In which Jim Bennet and Jacob Hansen discuss their Differences on Mormon Book Reviews

[huckelberry]

Drumdude, my intention here was simply to draw observations. I am curious about your different take and have no desire to prove you wrong. But making comparison of observations.... I am sure you are correct that the church changes. I think Mr. Bennett made good observations about that process of change. It might be noted that attitudes towards gays and other LGBT folks are not Mormon distinctives. They are things in common with other American Protestants.

I am curious about what changes stand out that people mention that have happened since the 1970s. Meeting scheduals and plans get shuffled about a bit. Of course there is the blacks and priesthood change. That was in part a Mormon distinctive that had become increasingly unpopular.

I found Bennet’s take slightly paradoxical. He says he wants to ensure there is a church in 50-75 years. And the church may have to change to meet that goal. But if it’s a completely different church, what exactly was the point?

Both of them seem to be struggling to define the core identity of LDS Mormonism. In my opinion there isn’t one, which is why they’re so upset. The only singular thread holding the church together is “the brethren have the authority” and if that goes the whole thing falls apart.

Drumdude, I am not seeing how change which Bennett is hoping for to ensure the church continues would make it a completely different church. There is a large body of stuff Mr Bennett values which would continue. That would include the authority of leadership you mention which could enable change.

It reminds me a bit of a comparison from say 1974. I no longer believed and the priesthood ban was part of the reasons but only a part. My very believing mother was looking forward to a change in the priesthood policy. I was doubtful about that expectation happening. She was very happy when it did, I am happy for her. The church did not suffer very much from this change. I think that both conceptually and structurally the church is set up to be able to change.

thread holding the church together?
How about the whole myth of the restoration, renewal of Christianity, clarification of beliefs for more optimistic view of human hope. People created to have joy, glory of God is intelligence so we should seek the same and are capable of seeking the same. The family relationships created on earth can continue and form links which can extend salvation and hope to the far ends of human history past present future.An active priesthood spread widely so that the church is a participatory affair more than a audience affair. The importance of a shared community of being Mormon.

[drumdude]

An active priesthood spread widely so that the church is a participatory affair more than a audience affair. The importance of a shared community of being Mormon.

You’re right about this, when the ward communities thrive the church thrives. But I think that’s the big question mark. What will your average ward look like in 50-75 years?

I’m doubtful it will be more vibrant. But if it is that would be great because community is a difficult thing to create and it is one of the most meaningful things in life.

[huckelberry]

An active priesthood spread widely so that the church is a participatory affair more than a audience affair. The importance of a shared community of being Mormon.

You’re right about this, when the ward communities thrive the church thrives. But I think that’s the big question mark. What will your average ward look like in 50-75 years?

I’m doubtful it will be more vibrant. But if it is that would be great because community is a difficult thing to create and it is one of the most meaningful things in life.

drumdude, I have heard, largely on the message board, that ward activities are being shrunk for some sort of streamlining or uniformity. I do not really know much about that, not being active for fifty years, but I think there is danger for the church in not focusing on ward health.

[huckelberry]

Alphus and Omegus proposed seeing four different groups of Mormons. I am inclined to see a lot of mixing or degrees of participation in those categories.They do point out the variety of possible views or approaches Mormons might have. I remember people observing that there were two kinds of Mormons, iron rod and Liahona. Iron rod were strict by the rule folks. Liahona people looked to general principals taught by the church or God and used individual interpretation to apply. I do not know if those labels are still used by anybody but that discussion between Jacob Hansen and Jim Bennet is a perfect illustration of the two types. The difference is quite vivid. I might imagine that the personality differences making the two views may be deep enough that each of the four previously proposed groups may be divided into some of each of these two categories.

[Res Ipsa]

An active priesthood spread widely so that the church is a participatory affair more than a audience affair. The importance of a shared community of being Mormon.

You’re right about this, when the ward communities thrive the church thrives. But I think that’s the big question mark. What will your average ward look like in 50-75 years?

