DiscussMormonism.com

Austin is one of my favorite cities. They have a slogan which is "Keep Austin Weird". Austin is openly, proudly weird and I like that. Lots of folks do.

Frankly, Mormonism is weird. Peculiar, if you'd rather. For all Dr. Peterson's denying wanting to water down the weirdness, it seems apparent to me (and to many others) that Mormonism is attempting to mainstream. What a shame.

Growing up, I had not a doubt that Heavenly Father was once a man who lived on another planet in another life and who worked his way through countless years to Godhood. He had wives. I had a Heavenly Mother. Kolob was a real place. Lamanites were definitely Semitic and they were brown because of the sins of their fathers. And I wasn't a Christian. I was a Mormon. My mother, a lifelong Mormon, specifically remembers being taught as a child to answer, when asked if she were a Christian, "I'm a Mormon!" Her mother, my grandmother, remembers giving that same response on many occasions.

Now it seems there are actually some Mormons who question what I always considered fact: That God was once a man. A sinful human who worked his way to Godhood. Whereas I was always quite pleased that my concept of the Godhead was so profoundly different from all the other religions, the trend now is to lessen that once proud divide. It's almost as if the Latter-day Saints are so busy trying to fit in--"We're Christian, too!"--that they've cheapened what makes them distinctly Mormon.

Why not highlight the peculiarities? That's what will interest people. Folks are growing a bit weary of traditional Christianity, at least it seems so in my neck of the woods. Rather than going into missionary discussions with the intent to give milk, not meat, (which seems like flat-out deception to most outsiders), go ahead and give people the full-meal deal right then? Those who join will go in with their eyes open, fully informed and ready to roll as fledgling Mormons. Surely retention rates would rise? I submit convert baptisms might just rise, as well.

Anyway, I mentioned this theme early in the Trinity thread, and it seems to be a thought running through several current threads, so I thought a dedicated thread might prove interesting.

Kimberly Ann

Hi Kimberly Ann!

Too bad you weren't at MHA. Come next year!

I posted a similar thread to this, though not as colorful, on MAD, in response to the DCP Trinity thread there. I think distinctiveness is precisely what gives Mormonism its appeal. Reduce that and you reduce its strength, growth, and retention---witness the last 20 years.

Mormons should be Christian by their own standards, and to hell with anyone else's. When I was an LDS kid we had no doubt we were Christian--it was those apostate Protestants and Catholics we weren't so sure about! That's the natural and healthy attitude of Mormonism, not this pandering to the Evangelicals--"Please agree with us that we're Christian. Please."

We need protesters around Temple Square with signs, "Keep Mormonism Weird." Thanks for the idea, Kimberly Ann!

Don

Hi, Don Bradley.

I would payto see a "Keep Mormonism Weird" sign at General Conference!

I bet your MHA Conference presentation was great.

Kimberly Ann

DonBradley wrote:Hi Kimberly Ann!

Too bad you weren't at MHA. Come next year!

I posted a similar thread to this, though not as colorful, on MAD, in response to the DCP Trinity thread there. I think distinctiveness is precisely what gives Mormonism its appeal. Reduce that and you reduce its strength, growth, and retention---witness the last 20 years.

Mormons should be Christian by their own standards, and to hell with anyone else's. When I was an LDS kid we had no doubt we were Christian--it was those apostate Protestants and Catholics we weren't so sure about! That's the natural and healthy attitude of Mormonism, not this pandering to the Evangelicals--"Please agree with us that we're Christian. Please."

We need protesters around Temple Square with signs, "Keep Mormonism Weird." Thanks for the idea, Kimberly Ann!

Don

My impression is that LDS are not not pandering to evangelicals but instead are insisting that evangelicals agree with the LDS viewpoint.

Frankly, Mormonism is weird. Peculiar, if you'd rather. For all Dr. Peterson's denying wanting to water down the weirdness, it seems apparent to me (and to many others) that Mormonism is attempting to mainstream. What a shame.

I do believe we had more success in conversions,and really good sticking conversions when we focused on the differences and declared all other sects apostate and us the restoration. Of course we still do that in a more watered down way.

Growing up, I had not a doubt that Heavenly Father was once a man who lived on another planet in another life and who worked his way through countless years to Godhood. He had wives. I had a Heavenly Mother. Kolob was a real place. Lamanites were definitely Semitic and they were brown because of the sins of their fathers. And I wasn't a Christian. I was a Mormon. My mother, a lifelong Mormon, specifically remembers being taught as a child to answer, when asked if she were a Christian, "I'm a Mormon!" Her mother, my grandmother, remembers giving that same response on many occasions.

I grew up Mormon in SLC and always we considered ourselves Christians. Never did I here anyone say to answer we are Mormon is asked if we are Christian. Indeed the true position of the LDS Church is it is THE Christian Church and the rest are in a state of apostasy.

