The 4 types of LDS Mormons

[Free Ranger]

I also like this term below by SaturdaysVoyeur, it comes close to my own position:

Heritage Mormon: I'd put myself, and my children, into this category. Non-active, non-believing, and only loosely tied to the Mormon community, but still linked to it by blood or upbringing and thus inevitably shaped by the culture. Includes inactive members of record (Jack Mormons), as well as close relatives who have never been members. Unsustainable for more than one or two generations, because the church allows for no means of expressing this identity. Secular kids with Jewish parents say: "I'm Jewish." My kids say: "My mom was raised Mormon."

I feel a connection to my Mormon heritage and find much to admire in Mormonism philosophically as a non-theist who resigned my membership and do not attend the church in any way, except holidays like a Christmas dinner at the stake center, etc. I was an angry exMormon for years though and made it my mission to tell everyone I came into contact about the cultishness of the Church (so I understand that mindset and in many ways it was healthy for me to go through that). I have since developed a more complex and nuanced opinion of Mormonism.

[Alphus and Omegus]

How is that different from what I described as Liberal Mormonism?

I guess because you wrote:

"2) Liberal Mormons. They disagree with various current GA teachings (such as LGBT issues or Book of Mormon historicity), but still think Mormonism is true in some regard. It may not be the only way to God, but they see it as good enough for them, considering that they see other faiths as equally flawed. This seems to be the Terryl Givens approach. Many Mormon professors and educated people are in this group. Liberal Mormons just want to get along with everyone, except for with the Far-Right Mormons."

You seemed to couch the Liberal Mormon as both theologically and politically "liberal." By saying Terryl Givens follows this approach, you left out humanistic Mormons because Givens is more of a believer in the supernatural. I don't consider myself a liberal/progressive anymore, but I do have some liberal political views. I guess I found the term "Liberal" problematic. A fourth category of Humanistic Mormon or Free-Range Mormon, I thought clarified things by leaving out political Liberals and those like Givens.

From a sociology of religion standpoint, "liberal" doesn't mean politically liberal. But since a few people have complained about the term, I will change it to "Modulated Mormons."

[Alphus and Omegus]

I would put my mom into the "Orthodox" category, and she had no idea that this kind of thing even existed within Mormonism. She thinks the Eleventy Family have lost their damn minds.

However, my point in all this is that the Eleventy Family also completely believe that science is on their side. They don't discount science; they claim to value it, but then believe all kinds of wildly unscientific conclusions that they arrived at by wildly unscientific reasoning.

Everyone wants to believe that their ideas are logical, but I'm pretty sure that while the Eleventy family claims to value science, they probably never actually read it or try to understand it.

Yet the Eleventy Family never engaged in apologetics as far as I know. If the Holy Ghost didn't give you a witness, then no amount of tapirs and limited geography was going to help. You just needed to pray harder and more sincerely or you just weren't being honest with yourself. They LOVE free inquiry and free agency! So long as everybody winds up drawing the same conclusions from it.

They're not Orthodox. They're not Neo-Orthodox. They're not Far-Right. It's a Venn diagram and they're all three!

Seems like they're in transition from Orthodox to Far Right. But I think it is possible for people to have beliefs that fit into multiple categories. My descriptions are more about the factions themselves than individual members.

Where you're distinguishing between "Orthodox" and "Neo-Orthodox" based on their (claimed) interest in science, I would distinguish "Liberal" from "Quietly Nuanced" in that the Quietly Nuanced may be straight-up political conservatives (anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, pro-gun, etc.). Yet they also have no problem reinterpreting the most basic tenets of orthodox Mormonism, like the First Vision, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, church exclusivity claims, prophetic leadership, even the sealing keys. Yet they define themselves as devout LDS, and they mine the Mormon traditions for every bit of theological gold they can find.

I would put my sister in this category. She's not quite so politically conservative, but she's not in the Bennett/Givens mold either. She's reinterpreted standard doctrines by using her brain and her understanding of personal revelation, and she doesn't see any contradiction in doing that.

I think the Liberal group does see a contradiction there. So eventually they wind up saying something publicly, and then it's just a matter of time. How long can Richard Bushman claim to be a literalist believer, when he's said publicly that the literal paradigm is false and unsustainable?

Well, I've decided to just go with Modulated Mormonism to reflect some of your concerns. This perspective has been very persecuted in the past, but I think it's growing again, especially since the collapse of mopologetics has become blindingly obvious to everyone.

