What is the point of the new Mormon philosophy of MG?

[_Bazooka]

If the tent is so large as to encompass any beliefs what is left that separates the LDS church from any other Christian religion?

President Hinckley was actually already making strides in that direction during his attempt to streamline the LDS Church into another Christian religion rather than distinguishing the difference between "Mormons" and "Christians".

I'm not sure he was...remember the "we don't worship the same Jesus" comment?
Hinckley was making strides into improving the PR of the Church, with things like all those (now underused) temples and the Olympics and the Mall. He was a trained Marketing man and that came through his discipleship in spades.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

President Hinckley was actually already making strides in that direction during his attempt to streamline the LDS Church into another Christian religion rather than distinguishing the difference between "Mormons" and "Christians".

Let's not forget that it was Hinckley than called Bednar to the 12 knowing full well he was calling the future president of the church. This act speaks volumes about Hinckley, in my opinion.

[_Lloyd Dobler]

Lloyd,

The point of the philosophy is that it helps MG conform in order to maintain acceptance and security in his family and church community.

Yeah, I believe that but I am not sure MG would agree with it. I am not sure whether he thinks that this new Mormon philosophy is making the best of a bad situation or if he really believes he is still choosing the best life philosophy out there. It's one thing to still make it work under the one true church paradigm but it is quite another when you have given up on that one true paradigm and embraced a more egalitarian approach to God and religions. Basically, one would think that this new philosophy would open up a HUGE number or options to this kind of a NOM. It seems that the honest consideration of all of the religious and philosophical options would translate to some sort of change in actual behavior. How on earth is it possible to talk this big open source Mormonism game and then every time land back on the same tbm behaviors and orthopraxy? It makes me think that Gadianton is on to something.

Maybe MG has a super tbm wife and is making the best of the situation. He talks of participating in his community....he must mean Mormon community which translates to ward family because having been a tbm for far too long, I know exactly how much a ward gets involved in their community. Church auxiliaries are inward facing and the whole thing is set up so that Mormons serve other Mormons to ensure everybody stays on track and the youth fulfill the life narrative laid out for them by the Church. What good is embracing this big French/Buddhist/Mormon philosophy when your world remains inside the four walls of the ward building? MG even said that ward clerk is the best calling in the world or something. I mean come on. MG, life is bigger and better than that and you know it.

MG, how much of your current philosophy is born out of necessity and how much of this is born out of real choice? It seems to me that your post faith crisis Adam Miller, Terryl Givens philosophy should lead you to NEW lived experiences in life and not back to the duties of a ward clerk.

I don't think this new Mormon philosophy ties down in any way. Ironically, if it ties down anywhere, then it is probably not Mormonism. You wind up being left with saying stuff like Fionna Givens is really on to something when she says that women already hold the priesthood. I mean good heavens.

MG, would your wife let you go to church every other Sunday? For the first couple years, my tbm wife would not.....but we changed and while not at the same time, we changed together. And we still go occasionally to church with the kids but we also do a whole lot of other stuff in our lives now including meaningful and real service and financial contribution to our community. Now, I can honestly say that my lived experience is better now than it used to be as a tbm. I know mileage may vary. But holmes don't you ever get the itch to really change it up? How convinced are you that ward clerking and raising your kids tbm (even with the occasional counterbalance talks from you) is the best option? As Oaks said, good better best baby. Ok, the baby part is mine and who knows if we can ever know that we are living the best possible lived experience available for us. However, I know what better is. I know what better than good is in life. How convinced are you that your new philosophy is not just a rationalization for doing the good when better could real and attainable and right around the corner?

For me, better was putting down the fancy books by people with impressive academic credentials and convincing my wife that we were going to start taking a family day once a month on Sunday. Hiking with my family and spending the day out in nature turned out to be better than the good we got from the 3 hour block. It mean it was not even close. So then we tried being away from church two Sundays a month. God, the miracle of having even a couple uninterrupted hours with my kids on a Sunday. Turns out really connecting with my kids on a level that I did not think possible was way better than counting tithing after church.

Fionna Givens is not on to something MG. She is spinning stuff and selling books. It's just talk. The stuff she says benefits her first. Maybe instead of spending time finding out new ways to think about Mormonism, you should spend time finding new ways to live your life with your family.

Of course, my whole rant makes me sound like a pretentious ass. I'll own that. But I have found way more value in life from what I do rather than what I think. I guess my topic really was not questioning the point but was maybe more questioning the value of this new Mormon philosophy.

