DiscussMormonism.com

New Order Mormons are those who no longer believe some (or much) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons. New Order Mormons recognize both good and bad in the Church, and have determined that the Church does not have to be perfect in order to remain useful. New Order Mormons seek the middle way to be Mormon. newordermormon.org

Is the cut off between believer and non believer a very clear line or is there an acceptable spectrum of levels of belief which don't necessarily mean you are an apostate?

It appears that the Church actually finds it acceptable for its members to not be fully supportive or engaged in each and every belief that Mormonism teaches.

“Members of the Church vary in their levels of participation or belief. Latter-day Saints who have seriously contravened or ignored cardinal Church teachings (publicly or privately) are considered apostates, whether or not they have officially left the Church or affiliated with another religion” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism [1992], 1:59). LDS.org 'apostate'

So I guess we are now left with trying to understand what constitutes a 'serious contravention' or a 'cardinal teaching'. Any ideas?

Drifting wrote:It appears that the Church actually finds it acceptable for its members to not be fully supportive or engaged in each and every belief that Mormonism teaches.

“Members of the Church vary in their levels of participation or belief. Latter-day Saints who have seriously contravened or ignored cardinal Church teachings (publicly or privately) are considered apostates, whether or not they have officially left the Church or affiliated with another religion” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism [1992], 1:59). LDS.org 'apostate'

So I guess we are now left with trying to understand what constitutes a 'serious contravention' or a 'cardinal teaching'. Any ideas?

My experience: it's OK to deviate from the following beliefs:
1. Cain is Bigfoot
2. Coke/Pepsi is prohibited
3. Oral sex is bad

In other words, beliefs that are a little kooky and have no consequence.

Drifting wrote:

New Order Mormons are those who no longer believe some (or much) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons. New Order Mormons recognize both good and bad in the Church, and have determined that the Church does not have to be perfect in order to remain useful. New Order Mormons seek the middle way to be Mormon. newordermormon.org

Is the cut off between believer and non believer a very clear line or is there an acceptable spectrum of levels of belief which don't necessarily mean you are an apostate?

It appears that the Church actually finds it acceptable for its members to not be fully supportive or engaged in each and every belief that Mormonism teaches.

“Members of the Church vary in their levels of participation or belief. Latter-day Saints who have seriously contravened or ignored cardinal Church teachings (publicly or privately) are considered apostates, whether or not they have officially left the Church or affiliated with another religion” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism [1992], 1:59). LDS.org 'apostate'

So I guess we are now left with trying to understand what constitutes a 'serious contravention' or a 'cardinal teaching'. Any ideas?

Could it be as simple as saying that if you hold a Temple Recommend then you are (a) not in serious contravention of the cardinal teachings; and (b) therefore not apostate, even if you are a NOM?

That way you don't actually have to try to define the terms 'serious contravention' and 'cardinal teaching'.

LDSToronto wrote:
My experience: it's OK to deviate from the following beliefs:
1. Cain is Bigfoot
2. Coke/Pepsi is prohibited
3. Oral sex is bad

In other words, beliefs that are a little kooky and have no consequence.

Re #3, do you think is it true that the only bad oral sex is the oral sex you have not experienced (either as giver or as receiver)? Or does that not matter when it comes (no pun intended) to matters of NOMhood and apostasy.

It seems to me that the bar for actually getting ex'd for apostasy is pretty high. Generally speaking, the church cares a lot more about conduct (orthopraxy) than belief (orthodox), but there certainly are a few cardinal beliefs. Repeated, vocal criticism of GAs or local leaders will land you in hot water very quickly. Stating that you are an atheist or expressing an opinion that Joseph Smith was a fraud are also big ones to avoid. Advocating that women should have the priesthood or that we should pray to heavenly mother has gotten people ex'ed in the past, but I don't know if this would still happen today.

After that, there is a huge gray area of acceptable beliefs that may not get you ex'ed, but NOMs have to decide how much they want to participate or not. An NOM can attend meetings and have callings, but may not be able to fully partiicipate if they hold certain beliefs or don't adhere to certain practices. For example, if an NOM is agnostic, or doesn't believe that Monson is a prophet or refuses to pay tithing, then that NOM will not be able to attend the temple.