That was fun! Thanks for starting this thread! Again, I don't claim to "be correct" about this. I'm just tossing out ideas.

Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts! I hope others will chime in.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

Everyone wants to believe that their ideas are logical, but I'm pretty sure that while the Eleventy family claims to value science, they probably never actually read it or try to understand it.

Quite true. But do the "Neo-Orthodox" really read and understand science either? I assume the Neo-Orthodox would include Daniel Peterson, John Gee, and other apologists who assert their ideas as having a scientific basis, but their work is not accepted in their academic field outside of Mormonism.

If I'm understanding correctly, what distinguishes that group from the "Orthodox" is that the Orthodox don't attempt to use science to justify a literal Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham or argue about the Limited Geography model, etc. They basically believe the same things, but the "Orthodox" are just following the brethren, while the "Neo-Orthodox" are looking for scientific validity to justify their beliefs, right?

I do think it goes a little further than that though. Mormonism in general is so much more heavily reliant on certain testable, empirical facts: Did Joseph see God and Jesus in the grove? Did he unearth gold plates? Did he have the ability to translate the writing on those plates?

Other Christians don't rely so heavily on the literal truth of historical events. Their faith is unaffected by whether there was one dude named Isaiah or three dudes who wrote under the name of Isaiah. It doesn't fall apart if one book turns out to not be what they thought it was. They never had a prophet telling them that is the keystone of their faith and that, if it turns out Isaiah had multiple authors, then the whole thing is false.

That's what I meant by Mormonism in general being FORCED to assert itself as scientific. Members have been taught that the bedrock stories of Mormonism are empirically true, and that if they could be proven false, then Mormonism is false. There's no room for accepting Mormonism as based on a spiritual fable. At least not out loud.

That's what I mean by the Eleventy Family being even MORE assured that what they believed is objectively provable. They're uber-orthodox, so they must cling that much harder to the idea that science reveals real phenomena and that that science is on their side. Contrast this, for example, with Evangelical Protestants, who often claim to take the Bible literally, but their faith isn't actually reliant on anything that occurred after the invention of the printing press. It's conveniently easy to claim you know Jesus literally rose from the dead, when there's no way to even prove Jesus existed.

Seems like they're in transition from Orthodox to Far Right.

Yeah, it sure seems that way. But how orthodox can you be when you openly disclaim the prophet? Isn't that the very definition of apostasy?

Seems like we've got two groups of Far-Right: Those like the McConkie-ites or the Midnight Mormons who accept Nelson as the current prophet, and those like the Snufferites or the anti-vax conspiracists, who think the current brethren are in apostasy.

Does anyone else find it strange that these people** are not being disciplined? If you think the prophet is evil and should be overthrown, how much more in-apostasy can you be?!?

**Edited to add: "These people" meaning the anti-vaxxers who think Nelson is in apostasy. I know the Snufferites already are being disciplined. The "LDS Freedom Forum" types are not being disciplined (as far as I know), even though they reject the current prophet.

Well, I've decided to just go with Modulated Mormonism to reflect some of your concerns. This perspective has been very persecuted in the past, but I think it's growing again, especially since the collapse of mopologetics has become blindingly obvious to everyone.

Oh....I actually liked the "Liberal" label for that category! I thought it was clear: They disagree with the brethren on certain peripheral issues; they place a value on legitimate scholarship; they have an emphasis on ecumenicism. But none of that means they're necessarily left-leaning within the schema of contemporary American politics.

I just don't see how that group is sustainable. Certainly not for a woman. A penis- priesthood-holder might be granted a little more leeway. Maybe. How long can Bushman keep claiming to be a literalist, when he's on-record calling the literal narrative false? How many people have both taken that position publicly AND retained their membership to tell the tale?

What I called the "Quietly Nuanced" wasn't a counterpoint to the "Liberal" group at all. I was emphasizing the "quiet" part, because I don't think this group can speak up without being disciplined, but I also see this group as plumbing the theological richness of the LDS tradition, because their faith isn't married to what exactly Joseph saw in the woods or how exactly he produced the Book of Mormon, etc.

I don't know how large the Quietly Nuanced group is. Sadly, I suspect they're pretty small. The church doesn't give its members the tools to "work out their own salvation with fear and trembling." It doesn't allow members to adapt their faith to changes in the world or changes within themselves as they mature.