[_mentalgymnast]

I don't think Terryl and Fiona Givens are trying to piss anyone off. They are simply exploring alternative views to looking at the world/religion/Mormonism with old assumptions. I don't see where that in and of itself is not a productive endeavor.

Regards,
MG

Because in the long run it creates division within the church.

I don't see it that way. When a critical mass of people are better educated and have to struggle with faith issues...and they actually have others to talk to...that would be a game changer. Especially if you have lots of people that have had experiences with gospel living, scriptures, and the Spirit...and they'd like to try and work through the oppositional issues and keep the testimony and/or faith that they have put a high degree of value on. When you have a large number of people looking at faith from a richer/deeper place and/or reservoir of knowledge , the community can actually become stronger. The community of Christ rejected parts of Joseph's teachings...didn't work. The CofJCofLDS needs to take ownership of all of Joseph's teachings and the new research into Biblical studies, archeology, DNA issues...or whatever, and integrate them into the mainstream consciousness and classroom discussion/contact. People could become the stronger and more faithful if they are helping each other through their struggles. Faith breeds faith. Doubt breeds doubt. If the church can open up and push folks to look forward with faith, even in their doubts, the church may be able to stay on mission. I don't see where they really have any other choice.

It is a productive endeavor for those with doubts who wish to reconcile those doubts and stay in the LDS church. The problem is that it creates a subgroup of members in the church whose beliefs are in direct conflict with the larger group still holding on to literal and/or original interpretations.

Like I said, we need to reach a critical mass where it behooves the powers that be to let openness reign supreme...at church, in gospel doctrine classes. That's where it needs to happen. But it can't until this critical mass of inquiry/questioning/doubt is reached. It's moving that direction. The snowball is picking up speed and moving towards critical mass.

You may not have a problem with what they are saying but it is clear many others would reject it as Mormonism.

You have to remember that the younger generation comes into play here. They are the great unknown. Just what are their assumptions? How orthodox to the old assumptions are they? What is the paradigm that this world and its twists and turns is creating in their own lives/minds? I think the youth of the church will build new bridges to the new ways of looking at old paradigms/viewpoints...without necessarily changing or rejecting core teachings/doctrines.

I have a large extended LDS family and group of friends, most of which are still unaware of the extensive historical problems and most of which reject out of hand any suggestion of non literal interpretations of scripture. They are simple not interested in such discussions.

Probably because they see their community as not being compatible with questioning/resolving doubts, etc. If they see that their faith community has reached a critical mass and that the group consensus has moved towards more openness...you might be surprised as to the dramatic shift some folks might make in their interest in New Mormon History. Which has been around long enough now for it to be not new anymore.

As this alternate approach to belief grows those discussions will become inevitable.

Which is good.

What happens then?

I think the results can only be good for the community as a whole. As long as the community is fractured, there is the real possibility of a complete fracture taking place. Openness will be the only way that things can come back together with greater strength.

For a great example of what such discussions do just look at the Maxwell Institute evolution over the last year or two and the discussions between those that were thrown out and those that took over. It isn't pretty.

But necessary.

I guess the question becomes at what point do personal interpretations of Mormonism cross the line?

When core doctrines are seen as being non-negotiably false. There always will be a need to look at the core teachings and doctrines with eyes towards faith. Plausibilities, possibilities, and probabilities. When God, Joseph Smith, Authority, Temples, Faith, Repentance, Sealings...and other core practices and doctrines that have remained intact through the restoration...can remain part of the narrative, along with different approaches/means of looking at problem issues...DNA, scripture, revelation, etc., I think the community can survive and thrive.

If the tent is so large as to encompass any beliefs...

I don't think that can happen successfully.

...what is left that separates the LDS church from any other Christian religion?

Nothing. And then the church would cease to be able to fulfil its four fold mission. But if you believe in the revelations, that won't happen. Large scale 'apostasy' will not occur to the extent that it brings down the church. I think that many members of the church hold on to this prophecy come hell or high water. And it becomes a matter of faith to put stock in this rather canonized way of looking at the "end times".

Who gets to decide what is a core belief and what is not?

I think the core beliefs are pretty much standardized at this point in time except for possible little tweaks here and there.

Wouldn't it be great if there were someone to whom we could turn to ask such questions, someone not afraid to declare what God thinks?

The question could be asked whether or not God really wants us to know the full extent of what He's thinking. If we did, that might negate "the plan".

The RLDS tried to expand its core beliefs to include women in the priesthood, a non historical view of the Book of Mormon, accepted the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and so on. In doing so it evolved into just another Christian denomination and fragmented into several smaller groups.

