Outside Looking In or Inside Looking Out?

[_sansfoy]

The hardest place to be in Mormonism is on the fringes, either long-suffering NOM or someone who has come out about disbelief and thus suffers diminished relationships with the bulk of one's friends and families. There is a semi-permeable membrane between being outside the faith and being inside the faith that is not quite a binary state of off and on, and this has been true probably since the time of Emma Smith. I wonder, though, if the boundary is becoming ever more fluid. Some of my believing family and friends have grown more open in the last few years, and I have seen some things that would have boggled my mind ten years ago: a gay/straight club at BYU, my devout sister and one of my LDS friends marching with other LDS members in the Gay Pride parade in SLC, a few of my very liberal, but still believing Facebook friends arguing for more inclusiveness with more conservative members of their friend lists.

Has a tipping point been reached? Will there come a time in ten or twenty years when one can be a Mormon in the same way one can be a Catholic? That is, the ability to choose one's level of involvement without more devout members attempting to exclude you from participation?

I've been giving thought to my own definitions lately. I used to consider myself firmly on the outside, after a very painful transition, but my feelings toward the church have moderated as the church seems to be moderating its feelings toward me. I have some radio satellite interviews this summer where I'm being called a Mormon, and one of my recent novels received a favorable review from the AML, while a couple of liberal Mormon bloggers have also written favorable reviews, although I have also been attacked by believers. I find myself defending Mormonism these days as much as criticizing it. That's a strange position for me.

On the other hand, I'm in Utah at the moment to attend my niece's wedding, or rather, her wedding reception. During the wedding itself I'll be sitting outside, babysitting other nieces and nephews. It's a reminder to me that things haven't changed very much yet.

[_zeezrom]

Hi Sansfoy. I like your post.

Will there come a time in ten or twenty years when one can be a Mormon in the same way one can be a Catholic? That is, the ability to choose one's level of involvement without more devout members attempting to exclude you from participation?

I suspect it will become more Catholic-like but not all the way.

Let's hope Mitt Romney wins the election for the sake of NOMs out there. Then, Mitt's wife will be seen attending church with a sleeveless dress for millions of Mormons to see on TV and Facebook. That alone will revolutionize the religion. Mark my words.

[_cwald]

Has a tipping point been reached? Will there come a time in ten or twenty years when one can be a Mormon in the same way one can be a Catholic? That is, the ability to choose one's level of involvement without more devout members attempting to exclude you from participation?

I don't think we are there yet....but I am still stubbornly (stupidly) holding out hope that it will happen eventually. I think Romney getting elected will definitely accelerate the process. Just my opinion.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi Sansfoy. I like your post.

So do I.

[_Kishkumen]

Welcome to MDB, sansfoy. It is great to have you aboard, and I hope you are right about the tent of Mormonism expanding. Several things suggest to me that this is truly the case, and I look forward to the day that I can be comfortable as a member of this broader Mormon community without badgering from the extremists whose views are well represented among the FARMS polemicists.

Let us know about your novels, either here on the thread or by PM. It would be fun to read your work.

The hardest place to be in Mormonism is on the fringes, either long-suffering NOM or someone who has come out about disbelief and thus suffers diminished relationships with the bulk of one's friends and families. There is a semi-permeable membrane between being outside the faith and being inside the faith that is not quite a binary state of off and on, and this has been true probably since the time of Emma Smith. I wonder, though, if the boundary is becoming ever more fluid. Some of my believing family and friends have grown more open in the last few years, and I have seen some things that would have boggled my mind ten years ago: a gay/straight club at BYU, my devout sister and one of my LDS friends marching with other LDS members in the Gay Pride parade in Salt Lake City, a few of my very liberal, but still believing Facebook friends arguing for more inclusiveness with more conservative members of their friend lists.

Has a tipping point been reached? Will there come a time in ten or twenty years when one can be a Mormon in the same way one can be a Catholic? That is, the ability to choose one's level of involvement without more devout members attempting to exclude you from participation?

I've been giving thought to my own definitions lately. I used to consider myself firmly on the outside, after a very painful transition, but my feelings toward the church have moderated as the church seems to be moderating its feelings toward me. I have some radio satellite interviews this summer where I'm being called a Mormon, and one of my recent novels received a favorable review from the AML, while a couple of liberal Mormon bloggers have also written favorable reviews, although I have also been attacked by believers. I find myself defending Mormonism these days as much as criticizing it. That's a strange position for me.

On the other hand, I'm in Utah at the moment to attend my niece's wedding, or rather, her wedding reception. During the wedding itself I'll be sitting outside, babysitting other nieces and nephews. It's a reminder to me that things haven't changed very much yet.