Now it seems there are actually some Mormons who question what I always considered fact: That God was once a man. A sinful human who worked his way to Godhood. Whereas I was always quite pleased that my concept of the Godhead was so profoundly different from all the other religions, the trend now is to lessen that once proud divide. It's almost as if the Latter-day Saints are so busy trying to fit in--"We're Christian, too!"--that they've cheapened what makes them distinctly Mormon.

Rather the Church should say we are the Christian Church.

Why not highlight the peculiarities? That's what will interest people. Folks are growing a bit weary of traditional Christianity, at least it seems so in my neck of the woods. Rather than going into missionary discussions with the intent to give milk, not meat, (which seems like flat-out deception to most outsiders), go ahead and give people the full-meal deal right then? Those who join will go in with their eyes open, fully informed and ready to roll as fledgling Mormons. Surely retention rates would rise? I submit convert baptisms might just rise, as well.

I agree.

I agree entirely with the proposed slogan "Keep Mormonism weird," and, despite what some here seem to be suggesting, have not the slightest interest in "mainstreaming" Mormon theology.

At the risk of sounding like the proverbial broken record, those who imagine that my article on "Mormonism and the Trinity" is attempting to "mainstream" Mormonism simply haven't read it.

Daniel Peterson wrote:I agree entirely with the proposed slogan "Keep Mormonism weird," and, despite what some here seem to be suggesting, have not the slightest interest in "mainstreaming" Mormon theology.

At the risk of sounding like the proverbial broken record, those who imagine that my article on "Mormonism and the Trinity" is attempting to "mainstream" Mormonism simply haven't read it.

I sense the attempted mainstreaming of Mormonism entirely apart from your article, Dr. Peterson.

And no, none of us has read your article. You began a thread about an article you wrote, inviting informed opinions from those who have read it, while at the same time offering us no meaningful way TO read the article. There is simply no way to purchase it from the website to which you linked. My email to Mr. Huff has gone, thus far, unreturned.

I do think it different than suggesting a book. You are the author of the article about which you started a thread. I understand that you intend to add to the article and republish it at a later date. Are you not the owner of the article? Can you not do with it what you so choose, including sending it to whomever you want? I understand your desire to support Element, but I suggest that if the current impediment to accessing the article via your suggested route isn't resolved soon, it would be only right to send the article yourself to interested parties, since you did advertise it via this board.

I am very willing to buy the article and have done what I can to accomplish that task. Until folks on this board are able to read the article, you're probably going to get a lot of conjecture. In my opinion, you invited it.

KA

KimberlyAnn wrote:I sense the attempted mainstreaming of Mormonism entirely apart from your article, Dr. Peterson.

That's fine. There are unquestionably those who want to mainstream Mormonism. I'm not one of them.

KimberlyAnn wrote:And no, none of us has read your article. You began a thread about an article you wrote, inviting informed opinions from those who have read it,

If you'll actually read my opening post on that thread, you'll find no invitation from me requesting anybody's opinion. I simply thought that some might find it interesting, and said so.

If anybody eventually has an informed opinion and wants to express it, of course, that's fine with me. But it's misleading to suggest that I sought informed opinions from people here while giving them no means to form such opinions.

KimberlyAnn wrote:while at the same time offering us no meaningful way TO read the article. There is simply no way to purchase it from the website to which you linked. My email to Mr. Huff has gone, thus far, unreturned.

When I mention a book to somebody as worth reading, I normally leave it to that person to find a way to get it.

I've provided you with a link to the organization that published the article and with the e-mail address of Dr. Benjamin Huff, that organization's secretary. I'm sorry that he hasn't replied to you yet. My understanding is that he has a life. Perhaps he's still in California, and not yet back at his office in Virginia. I suspect that he'll answer you in the reasonably near term. If he does not, you can also write to the editor of Element, Dr. Brian Birch, at Utah Valley University. His e-mail address is easily found at

http://www.uvu.edu/profpages/profiles/show/user_id/450

KimberlyAnn wrote:I do think it different than suggesting a book.

I don't, really.

KimberlyAnn wrote:You are the author of the article about which you started a thread. I understand that you intend to add to the article and republish it at a later date. Are you not the owner of the article? Can you not do with it what you so choose, including sending it to whomever you want? I understand your desire to support Element, but I suggest that if the current impediment to accessing the article via your suggested route isn't resolved soon, it would be only right to send the article yourself to interested parties, since you did advertise it via this board.