Yep.

The church's current response to those who doubt is a "don't ask and don't tell" policy that clearly will not work in the long run.

I think that is changing. And that is a good thing...whichever direction it takes us.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Lloyd,

The point of the philosophy is that it helps MG conform in order to maintain acceptance and security in his family and church community.

Yeah, I believe that but I am not sure MG would agree with it. I am not sure whether he thinks that this new Mormon philosophy is making the best of a bad situation or if he really believes he is still choosing the best life philosophy out there.

I think new ways of looking at old paradigms and assumptions are not inherently disconjoining and/or disrespectful to the past...either to the historians, the prophets, or the scriptures.

It's one thing to still make it work under the one true church paradigm but it is quite another when you have given up on that one true paradigm and embraced a more egalitarian approach to God and religions.

I think both approaches can coexist. Plausibilities, possibilities, and probabilities. Opens up a rather wide gamut of looking at the world and Mormonism's place in it.

Basically, one would think that this new philosophy would open up a HUGE number or options to this kind of a NOM.

It does.

It seems that the honest consideration of all of the religious and philosophical options would translate to some sort of change in actual behavior.

That's a possibility. And depending on the person...even a probability. But there's nothing set in stone as to what "change in actual behavior" takes place as one gains greater awareness and openness to plausibilities, possibilities, and probabilities. Remaining open minded doesn't necessarily translate into open ended behavior/choices.

How on earth is it possible to talk this big open source Mormonism game and then every time land back on the same tbm behaviors and orthopraxy?

Probably more to do with community behaviors and expectations. But I'd still argue that one doesn't ending up pimping themselves to the MAN or becoming a, well, you know.

Maybe MG has a super tbm wife and is making the best of the situation.

That is true.

He talks of participating in his community....he must mean Mormon community which translates to ward family because having been a tbm for far too long, I know exactly how much a ward gets involved in their community. Church auxiliaries are inward facing and the whole thing is set up so that Mormons serve other Mormons to ensure everybody stays on track and the youth fulfill the life narrative laid out for them by the Church. What good is embracing this big French/Buddhist/Mormon philosophy when your world remains inside the four walls of the ward building?

Why isn't this good? To belong to community...to help relieve the suffering...to offer blessings/encouragement...to support others in their happinesses and their trials, to put other first, etc. How can that NOT be a good thing?

MG even said that ward clerk is the best calling in the world or something.

Low stress and low maintenance. Can't beat that!

I mean come on. MG, life is bigger and better than that and you know it.

Of course it is. Have I indicated in any way that I believe that it isn't?

MG, how much of your current philosophy is born out of necessity and how much of this is born out of real choice?

It is a mix.

It seems to me that your post faith crisis Adam Miller, Terryl Givens philosophy should lead you to NEW lived experiences in life and not back to the duties of a ward clerk.

Not sure why you're dictating that this is the only viable choice? Are you saying that I should start doing "stuff" that I'm not doing?

Why?

by the way, back in my younger days I had experiences that might qualify as pertaining to the "stuff" you might think are the "NEW lived experiences" that folks with paradigm changes should integrate...by necessity/default into their lives. I'm actually kind of glad I moved away from a lot of that "stuff".

I don't think this new Mormon philosophy ties down in any way. Ironically, if it ties down anywhere, then it is probably not Mormonism.

Are you saying that Terryl and Fiona are not believers and/or have faith/hope in the restoration narrative?

You wind up being left with saying stuff like Fionna Givens is really on to something when she says that women already hold the priesthood. I mean good heavens.

I think she has helped bring this conversation to the forefront. Is that not good?

MG, would your wife let you go to church every other Sunday?

Why? She wants to go every Sunday.

For the first couple years, my tbm wife would not.....but we changed and while not at the same time, we changed together. And we still go occasionally to church with the kids but we also do a whole lot of other stuff in our lives now including meaningful and real service and financial contribution to our community. Now, I can honestly say that my lived experience is better now than it used to be as a tbm.

Is that not a good thing for you? If it is, stick with it. If you see some problems with it...do something that floats your boat in a more productive/happier way.

How convinced are you that your new philosophy is not just a rationalization for doing the good when better could real and attainable and right around the corner?

Could you give me a sneak preview as to what the "better" is?

For me, better was putting down the fancy books by people with impressive academic credentials and convincing my wife that we were going to start taking a family day once a month on Sunday.

Ok. That must be #1.

