalities, and what should happen with a specific individual is a matter for that individual and those who have stewardship over him/her.

I'm not sure that's a helpful or useful question.  it is essentially inviting answers borne of judgmentalism and/or usurpation of stewardship.

I don't see a conflict.  We have a generalized responsibility to be good examples, to love and serve others, to share the Gospel, and so on.  We also have a responsibility to resist sin and temptation, and to avoid dangerous or compromising circumstances.  By following the counsel of the leaders of the Church, and through the Spirit, and with common sense, these two responsibilities can be fulfilled simultaneously.

We can share the Gospel without putting ourselves in compromising situations.  I am reminded here of Matthew 10:16: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

Jana Riess has tremendous worth.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with all of this. I would only add my observation that "alternative ideas" only become a serious problem when one comes out in open and public opposition to the position of the Church or tries to hijack Church meetings and classes for the promotion of said ideas.

And incidentally, I regard internet messages and social media in their various forms as being open and public.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In practice, I don't believe it is all that difficult. At least it has never been an issue for me.

It isn't a practical issue for Mormons generally.  Why?  Because Mormonism is more a way of life than a systematic theology.  Plus very few Mormons even know the details of their own theology and history -- have no understanding what is authoritative and "official."  Indeed, the mysteries are mostly not discussed, and the Brethren deliberately avoid some issues.  All of that is probably a good thing for everybody.

[CA Steve]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that we would be very hard put to find any Mormon who agrees 100% of the time with every claimed doctrine.  Not sure which Mormon Church you have in mind, Steve.

I suppose the church I had in mind is the one in which the poll was taken. 

Without knowing exactly how these disagreements break down, I find it hard to understand just what is that is good or bad about those percentages. If, for example we are talking about one earring or two, who cares? But, if we are talking about a large percentage of members disagreeing with current policies on gay children, then, for me, that would represent a serious problem.  So citing a percentage of people who disagree with doctrine or leaders is not really all that informative unless we know what it is that is cause for the disagreement.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I suppose the church I had in mind is the one in which the poll was taken. 

You miss the point, Steve.  Of course we know the formal name of the Church, but we probably ought to try to decide whether we are talking about a pretend version of that Church or an actual version of it.  Sociologists always have fun with the disjunctures and disagreements within religious organizations.  Roman Catholics are no more united than Mormons.  A good example of the problem is the tendency of California Mormons to see things so differently from Utah Mormons that the Utah Mormons actually are in closer agreement with Utah non-Mormons on things generally than they are with California Mormons.  Cultural differences have a lot to do with it.

36 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Without knowing exactly how these disagreements break down, I find it hard to understand just what is that is good or bad about those percentages. If, for example we are talking about one earring or two, who cares? But, if we are talking about a large percentage of members disagreeing with current policies on gay children, then, for me, that would represent a serious problem.  So citing a percentage of people who disagree with doctrine or leaders is not really all that informative unless we know what it is that is cause for the disagreement.

I agree.  Take polygamy, for example:  It is a formal doctrine of the LDS Church and never repudiated.  However, it is now a forbidden practice, an excommunicable offense.  Some TBMs could care less, while others are horrified that LDS men still engage in serial polygamy (sequential marriages), or that polygamy may be practiced in heaven.

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It isn't a practical issue for Mormons generally.  Why?  Because Mormonism is more a way of life than a systematic theology. 

I am coming to appreciate this more and more.

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Plus very few Mormons even know the details of their own theology and history -- have no understanding what is authoritative and "official." 

Yes, we could improve on that score.  

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Indeed, the mysteries are mostly not discussed, and the Brethren deliberately avoid some issues.  All of that is probably a good thing for everybody.

Indeed.  "Mysteries" often up as stumblingblocks for those who are not ready for them.

And no, I do not exclude myself from that number.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You miss the point, Steve.  Of course we know the formal name of the Church, but we probably ought to try to decide whether we are talking about a pretend version of that Church or an actual version of it.  Sociologists always have fun with the disjunctures and disagreements within religious organizations.  Roman Catholics are no more united than Mormons.  A good example of the problem is the tendency of California Mormons to see things so differently from Utah Mormons that the Utah Mormons actually are in closer agreement with Utah non-Mormons on things generally than they are with California Mormons.  Cultural differences have a lot to do with it.

I agree.  Take polygamy, for example:  It is a formal doctrine of the LDS Church and never repudiated.  However, it is now a forbidden practice, an excommunicable offense.  Some TBMs could care less, while others are horrified that LDS men still engage in serial polygamy (sequential marriages), or that polygamy may be practiced in heaven.

Okay, you know you are pointing out an issue (cultural relativity)  that not only is worthy of an entire thread, it's probably book worthy or more. FWIW I have spent large portions of my life as a youth and an adult in both Utah and in CA, so I have a fairly good idea how the culture operates in both states and yes they are two different churches and I agree with you that state culture succeeds religion. 

 

An interesting question would be how aware is SLC LDS leadership of these cultural differences and how it affects decision making at that level. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Okay, you know you are pointing out an issue (cultural relativity)  that not only is worthy of an entire thread, it's probably book worthy or more. FWIW I have spent large portions of my life as a youth and an adult in both Utah and in CA, so I have a fairly good idea how the culture operates in both states and yes they are two different churches and I agree with you that state culture succeeds religion. 

An interesting question would be how aware is SLC LDS leadership of these cultural differences and how it affects decision making at that level. 

I would expect them to be acutely aware, since many of the leadership spent most of their lives outside Utah.  Pres Eyring, the son of a great scientist on the East Coast, Pres Uchtdorf a war refugee in East Germany, later a stake pres in Frankfurt.  Elder Oaks a law professor in Chicago in the 1960s.  Etc.  The Seventy, of course, include a huge number of foreigners.