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

[_mentalgymnast]

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?

There are always going to be those who KNOW the church is true. There will always be those that have faith in Christ and His Atonement. There will always be those the have faith/hope that the CofJCofLDS is God's kingdom on earth with authority/fullness of the gospel. There will always be those that are willing to give the benefit of a doubt to the church/gospel as being efficacious in bringing about goodness/God's work on the earth.

In the podcast with John Dehlin, Terryl and Fiona mentioned that the main distinction between the restored gospel and what was already in place within the world of Christianity is the temple ordinances and the saving principles attached thereto. LDS folks are the custodians of the temple. They do the work for the dead so that God's plan CAN be a universal plan attempting to bring as many of His children back into his kingdom(s) as possible.

Just think, Bazooka, even as an apostate as long as you don't qualify for being a Son of Perdition you are going to receive a kingdom of glory. How great is that?

Regards,
MG

[_Bazooka]

Just think, Bazooka, even as an apostate as long as you don't qualify for being a Son of Perdition you are going to receive a kingdom of glory. How great is that?

Regards,
MG

Oh I'm well in. See you there.

You see, it's the temple stuff and how Givens approaches it that i have a problem with.
He seems to be trying to find a way of saying that you have to be a Mormon to get to the Celestial Kingdom so that people don't think that's what he's saying.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

Why fight it?

The thing is, it's not the critics and doubters that fight it. It's the church leaders themselves. I think your ideal vision for the future of the church would make for a much improved church compared to the one that exists today. What I doubt is that the leaders of the church want your vision to come to pass. From William Law to Kate Kelly, the modus operandi of the church has been to threaten, condemn, ostracize, and excommunicate those who threaten the flock of TBM's regardless of what the truth actually is.

And again, you can't ignore that for the next few decades the church will be led primarily by Oaks, Holland, and Bednar. What do you see in these men that leads you to conclude that they want a church where people communicate transparently about doubt and the waxing and waning of testimony over the course of a lifetime? I just don't see it. Why? Because the root of this crisis in the church is not a crisis of openness and transparency and goodwill to all be they devout or a doubter. It's a crisis of truth.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Why fight it?

The thing is, it's not the critics and doubters that fight it. It's the church leaders themselves. I think your ideal vision for the future of the church would make for a much improved church compared to the one that exists today. What I doubt is that the leaders of the church want your vision to come to pass. From William Law to Kate Kelly, the modus operandi of the church has been to threaten, condemn, ostracize, and excommunicate those who threaten the flock of TBM's regardless of what the truth actually is.

And again, you can't ignore that for the next few decades the church will be led primarily by Oaks, Holland, and Bednar. What do you see in these men that leads you to conclude that they want a church where people communicate transparently about doubt and the waxing and waning of testimony over the course of a lifetime? I just don't see it. Why? Because the root of this crisis in the church is not a crisis of openness and transparency and goodwill to all be they devout or a doubter. It's a crisis of truth.

Scott is ahead of Holland in the line-up. Just sayin'

[_Jesse Pinkman]

And again, you can't ignore that for the next few decades the church will be led primarily by Oaks, Holland, and Bednar. What do you see in these men that leads you to conclude that they want a church where people communicate transparently about doubt and the waxing and waning of testimony over the course of a lifetime? I just don't see it. Why? Because the root of this crisis in the church is not a crisis of openness and transparency and goodwill to all be they devout or a doubter. It's a crisis of truth.

I think that you are discounting the counselors that the leadership calls. Who is the most popular counselor right now and why? Uchtdorf tends to embody more of this "new" way of thinking that MG has discussed.

If the leadership continue to call counselors with more of this forward thinking, I think that MG could be onto something.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

Scott is ahead of Holland in the line-up. Just sayin'

If Scott sneaks in after Oaks, it won't be for long based upon the ages involved. This is also why I said "primarily" led by Oaks, Holland, and Bednar. "Primarily" was intended to mean that a few others might sneak in for a short time.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

I think that you are discounting the counselors that the leadership calls. Who is the most popular counselor right now and why? Uchtdorf tends to embody more of this "new" way of thinking that MG has discussed.