Also, it appears that the Church is no longer allowing men to baptize their children or ordain their sons to priesthood offices if they don't have a TR (John Dehlin and several others have mentioned this recently). I haven't had access to the handbook recently so I don't know if this policy is church-wide or not.

malkie wrote:

LDSToronto wrote:
My experience: it's OK to deviate from the following beliefs:
1. Cain is Bigfoot
2. Coke/Pepsi is prohibited
3. Oral sex is bad

In other words, beliefs that are a little kooky and have no consequence.

Re #3, do you think is it true that the only bad oral sex is the oral sex you have not experienced (either as giver or as receiver)? Or does that not matter when it comes (no pun intended) to matters of NOMhood and apostasy.

I can't discern your question - would you mind rephrasing it?

H.

Cicero wrote:Also, it appears that the Church is no longer allowing men to baptize their children or ordain their sons to priesthood offices if they don't have a TR (John Dehlin and several others have mentioned this recently). I haven't had access to the handbook recently so I don't know if this policy is church-wide or not.

Here's the relevant section in the current CHI:

“Only a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend may act as voice in confirming a person a member of the church, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood, ordaining a person to an office in that priesthood, or setting apart a person to serve in a church calling.

As guided by the Spirit and the instructions of the next paragraph, bishops and stake presidents have the discretion to allow priesthood holders who are not fully temple worthy to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings. However, presiding officers should not allow such participation if a priesthood holder has unresolved serious sins.

A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice.” (pg. 140, 2010 CHI)

http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/11/03/2010-church-handbook-of-instructions/

So baptism should be okay, confirmation and priesthood ordination should not, but of course it's still up to the discretion of the individual priesthood leader to exercise as much righteous or unrighteous dominion as they want.

Okay, do any of the following individually or collectively make me apostate?

1. I refuse to pay tithing as I believe the Church leadership does not disperse the tithes in a manner pleasing to Christ. Instead, those funds go to what I have determined are things that will help the poor and needy.
2. This also means I do not sustain the senior Church leaders.
3. I do not believe in the Temple nor it's rituals.
4. I do not believe the scriptures unique to Mormonism are what they claim to be.
5. I do not believe God interferes in this life in any way other than people having a belief in God helps to lift their spirits or to cope with times of distress.
6. I disagree with the Church's discriminatory practices in relation to women and gays.
7. I believe the Church (senior leadership) deliberately hides elements of its history that it feels are harmful to conversion and retention numbers despite knowing it is being misleading.
8. I do not believe in Prophets. But I do believe some people are smarter than I.
9. I hope for a life after death but don't need to know what it is, preferring instead to try and be a good father, husband, brother, son, neighbour now and face the next life, whatever it is, when I get there.
10. I believe three hours on a Sunday could be better spent working as a volunteer down the old folks home.

Are New Order Mormon's just apostates in hiding...?

Uh, yeah. But we should never think something is wrong with being apostate.

apostate = different

LDSToronto wrote:
My experience: it's OK to deviate from the following beliefs:
1. Cain is Bigfoot
2. Coke/Pepsi is prohibited
3. Oral sex is bad

In other words, beliefs that are a little kooky and have no consequence.

malkie wrote:Re #3, do you think is it true that the only bad oral sex is the oral sex you have not experienced (either as giver or as receiver)? Or does that not matter when it comes (no pun intended) to matters of NOMhood and apostasy.

LDSToronto wrote:
I can't discern your question - would you mind rephrasing it?

H.

Sorry, H, if I was too abstruse, and tongue-in-cheek about it..

Since you say that it's OK to not believe that oral sex is bad, I wondered if it was the case that oral sex is really only bad for the person who doesn't get or give it. Or, did you mean that one's views on oral sex is irrelevant to whether one is considered apostate. I just took the opportunity of phrasing it in a suggestive way.

I do have to admit that it sounds a lot less humourous now that I've explained it.

Maybe I should just quit while I'm not too far behind.