Hiking with my family and spending the day out in nature turned out to be better than the good we got from the 3 hour block.

#2

...having even a couple uninterrupted hours with my kids on a Sunday.

#3

Turns out really connecting with my kids on a level that I did not think possible...

What did not attending church have to do with that? Could you explain what you mean by "on a [different] level"?

...was way better than counting tithing after church.

OK. Good. Better. Best...and all that.

Fionna Givens is not on to something MG. She is spinning stuff and selling books.

OTOH, she may be a mentor with a message. And selling books is the best way to get the message out there to the masses.

It's just talk.

Well...so is this.

The stuff she says benefits her first.

Judgement call on your part. She may see herself as a mentor to the struggling saints. Is that not a good thing...if this is indeed the case?

Maybe instead of spending time finding out new ways to think about Mormonism, you should spend time finding new ways to live your life with your family.

I've already experienced basically the same outcomes/results (albeit our kids are grown and moved away on the most part) that you are associating with your #1, #2, and #3. Do you have some other "new ways to live [my] life" that you could go into a bit more detail on? I'm interested.

I have found way more value in life from what I do rather than what I think.

I'm on the same page as you when it comes to doing being important.

I guess my topic really was not questioning the point but was maybe more questioning the value of this new Mormon philosophy.

It's a way of adjusting to changing life circumstances and experiences in the here and now...and into the future.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

[The]...problem for the Church [is when] you start pushing back against things and letting your contrary views and opinions become known outside of a one to one with your Bishop.

I think that times are changing. Critical mass is key as I've already mentioned. Recent addresses in conference are opening up the possibilities for local change in perceptions...and thus interchanges (classroom settings, i.e.) between various stripes of Mormons. And I think it will happen as more youth are coming up through the ranks and end up sitting in gospel doctrine classes.

Regards,
MG

[_Tim the Enchanter]

MG,

I think you overestimate how much the church will change. Every conversation about the next few decades of the church should start with recognizing that Oaks, Holland, and Bednar will be leading the church. I see no indication that they want the critical mass you hope for. Rather, I think they want the same thing the church has wanted for generations, that is, kids raised in the church, missions, temple marriages, serving in callings, paying tithing, and raising the next generation the same way. What do you hope a critical mass of people that think like you will accomplish?

[_mentalgymnast]

MG,

What do you hope a critical mass of people that think like you will accomplish?

When I'm saying critical mass I'm referring to a growing number of folks that look at faith and testimony as something that can wax and wane along the spectrum of life experience, learning, trial, etc. That it's OK to have questions. That it's OK to ask questions...at church. With Home Teachers. In Ward Correlation meetings. That it's Ok to ask. That it is OK to talk/communicate with each other transparently rather than in opaqueness/or veiled meaning. A church coming to a common consensus that truth can withstand scrutiny and act on it as curriculum is designed and implemented.

We haven't arrived there yet. It has to start with the youth. And I think it may be moving that direction. With the redesigned curriculum which is less structured and more open ended for expression and freethought there is a chance that ward by ward this will evolve into a teaching mode/structure that will lend itself to greater ability to express one's own feelings/thoughts...rather than reacting to a script with a scripted voice/answer. As this happens, folks may feel comfortable getting off script and at the same time know that they will receive support and thoughtful discussion to bridge gaps in either spiritual/emotional/intellectual knowledge.

Look, Terryl and Fiona Givens, with the previous footwork by Richard Bushman and others, have been able to act as a catalyst in moving younger folks in this direction already. When new paradigms and readjustment of assumptions are made for public consumption and delivered to the many...firesides and books... there can't help but be a groundswell movement that leads towards wards/branches in which the scenario I've described becomes common place.

I see only good coming from this new direction. Why remain prisoners of an older and less developed culture that has had its day in the limelight? Whatever truth there is can come through the storm and rise triumphant. And whatever is not...should be left by the wayside. That is the ideal/goal isn't it? To have a church with more seekers than rote followers...wouldn't that be something?

I think the four fold mission of the church can survive this movement and that the narrative of God's kingdom and Christ's atonement/mission can move forward with resilience and even reenergized initiative. That is wholly based, of course, on the assumption that a creator/God has a direct interest in the success of this work. If He doesn't, then well, it's all up for grabs. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the mission/message of the church is a form of faith/hope, isn't it?

I think that more folks are looking at faith in a more nuanced manner while still "keeping the faith". The new direction of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute and the people that are involved in that enterprise seem to demonstrate and show evidence that this new direction is moving towards becoming mainstream.