I’m doubtful it will be more vibrant. But if it is that would be great because community is a difficult thing to create and it is one of the most meaningful things in life.

I really like your take here. Community is really hard to create. Just look at attempts by secular humanists to create communities comparable to religious congregations. Using the internet, a pretty nice skeptics community formed over time. It was completely blown apart by political differences. I wouldn’t surprised to learn that political polarization isn’t also a problem for ward cohesion.

[drumdude]

You’re right about this, when the ward communities thrive the church thrives. But I think that’s the big question mark. What will your average ward look like in 50-75 years?

I’m doubtful it will be more vibrant. But if it is that would be great because community is a difficult thing to create and it is one of the most meaningful things in life.

I really like your take here. Community is really hard to create. Just look at attempts by secular humanists to create communities comparable to religious congregations. Using the internet, a pretty nice skeptics community formed over time. It was completely blown apart by political differences. I wouldn’t surprised to learn that political polarization isn’t also a problem for ward cohesion.

I wasn't aware the skeptics community was torn apart, but I have noticed that I completely forgot about it after the late 2000's.

There was even a skeptics magazine, if I recall. I think shermer, krauss, and some other prominent skeptics had some personal issues, no?

[Res Ipsa]

I really like your take here. Community is really hard to create. Just look at attempts by secular humanists to create communities comparable to religious congregations. Using the internet, a pretty nice skeptics community formed over time. It was completely blown apart by political differences. I wouldn’t surprised to learn that political polarization isn’t also a problem for ward cohesion.

I wasn't aware the skeptics community was torn apart, but I have noticed that I completely forgot about it after the late 2000's.

There was even a skeptics magazine, if I recall. I think shermer, krauss, and some other prominent skeptics had some personal issues, no?

Some was personal, but much was political. Atheism + vs. The slime pit. Rebecca Watson v. Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers v. Michael Shermer (that one was a lawsuit), libertarians v. Social Justice Warriors. MRAs v. Feminists. I think Randi and his Amazing Meeting was the only thing at the end trying to hold things together.

Daniel Loxton, author of the excellent Children’s Skeptics section of Skeptic Magazine parted company with Shermer over what sounded like Politics. I followed both on Twitter and chatted a bit with Loxton, who I like and admire. It’s a shame and a real loss to the magazine. I have a soft spot for Shermer, as he led me to realize that one could be an atheist without being an asshole. And then ….

I’m still a fan of the SGU, George Hrab, Daniel Loxton, Phil Plait, and PZ Meyers. (One of these things is not like the other). But the shattering of a community I very much enjoyed left a bad taste in my mouth.

[Bill_Billiams]

Hansen is an interesting figure. He seems to represent modern LDS orthodoxy but his ideas about the church are a pretty blatant rejection of older LDS orthodoxy.

[huckelberry]

Hansen is an interesting figure. He seems to represent modern LDS orthodoxy but his ideas about the church are a pretty blatant rejection of older LDS orthodoxy.

Bill, blatant rejection? I do not understand what you are thinking of. He sounded like he fit orthodoxy, at least that I am familiar with.

Perhaps you are thinking he made too large an allowance for possible church errors. I found myself realizing my sense of older orthodoxy would be David O McKay era. I have heard there was a shift to more rigid authority claims after his time.

[dastardly stem]

I didn't listen too long, but I do think these kinds of conversations are needed more for all the members. I hear many members thinking and saying things as Bennett does, but it seems they are shouted out by the orthodoxy of the Hansen types--left to commiserate in some sense with former Mormons like me. We have Bennett, here saying things like "I don't want to cross-examine your position. I won't do that". then he goes on to do it over and over. He didn't want to participate in the conversation but is adamantly attempting to articulate his position in regards to the topics and declaring Hansen's position incoherent and not reasonable. There are other members like this. they fear a lot. I know. I was there. It doesn't do well to shout them out. they have a credible position in the Church. I agree with Bennett, too, the Church has been changing in quite a few ways and it's silly to think it won't change again, over and over.