Again, I'm not claiming to be correct necessarily. I'm not basing the existence of the Quietly Nuanced on a whole lot more than my sister, whom I've discovered I admire enormously. Her faith is very real and very Mormon, and she demonstrated a much greater maturity and resiliency of faith than I did.

If you imagine church participation as a child playing with a coloring book:
I got bored, tossed the coloring book and crayons aside, and went outside.
The Liberal group maybe colors outside the lines or uses unusual colors, but they're still using the approved coloring book.
Someone like my sister, when the church stopped spiritually feeding her, she kept the coloring book, but started drawing her own pictures based off of it.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Quite true. But do the "Neo-Orthodox" really read and understand science either? I assume the Neo-Orthodox would include Daniel Peterson, John Gee, and other apologists who assert their ideas as having a scientific basis, but their work is not accepted in their academic field outside of Mormonism.

If I'm understanding correctly, what distinguishes that group from the "Orthodox" is that the Orthodox don't attempt to use science to justify a literal Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham or argue about the Limited Geography model, etc. They basically believe the same things, but the "Orthodox" are just following the brethren, while the "Neo-Orthodox" are looking for scientific validity to justify their beliefs, right?

That's right. The Neo-Orthodox and the Orthodox believe the founding myths, the difference is how they treat them.

The Neo-Orthodox will twist the stories in an attempt to make them better conform with confirmed scientific consensuses (The rejection of hemispheric Book of Mormon or the discarding of "by his own hand upon papyrus are the best examples of this mentality.)

The Far Right Mormons and the tiny percentage of Orthodox who actually think about their beliefs will twist the science to fit the stories, such as the fanciful and ludicrous pseudoscience they concoct about global floods, Jaredite barges, the tower of Babel, and Hopewell tribes.

I do think it goes a little further than that though. Mormonism in general is so much more heavily reliant on certain testable, empirical facts: Did Joseph see God and Jesus in the grove? Did he unearth gold plates? Did he have the ability to translate the writing on those plates?

Other Christians don't rely so heavily on the literal truth of historical events. Their faith is unaffected by whether there was one dude named Isaiah or three dudes who wrote under the name of Isaiah. It doesn't fall apart if one book turns out to not be what they thought it was. They never had a prophet telling them that is the keystone of their faith and that, if it turns out Isaiah had multiple authors, then the whole thing is false.

I think I see where you're going, that mainstream Christianity which is not fundamentalist is not as fragile to examination. I agree with that.

But, I think that depends on how you regard Mormonism. You can't prove/disprove that Smith saw Jesus or Eloher. It's not a testable hypothesis. And likewise, it's impossible to prove Smith had/didn't have plates. And from the very beginning, Mormons have had the "out" that the plates were only seen with "spiritual eyes," ie did not physically exist.

That's what I meant by Mormonism in general being FORCED to assert itself as scientific. Members have been taught that the bedrock stories of Mormonism are empirically true, and that if they could be proven false, then Mormonism is false. There's no room for accepting Mormonism as based on a spiritual fable. At least not out loud.

It's possible to construct a Mormonism that is metaphysically stronger. But as you say, the Q15 don't choose to do it. I think this is inevitable, however, because Neo-Orthodoxy has proven itself to be so weak, both to the true believers, but also to Modulated Mormons and non-believers.

Mopologists was to be the future of Mormonism in the 1990s, but instead, it's completely collapsed. Neo-Orthodoxy was unable to stop some from drifting to reaction and its explanations have not persuaded people with real scientific knowledge.

[High Spy]

Enlightened Mormons is a fifth category that get the significance of the number fifty-seven, thirty-eight and the role they play towards said enlightenment.

[Fence Sitter]

Then there is the largest single group of Mormons. These are people who have no idea they are considered members by the church. The 100+ people I baptized on my mission decades ago are mostly in that group.

[Dr. Shades]

While I appreciate Dr. Shades for drawing a distinction between Internet and Chapel Mormonisms, I think it is a bit of an oversimplification. In my opinion, there are four types of LDS Mormons: [SNIP!]

To be accurate, Internet Mormonism and Chapel Mormonism refer more to subsets of beliefs rather than the degrees of zealotry of the individual Mormons who espouse them.

Then there is the largest single group of Mormons. These are people who have no idea they are considered members by the church. The 100+ people I baptized on my mission decades ago are mostly in that group.

Why would you baptize someone without teaching them the lessons, not to mention not even letting them know it meant membership in the church??

Enlightened Mormons is a fifth category that get the significance of the number fifty-seven, thirty-eight and the role they play towards said enlightenment.

