Problems facing New Mormonism

[_maklelan]

What new Mormonism .... oh you mean Mak?

Is he not alone in this new Makmonism?

Everyone is alone in their personal conceptualization and living of Mormonism. It comes down to where they broadly share beliefs and practices that are considered prototypical or central to the faith community. And as I've been saying, it's not the prerogative of those who do not identify as part of that community to dictate what is and is not prototypical or central.

[_Maksutov]

What new Mormonism .... oh you mean Mak?

Is he not alone in this new Makmonism?

Everyone is alone in their personal conceptualization and living of Mormonism. It comes down to where they broadly share beliefs and practices that are considered prototypical or central to the faith community. And as I've been saying, it's not the prerogative of those who do not identify as part of that community to dictate what is and is not prototypical or central.

It becomes complicated, Mak, when you have government officials such as we have in Utah who insist on imposing their in-group definitions and values on the entire population, or the World Congress of Families which seeks to influence international law and UN activities which have impacts far beyond their inside group. How do you address that tension?

[_maklelan]

It becomes complicated, Mak, when you have government officials such as we have in Utah who insist on imposing their in-group definitions and values on the entire population, or the World Congress of Families which seeks to influence international law and UN activities which have impacts far beyond their inside group. How do you address that tension?

I don't see how this is relevant to the current discussion. This just sounds like a criticism of some of the leadership's opposition to gay marriage. I agree with the criticism, but it seems like a non sequitur in the context of my comments.

[_Maksutov]

It becomes complicated, Mak, when you have government officials such as we have in Utah who insist on imposing their in-group definitions and values on the entire population, or the World Congress of Families which seeks to influence international law and UN activities which have impacts far beyond their inside group. How do you address that tension?

I don't see how this is relevant to the current discussion. This just sounds like a criticism of some of the leadership's opposition to gay marriage. I agree with the criticism, but it seems like a non sequitur in the context of my comments.

I don't think public policy is ever a non sequitur. It's how government is done. It affects each of us every day. The church/state tension is a test of a lot of these ideas in practice. I spent three decades in the federal government, trying to implement policies where concepts of race, ethnicity and gender were not academic but were real world concerns demanding resolution. I don't take this stuff lightly because it's going to show up where it affects all of us. We had a great show recently of the church engaging public policy in helping enact laws to avoid discrimination, but then they turn around and show solidarity with the WCF, who opposes such actions. Can you blame those of us who are confused or feel betrayed?

Yes, I consider this a huge problem facing "New Mormonism". It's the legacy of the old. Was the black priesthood issue resolved entirely by insiders without outside influence? What about the end of polygamy? Maybe. Maybe not.

[_maklelan]

I don't think public policy is ever a non sequitur.

When the discussion is about religious self-identity it certainly is. The fact that it's important does not mean it is never not on-topic.

It's how government is done. It affects each of us every day.

So does sunlight, but that doesn't make it relevant to all discussions everywhere.

The church/state tension is a test of a lot of these ideas in practice. I spent three decades in the federal government, trying to implement policies where concepts of race, ethnicity and gender were not academic but were real world concerns demanding resolution. I don't take this stuff lightly because it's going to show up where it affects all of us. We had a great show recently of the church engaging public policy in helping enact laws to avoid discrimination, but then they turn around and show solidarity with the WCF, who opposes such actions. Can you blame those of us who are confused or feel betrayed?

Of course not, but why come crashing through the skylight of a completely different conversation to make this argument?

Yes, I consider this a huge problem facing "New Mormonism". It's the legacy of the old. Was the black priesthood issue resolved entirely by insiders without outside influence? What about the end of polygamy? Maybe. Maybe not.

[Guest]

I only represent myself, but I can share my views that seem to be in line with what Mak is expressing.

I'm publicizing a new paradigm of viewing Mormonism. For more detail see http://www.churchistrue.com/paradigms and many other pages I have on my site there.

The main objective is to identify a way of engaging Mormonism where one can participate fully while rejecting the historical claims that are becoming more and more difficult to defend as each year passes.

There are some tough questions, but this is logic I've been formulating for several years. I believe I have adequate answers for all the questions that have been raised in this thread.

A couple of the main questions:

How do you garner support without gaining a following and risking apostasy?
I think you can probably only do this if you have an aversion to gaining a following. I started publicizing this about a month ago, and I have more plans in the future to share and publicize my view. But I'm not interested in gaining a following and don't have any ego about this. If a church leader quashes me, so be it. I'll choose church affiliation over publicizing my views. What I'm careful about is a) not criticizing the brethren or saying they are wrong b) expressing my ideas as my own and not that they are exclusively right and others are wrong c) emphasizing loyalty to the brethren and faithfulness to the church.

How do you get someone to participate, why does one donate tithes, why does someone serve?
This is a very challenging question, but I believe I have good logic for this. The testimony or the positive value has to come in the benefits and joy and enrichment that comes in living the Christian/Mormon life today. http://www.churchistrue.com/saving-faith/ I'm in the position now for people to share their personal stories with me. I know of a bishop serving faithfully right now and loving his service, whose specific views are atheistic in nature but sees value in the practice of Mormonism. I myself pay tithing, send my kids on missions, serve in church, etc,. I think there are many people like that.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I know of a bishop serving faithfully right now and loving his service, whose specific views are atheistic in nature but sees value in the practice of Mormonism.

This is interesting. Would you expand on this a bit?

- Doc

[_churchistrue]

I know of a bishop serving faithfully right now and loving his service, whose specific views are atheistic in nature but sees value in the practice of Mormonism.

This is interesting. Would you expand on this a bit?

- Doc

How would you like me to expand? This person grew through a faith crisis, but was very culturally tied to the church, struggled with how devout he was for a period but then came around to viewing the church in a different light, similar to how I do and how I define at my site. Then a series of events led him back into the bishop track and now he finds himself as a bishop.

[_RockSlider]

So is this the kind of stuff the Given's are pushing?

[_Themis]

The biggest problem New Mormonism faces is Old Mormonism. They have 80,000 missionaries out there right now trying to sell expensive club memberships to Old Mormonism. If Old Mormonism goes away, what do they have left?

I think the point of New Mormonism is to deemphasize the recently obvious problems with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Without the Book of Mormon, the LDS church is just another generic, bland protestent sect. With the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church is obviously a religion based on a fantasy. It's now a no win situation.

Just look what happened to RLDS/CoC. The core foundational truth claims are around Joseph interacting with God and receiving his authority which has been past down through BY to Monson today. Move away from that and you will see a lot less missionaries and the church basically falling apart in most areas of the world. The Book of Mormon being non-historical does a lot of damage to this foundation the church survives on. If most members believe the Book of Mormon is not historical, how many young people will this motivate to go on missions?

I suppose you could counteract this if they could form a great social apparatus to keep members interested and garner interest from outsiders, but the church has moved away from this for the last numbers of decades.