Vertical and Horizontal Mormonism

[_consiglieri]

One of the primary things that concerns me regarding Mormonism is its evolution from a vertical religion to a horizontal.

In reading last night a 1972 piece by Hugh Nibley for the Ensign, he manages to frame the issue succinctly in describing the development of Judaism and Christianity. Hugh was so percipient, however, I am unable to believe he could not see its application to Mormonism. In fact, it strikes me as likely being a veiled criticism.

Here it is:

Vertical Judaism and Christianity is that brand of religion that believed in the necessity of direct revelation, inspired leaders, charismatic gifts, the coming of a real Messiah and a real millennium; the predominance of such beliefs at an early time has become apparent from the oldest Jewish and Christian manuscripts, whose recent discovery has completely changed the picture of Christian beginnings.

Both Judaism and Christianity, it would now appear, began as charismatic vertical religions that were in time completely suppressed and supplanted by the horizontal or academic way of thinking, which holds that one should reverence only the tradition handed down horizontally from one generation of teachers and scholars to the next and that the complete religious life is comprised in the proper observance of established customs and the acceptance of officially approved doctrines.

Thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Guest]

Seems to me that the problem is in order to be vertical one has to give revelations, actually demonstrate miracles and convince people the 2nd coming is just around the corner. Even in J.S.'s time this was a difficult task and required a brilliant prophet or con-man, depending on your view. A church based on those criteria will fail as people begin to question the veracity of those events. ("hey the copyright didn't sell" , "I didn't see BY transfigure" or "it's 1880 and Jesus was a no-show".) In order to maintain members the Church transforms itself into a horizontal version where miracles are too sacred to talk about, doomsday practitioners are the crazy uncle with lots of guns, a bomb shelter and freeze dried food, and revelations consist of changing the missionary age requirements or newsroom releases.

I think mass communications make a vertical Church a thing of the past. There is too much instant public scrutiny and accurate recording devices for a modern prophet of a large Church to risk being made to look like a fool.

[_sock puppet]

I think that the terminology is a bit mixed up.

I think that the hierarchical, bureaucratic, top-down is the 'vertical'--as exemplified by the LDS Church today. And that the charismatic, localized church of the 1st and 2nd Centuries, was the horizontal one.

Apart from that quibble, I agree with Nibley on this observation. Whether he connected the hierarchical (antithetical to the charismatic) to the dot of the LDS Church of today or not, I certainly perceive a strong nexus.

[_Tarski]

"handed down horizontally"?

huh?

[_Gadianton]

I am unable to believe he could not see its application to Mormonism. In fact, it strikes me as likely being a veiled criticism.

If you read more of his stuff, you'll find it's an explicit criticism. Nibley had issues with the business and PR side of the Church. He had a literal heavenly manifistation of some sort, he believed the heavens were open, and he took doctrines literally, namely, the Law of Consecration. He explicitly criticized an unnamed GA who told him he should live it "spiritually", and that ties right in with religion maturing as he observed in your quote.

Long ago I concluded that while Nibley may be the father of Internet Mormonism, he himself was still a Chapel Mormon. He didn't even believe in the LGT!

[_Markk]

One of the primary things that concerns me regarding Mormonism is its evolution from a vertical religion to a horizontal.

In reading last night a 1972 piece by Hugh Nibley for the Ensign, he manages to frame the issue succinctly in describing the development of Judaism and Christianity. Hugh was so percipient, however, I am unable to believe he could not see its application to Mormonism. In fact, it strikes me as likely being a veiled criticism.

Here it is:

Vertical Judaism and Christianity is that brand of religion that believed in the necessity of direct revelation, inspired leaders, charismatic gifts, the coming of a real Messiah and a real millennium; the predominance of such beliefs at an early time has become apparent from the oldest Jewish and Christian manuscripts, whose recent discovery has completely changed the picture of Christian beginnings.

Both Judaism and Christianity, it would now appear, began as charismatic vertical religions that were in time completely suppressed and supplanted by the horizontal or academic way of thinking, which holds that one should reverence only the tradition handed down horizontally from one generation of teachers and scholars to the next and that the complete religious life is comprised in the proper observance of established customs and the acceptance of officially approved doctrines.

Thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Are you sure he wasn't writing as a "christian", I would assume he believed he was a "Mormon christian." Did he exclude Mormonism from what he had written?

Thanks
MG

[_zeezrom]

I look at it as going from free to bound.

Free means it is okay for the leaders to use their imagination and allow its members to use their imagination. I suppose this could also appear to be "vertical".

Bound means it is not okay.

Today, the LDS church is bound.

[_Gadianton]

I look at it as going from free to bound.

Free means it is okay for the leaders to use their imagination and allow its members to use their imagination. I suppose this could also appear to be "vertical".

Bound means it is not okay.

Today, the LDS church is bound.

Which do you think is better?

[_harmony]

I look at it as going from free to bound.

Free means it is okay for the leaders to use their imagination and allow its members to use their imagination. I suppose this could also appear to be "vertical".

Bound means it is not okay.

Today, the LDS church is bound.

Which do you think is better?

For whom?

[_zeezrom]

I look at it as going from free to bound.

Free means it is okay for the leaders to use their imagination and allow its members to use their imagination. I suppose this could also appear to be "vertical".

Bound means it is not okay.

Today, the LDS church is bound.

Which do you think is better?

Like usual, a very good question.

When I wrote it, I thought the first was better. Now I'm questioning both.