This category of Mormons has a membership of one, right?

[malkie]

While I appreciate Dr. Shades for drawing a distinction between Internet and Chapel Mormonisms, I think it is a bit of an oversimplification. In my opinion, there are four types of LDS Mormons: [SNIP!]

To be accurate, Internet Mormonism and Chapel Mormonism refer more to subsets of beliefs rather than the degrees of zealotry of the individual Mormons who espouse them.

Then there is the largest single group of Mormons. These are people who have no idea they are considered members by the church. The 100+ people I baptized on my mission decades ago are mostly in that group.

Why would you baptize someone without teaching them the lessons, not to mention not even letting them know it meant membership in the church??

Enlightened Mormons is a fifth category that get the significance of the number fifty-seven, thirty-eight and the role they play towards said enlightenment.

This category of Mormons has a membership of one, right?

Ever heard of the "baseball baptisms"? Kids were dunked as an initiation into the team. Some had the "lessons", but it seems that some - perhaps many - did not. I was almost one of the "converts" under this program. As a Branch President in the 70s I had big problems with hundreds of inactive members who, in many cases, had little or no memory of ever joining a church, though they remembered playing "baseball" with some young Americans.

...
With little or no gospel instruction, pre-adolescent and teenage boys were joining the LDS church by tens of thousands annually throughout the world. As a seventeen-year-old, I listened to the homecoming address in my Southern California ward of a missionary who said he had baptized more than two hundred teenage boys in the Pacific Northwest. I regarded that as faith-promoting until a few years later, when I listened to the complaints of a bishop from the Portland area.

His ward clerk was swamped with membership certificates for dozens of boys that no one in the ward had met. After the bishop began locating them, he heard an identical story. A pair of LDS missionaries had played basketball with the boys who were usually underprivileged or from single-parent homes. The elders told them of free trips throughout the Northwest to compete against LDS ward teams, and of the all-Church tournament in Salt Lake City for the best basketball teams.28 The only catch was that missionaries told the boys they had to be baptized into the LDS church in order to play on its "athletic teams."29 After the baptism ceremony (usually on the first day of contact), the missionaries gave the boys the time and place of local LDS meetings. These Portland area boys never saw those elders again.

A Mississippi convert described a variation on this approach in the Gulf States Mission in the early 1960s. Missionary sisters and elders combed upcountry towns and hamlets for boys who had never seen the Gulf of Mexico. During the several-hour bus or car ride to the beach, the missionaries taught the boys all six discussions at once. When they reached the sugar-white sands of the Gulf, the first order of business was multiple-baptism ceremonies in the gently lapping surf. If the boys did not comply, the vehicle would turn immediately around and take the boys back home. After hours of fun in the sun, the newly baptized learned that the missionaries would be glad to bring them back to the beach again - if each boy brought along at least one unbaptized friend. "I was one of those White Trash kids," this Southern boy drawled. "Now I'm one of the Beach Party Baptism success stories." He was a full-time missionary when he told me his experience.

A speaker at a Brigham Young University "devotional" in the 1962-63 school year startled the audience by criticizing another example of the "New Era" missionary work. A pair of elders visited a playground in the eastern states and offered an ice cream soda to every boy over the age of eight who would accept baptism that afternoon. I listened to this as a freshman student and prospective missionary and wondered how it was possible for missionaries to do that. By fall of 1963, I was in England and began to learn what had happened in the British missions during the previous five years.
...

https://www.mormonstories.org/baseballbaptisms.html

[Fence Sitter]

Why would you baptize someone without teaching them the lessons, not to mention not even letting them know it meant membership in the church??

Most people I taught got at least one lesson + the baptism discussion, and I am sure most of them knew that the baptism meant they were somehow members at the time of their baptism. And most of them went inactive almost immediately after I left the area or my mission. But nowhere in any of the discussions leading up to baptism did we teach them that regardless of their activity rate or personal beliefs, the Mormon church would continue to count them as "members" until they died or reached 110 years old. How could we teach them that when we didn't even know that is what the church would do? I suspect that most of them have not thought of themselves as Mormon for more than 30-40 years and would be surprised to find out that the church still did. So, if you count up all the past members that at one time got baptized as well as children of record who are no longer active (like all of my grandkids), add in all the converts that went inactive long ago, people whom the church still counts as members but don't consider themselves such, this is going to be the largest group of "Mormons" in the church.