If the leadership continue to call counselors with more of this forward thinking, I think that MG could be onto something.[/quote]


You are right. I do discount the long term impact that counselors have on the church. Why? Two main reasons come to mind.

(1) Long term, the presidents of the church have far more influence than any counselor. What do James E. Faust, Marion G. Romney, N. Eldon Tanner, Hugh B. Brown, Henry D. Moyle, J. Ruben Clark, Charles W. Nibley, Anthony W. Ivins, Charles W. Penrose, and Anthon H. Lund have in common? They have all served in the First Presidency in the last century and none of them became presidents of the church. Collectively, what influence have they had on the state of the church today? The Presidents of the church get manuals filled completely with quoted by them. These men, with the exception maybe James E. Faust because he's the most recent, may as well be extinct to the members.

(2) Hugh B. Brown. He was known as a progressive and was demoted from the First Presidency. Long term, what influence did Hugh B. Brown's progressiveness (such as it was) have on the church? Very little. Rather, his voice was drowned out by people like McConkie (the one non-prophet who has had a major impact on the church) and Kimball, etc.

Will Uchtdorf get demoted? Time will tell. But either way, the mantra in the church is "Follow the Prophet" not "Follow the counselor that gives you a ray of hope that things may change for the better in the future." I just don't see that Uchtdorf can be the cause of meaningful change when it's almost guaranteed he won't become president of the church and will have to deal with people like Holland, Oaks, Bednar, Andersen, Cook, etc all along the way.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

I think that you are discounting the counselors that the leadership calls. Who is the most popular counselor right now and why? Uchtdorf tends to embody more of this "new" way of thinking that MG has discussed.

If the leadership continue to call counselors with more of this forward thinking, I think that MG could be onto something.

You are right. I do discount the long term impact that counselors have on the church. Why? Two main reasons come to mind.

(1) Long term, the presidents of the church have far more influence than any counselor. What do James E. Faust, Marion G. Romney, N. Eldon Tanner, Hugh B. Brown, Henry D. Moyle, J. Ruben Clark, Charles W. Nibley, Anthony W. Ivins, Charles W. Penrose, and Anthon H. Lund have in common? They have all served in the First Presidency in the last century and none of them became presidents of the church. Collectively, what influence have they had on the state of the church today? The Presidents of the church get manuals filled completely with quoted by them. These men, with the exception maybe James E. Faust because he's the most recent, may as well be extinct to the members.

(2) Hugh B. Brown. He was known as a progressive and was demoted from the First Presidency. Long term, what influence did Hugh B. Brown's progressiveness (such as it was) have on the church? Very little. Rather, his voice was drowned out by people like McConkie (the one non-prophet who has had a major impact on the church) and Kimball, etc.

Will Uchtdorf get demoted? Time will tell. But either way, the mantra in the church is "Follow the Prophet" not "Follow the counselor that gives you a ray of hope that things may change for the better in the future." I just don't see that Uchtdorf can be the cause of meaningful change when it's almost guaranteed he won't become president of the church and will have to deal with people like Holland, Oaks, Bednar, Andersen, Cook, etc all along the way.

You bring up some good points. However, take a look at how influential President Hinckley was as a counselor for both Kimball and Benson. President Hinckley was less liberal than Uchtdort, but, he did pave the way for some of Uchtdorf's thinking. He was the one who started streamlining the Church toward Christianity, and wanted the LDS Church to have a voice in the traditional Christian community. That had never been done before.

[_mentalgymnast]

Just think, Bazooka, even as an apostate as long as you don't qualify for being a Son of Perdition you are going to receive a kingdom of glory. How great is that?

See you there.

Hey. Watch it.

You see, it's the temple stuff and how Givens approaches it that i have a problem with.
He seems to be trying to find a way of saying that you have to be a Mormon to get to the Celestial Kingdom so that people don't think that's what he's saying.

I don't disagree with that. When all is said and done, doubter or not, nuanced or not, faithful or not...Mormonism does all come down to the carrot. The celestial kingdom and how to get there.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

It's a crisis of truth.

I agree that there is a great emphasis, in some quarters, at trying to get at the truth. And I'm all for that. Barriers have to be broken down. That's happening as we speak. The church has NO choice but to come clean. But I think it will happen in baby steps.

Regards,
MG