Why fight it?

Regards,
MG

[_cafe crema]

You are making a HUGE assumption here that we all do that. From what MG stated, it sound like he has a pretty open dialogue with his children about the Church, and encourages them to find their own answers, even though they are being brought up in an LDS home.

In the case of how we have raised our children....yes, they have attended Church with us, but we have also had very open conversations about the lessons taught, etc. as a family.

Our younger daughter got married in the temple...her choice. My older daughter will likely get married next year to her non-member boyfriend, and it will be a civil ceremony. His grandfather, who is an active Baptist minister will likely do the ceremony. We are equally happy for both girls, and want what is best for them. Our son is only 10, but when he does reach the age of 18, it will be HIS CHOICE as to whether or not he would like to serve a mission. He is high-functioning autistic, so his health will also play an issue in whether or not it would make sense for him to serve.

As far as my comment about "having the Church work for you" goes...what I meant was this: There are many beautiful aspects to the gospel that I personally find useful. Those that mean a lot to me, I incorporate into my daily life, and in how I raise my kids. The stuff that I don't find useful, I simply reject. I realize that this doesn't work for everyone, and that many people find it an insincere way to live. Ironically, though, every other person I have encountered who has a regular religion that they incorporate into their lives handles things precisely the way I do.

I would say it would be his choice if goes against the church torrent to serve a mission. I he chooses to go I wouldn't be convinced it was his choice, peer pressure, church pressure, if he's like my black/white right/wrong OCD child who gets an idea that this is the way things are supposed to be and that is it no changing her course.

On the weddings, I'm a bit surprised the Baptist grandfather is just officiating a civil ceremony, the Baptists I know are all about church weddings, receptions have been a mixed bag but the weddings were serious church events.

[_Bazooka]

When I'm saying critical mass I'm referring to a growing number of folks that look at faith and testimony as something that can wax and wane along the spectrum of life experience, learning, trial, etc. That it's OK to have questions. That it's OK to ask questions...at church. With Home Teachers. In Ward Correlation meetings. That it's Ok to ask. That it is OK to talk/communicate with each other transparently rather than in opaqueness/or veiled meaning. A church coming to a common consensus that truth can withstand scrutiny and act on it as curriculum is designed and implemented.

We haven't arrived there yet. It has to start with the youth. And I think it may be moving that direction. With the redesigned curriculum which is less structured and more open ended for expression and freethought there is a chance that ward by ward this will evolve into a teaching mode/structure that will lend itself to greater ability to express one's own feelings/thoughts...rather than reacting to a script with a scripted voice/answer. As this happens, folks may feel comfortable getting off script and at the same time know that they will receive support and thoughtful discussion to bridge gaps in either spiritual/emotional/intellectual knowledge.

Look, Terryl and Fiona Givens, with the previous footwork by Richard Bushman and others, have been able to act as a catalyst in moving younger folks in this direction already. When new paradigms and readjustment of assumptions are made for public consumption and delivered to the many...firesides and books... there can't help but be a groundswell movement that leads towards wards/branches in which the scenario I've described becomes common place.

I see only good coming from this new direction. Why remain prisoners of an older and less developed culture that has had its day in the limelight? Whatever truth there is can come through the storm and rise triumphant. And whatever is not...should be left by the wayside. That is the ideal/goal isn't it? To have a church with more seekers than rote followers...wouldn't that be something?

I think the four fold mission of the church can survive this movement and that the narrative of God's kingdom and Christ's atonement/mission can move forward with resilience and even reenergized initiative. That is wholly based, of course, on the assumption that a creator/God has a direct interest in the success of this work. If He doesn't, then well, it's all up for grabs. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the mission/message of the church is a form of faith/hope, isn't it?

I think that more folks are looking at faith in a more nuanced manner while still "keeping the faith". The new direction of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute and the people that are involved in that enterprise seem to demonstrate and show evidence that this new direction is moving towards becoming mainstream.

Why fight it?

Regards,
MG

I cannot disagree with a word of what you say, it's a great insight.
The only thing I'd add (there's always something with bazooka, right?) is that once that process has been gone through over the timescale of a generation, what would differentiate Mormonism as the one true Church? And if that distinction isn't then made, Mormonism becomes simply another me-too cult status religion. The unique selling point of the Church is that it is THE Church. Take that away and suddenly...well...you've lost the whole point of the missionary programme and the temple ordinances. Nuance undermines the Restoration, but may salvage the Church's future. Is that really a price worth paying?