[_son of Ishmael]

Has a tipping point been reached? Will there come a time in ten or twenty years when one can be a Mormon in the same way one can be a Catholic? That is, the ability to choose one's level of involvement without more devout members attempting to exclude you from participation?

I think so. As more and more information comes out about the church it will lose its grip on the members and the church will become less relevant in their lives and people will only go to church for special occasions.

[_Cicero]

Greetings from a fellow newbie.

As to your question, I am not sure. We don't know what the outcome of the "Mormon moment" will be yet and I agree that whether Romney wins will be very important to the ultimate outcome. My gut sense (and take that for what its worth) is that the PR department reigns supreme right now. Both President Hinckley and President Monson are very good PR men. The recent evidence for this is Prop 8 and the firing of DCP. Prop 8 was bad PR, and the church has been much less vocal in its opposition to gay marriage since then. To be clear, the church is still very much opposed to gay marriange but I don't see them taking a Prop 8-style approach in other states, at least not yet. I have no idea how involved GAs were in the sacking of DCP but I'd be surprised if the board of trustees had zero involvement (my own suspicion is that they were merely willing to let Bradford do what he wanted as opposed to actually encouraging him to fire DCP).

However, every time in the past the tent has started to open up, forces within the church have firmly shut the door and casted out those on the fringes (e.g., the growth of Sunstone followed by statement on symposia and the September 6; camelot followed by the sacking of Leonard Arrington, and to a lesser extent the story of Eugene England).

It all depends on who is really calling the shots. As far as I know, President Monson wasn't active in any of these prior "purges." Packer very much was, but I think he is past his prime at this point. If Holland or Bednar were calling the shots (and they will some day), I don't think the tent would feel like it was expanding at all (e.g., I suspect Dehlin would have been ex'd by now).

[_sansfoy]

I think so. As more and more information comes out about the church it will lose its grip on the members and the church will become less relevant in their lives and people will only go to church for special occasions.

One important step would be to make church attendance less onerous from a physical standpoint as well. Church meetings and callings can eat up an entire day every week, plus nibble away here and there throughout the week as well. It makes it difficult if you don't fully buy into the "story" of the church but want to participate on a cultural level.

And thank you for the welcome. :)

[_Tobin]

I liked your post too sansfoy. I believe Mormonism is in transition itself. I know many members that don't like the central corporate nature of the current leadership and how it likes to dictate out to the membership what is best for their region. Also, there have been quite a few scandals over how tithing has been misspent and this is causing many members to either review their donations or stop donating to the church corporation. I believe as more and more members do this, this will impel the corporation to either reform or go bankrupt. Either event wouldn't sadden me at all.

As far as members accepting more and more different ideas then what has been traditional, that is a great thing. Many pernicious and obviously false ideas have crept up in Mormonism that needs to be removed. The ideas around men becoming God, the exclusionary instead of an inclusive Jesus, the New England puritan stale boring meetings they insist on conducting, and so on will be on their way out (or are in process at being rejected, denied, and eventually will no longer be believed/practiced). This is also a good thing.

I would like to see Mormonism transformed from such a dogmatic (and often mean spirited) religion and return to its roots. That would be a Mormonism driven by the spirit, where the gifts of the spirit are evident once again in the churches, and where belief in God and what God says is paramount instead of what a GA thought.

[_sansfoy]

I liked your post too sansfoy. I believe Mormonism is in transition itself. I know many members that don't like the central corporate nature of the current leadership and how it likes to dictate out to the membership what is best for their region. Also, there have been quite a few scandals over how tithing has been misspent and this is causing many members to either review their donations or stop donating to the church corporation. I believe as more and more members do this, this will impel the corporation to either reform or go bankrupt. Either event wouldn't sadden me at all.

As far as members accepting more and more different ideas then what has been traditional, that is a great thing. Many pernicious and obviously false ideas have crept up in Mormonism that needs to be removed. The ideas around men becoming God, the exclusionary instead of an inclusive Jesus, the New England puritan stale boring meetings they insist on conducting, and so on will be on their way out (or are in process at being rejected, denied, and eventually will no longer be believed/practiced). This is also a good thing.

I would like to see Mormonism transformed from such a dogmatic (and often mean spirited) religion and return to its roots. That would be a Mormonism driven by the spirit, where the gifts of the spirit are evident once again in the churches, and where belief in God and what God says is paramount instead of what a GA thought.

What sort of changes would have to occur within the hierarchy itself to allow this sort of change to happen at the root level?