The article and the journal in which it appears came from the press precisely a week ago. Copies of the journal were hand carried to Claremont, California, where they began to be sold to conference goers on Thursday. The conference continued through Saturday evening. All officers of the organization and many of its members and, so far as I know, all of the extant copies of the journal were at the conference. The conference meetings ran from 9 AM until at least 9 PM in the evenings. We were busy. I returned to Utah late on Sunday night. Dr. Huff may not have returned to Virginia yet. (He has family in California.) Dr. Birch may not have returned to Utah yet. (He earned his Ph.D. at Claremont and has been a visiting professor there, and it's his second home.) It seems to me rather premature to be complaining that the journal isn't accessible.

KimberlyAnn wrote:I am very willing to buy the article and have done what I can to accomplish that task. Until folks on this board are able to read the article, you're probably going to get a lot of conjecture. In my opinion, you invited it.

No, I didn't.

Incidentally, Portland, Oregon, also has a well-deserved reputation for strangeness, and bumper stickers reading Keep Portland weird! are commonplace in the city and beyond.

Kimberley Ann, Hi.

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately (strangely enough).

I think there are a number of doctrines and practices that will keep the LDS faith wierd!

1) The Temple. For me this is a big one in terms of its relationship to mainstream christianity. Now I don't know if there was a significant difference in doctrine and practice between the earliest christians pre the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, and those that came after, but as far as I know LDS are the only christian religion today that has temples (even disregarding what goes on in them).

It seems to me that mainstream christianity (perhaps for many reasons) would argue that temples are no longer necessary simply because Jesus is the living temple. This might have been expediency because after 70ad the temple no longer existed, or it may be a core doctrine amongst the group that were able to maintain doctrine and theology and had power over what was diseminated to the public at the time following the temple's destruction. I don't know.

As for what goes on inside the temple (am in the middle of reading Bill Hamblin and David Seely's excellent book on the temple of Solomon) I'm not sure that much of what goes on in LDS temples today is anything like what went on in 'the' temple at Jerusalem or anywhere in the christian movement.

Baptisms for the dead is a interesting practice with regard to an obscure reference supposedly by Paul, yet I can't see evidence for its use in ancient Israel or in christianity with regard to the earliest Jesus followers. Maybe I'm wrong?

The endowment ceremony seems to me to be unique to Mormonism in terms of 'christian' practice, through Masonic influence, along with all the signs and penalties. (as they were pre the changes)
In many ways it is distinctly wierd and distinctly Mormon. Again, maybe I'm wrong?

2) The Priesthood. LDS claims to priesthood authority through direct visitation in the 19th century of Peter, James and John, and John the Baptist is unique amongst all christian groups. I can't see them giving up this claim (even though I personally doubt that any such visitations ever occurred) as it is key to making them unique in their own eyes.

3) Prophets and Apostles. Other churches have leaders, and I guess the Pope comes closest in terms of a prophetic nature. Yet the LDS seem to have this unusual combination of Old Testament prophets (with roles very different to those that actually existed in the Old Testament from the record) and New Testament Apostles, again with roles different to those apostles who existed in the early christian church and indeed in the early LDS church, where their role was mainly as witness to Jesus in a prostelyting capacity.

4) Polygamy. Again, we can argue the extent to which the way polygamy was practiced (and polyandry specifically) is anything like Old Testament or New Testament practice, and I would suggest that in terms of polyandry it has no precedent at all from the Bible either Old Testament or New Testament. But it is a practice that keeps the church unique. I know of no other christian church on the earth today that believes in de facto Polygamy as a central tenet of God's law and family make-up.

5) The three degrees of Glory. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any other 'christian' church that is so specific on the different degrees of glory in the afterlife and on who will and will not go there.

6) The Word of Wisdom. Again, as far as I am aware, that LDS are pretty much commanded nowadays not to partake of alchohol, harmful drugs, tea, coffee and nicotine, is again pretty unique and sets them apart as wierd.

7) The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants as scripture. This is a big difference in terms of mainstream christianity. No other christian church as far as I know has a body of works that it considers 'scripture' in the way that Mormons do outside of the Bible.

That's all I can think of at the moment, they are the main ones that immediately come to mind. I'm sure that there are many more.

Mormonism is still weird. And it is proud to be weird. The all idea that god was once a man is in the current priesthood manual. No one is making any secret of it.

Also, I think that Mormons have pride in their weirdness. It is good to be weird. The problem with critics is that they lose their weirdness when they leave the church. They become mainstream and I am sure that it can be a little boring to be mainstream.

Joseph Smith was a christian revolutionary and the doctrine that was developed, ie, polygamy, celestial marriage, separate distinct personages, baptism for the dead etc were all revolutionary concepts that made the LDS church look weird but gave the LDS a healthy dose of pride. And it still does. Heck, I love the polygamy aspect of the LDS church. I think that it is great that the LDS have such a history. Likewise for the three degrees of glory...all radical concepts within christianity.

Thank heavens for weirdness.