All or Nothing? An Apologist View of NOMs

[_Yoda]

Static and I had the following conversation on another thread:

Static, please elaborate on what you mean by this. Are you saying that NOMs don't have a place in the Church?

Not at all. Everyone who believes in the teachings and mission of Jesus Christ, and who believes that Joseph Smith experienced what he said he experienced has a place in the church.

I reject separating labels like "NOM," "chapel Mormon," "Internet Mormon," etc. I don't think they're useful, and I think they serve more to divide people than to unite them.

So what is your stance on those who have been helped by Dehlin? I can only speak for myself. I have not actually read Dehlin for a long time. He is a friend on Facebook, and I occasionally follow his comments there. However, I have not listened to his podcast in quite some time. (Sorry to say for Dehlin, that I actually prefer John Larsen's podcast...although I don't really get a huge opportunity to listen to that one, either. )

My point is, when I went through my faith struggle, I was very touched by Dehlin's "middle way" presentation, and how it was OK to continue in my Church membership, even if I had some serious questions and disagreements about gospel tenets such as polygamy.

You stated earlier that there was no place for those of us who have chosen to remain active, and yet "pick and choose" which tenets work for us. It seemed to me that you were saying that those of us who do this need to be out of the Church rather than in. That is the main bone of contention I have with Bob Crockett, who vocalizes the same sentiment.

Now, it seems that you are saying something slightly different, which is why I would like some clarification. For me, anyway, I believe that as long as we can come together in Christ, and live/believe the core gospel principles (i.e., the Sermon on the Mount, the Ten Commandments, the Articles of Faith), that we will, in the Lord's due time, receive answers to those things which do not make sense.

Dehlin's message that it was OK for me to continue my method of worship, even though I disagreed with, what I considered, and frankly, still consider, tenets of men, gave me a tremendous sense of peace. I also believe that it has actually helped me become a more productive member of the Church, overall.

I have spoken to others, and I am not the only person who has taken from Dehlin this same message. I understand that there are others who have also chosen to leave the Church after hearing Dehlin's message, but have managed to do so in a way that is not combative to their LDS family members. Again, how is this a bad thing?

I just have a hard time seeing Dehlin as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" based on my own personal experience.

I would like to open this up for general thoughts for anyone who cares to comment.

Is the big divide between struggling members and apologists the fact that we NOMs are viewed as basically another breed of apostates?

[_Tobin]

I actually struggled for a long time with my faith and left the Church after I served a full two year mission. And I would still be an ex-mormon/atheist today if I had not experienced God and that is what caused me to change my view.

My view of Mormonism today is that there are helpful things taught by those that believe in it and unhelpful things that are taught. I reject polygamy (I view it as both a sin and something the Church as punished for), the ban on blacks and the priesthood (also a sin, evil, and man-made doctrine), the ban on women officiating in the priesthood outside of the temple (again, this has yet to be corrected), and the hostile attitude of many Mormons towards gays - especially in the leadership (which is also completely wrong).

As far as the NOM, I have been labeled as such but I have interfaced with a number of NOMs in the past and it left a distinct distaste. Many were nothing more than atheists and openly rejected experiences with God and I found some outright mean spirited and completely unaccepting of who I am and what my background is. After discovering that, I quickly disassociated with any of them and I will not have anything to do with them in the future. So, I'll continue in my local circle of friends and associates and occasionally attend Mormon (and other) services as I feel the need.

[_stemelbow]

Why can't an apologist and NOM be thought of as one? I kind of agree, and have tried to indicate as much to you in the past, that these types of labeling are more divisive than helpful.

[_Yoda]

I actually struggled for a long time with my faith and left the Church after I served a full two year mission. And I would still be an ex-mormon/atheist today if I had not experienced God and that is what caused me to change my view.

My view of Mormonism today is that there are helpful things taught by those that believe in it and unhelpful things that are taught. I reject polygamy (I view it as both a sin and something the Church as punished for), the ban on blacks and the priesthood (also a sin, evil, and man-made doctrine), the ban on women officiating in the priesthood outside of the temple (again, this has yet to be corrected), and the hostile attitude of many Mormons towards gays - especially in the leadership (which is also completely wrong).

As far as the NOM, I have been labeled as such but I have interfaced with a number of NOMs in the past and it left a distinct distaste. Many were nothing more than atheists and openly rejected experiences with God and I found some outright mean spirited and completely unaccepting of who I am and what my background is. After discovering that, I quickly disassociated with any of them and I will not have anything to do with them in the future. So, I'll continue in my local circle of friends and associates and occasionally attend Mormon (and other) services as I feel the need.

It doesn't sound like I would fit in with the NOMs you described, either.

[_Darth J]

Not at all. Everyone who believes in the teachings and mission of Jesus Christ, and who believes that Joseph Smith experienced what he said he experienced has a place in the church.

I reject separating labels like "NOM," "chapel Mormon," "Internet Mormon," etc. I don't think they're useful, and I think they serve more to divide people than to unite them.

And similarly, I reject labels like "Strangite," "Bickertonite," "LDS," "FLDS," and "RLDS."

All of the above believe in the teachings and mission of Jesus Christ, and that Joseph Smith experienced what he said he experienced. These labels are not useful, and serve more to divide people than unite them.

They are all Mormons.

[_static]

So what is your stance on those who have been helped by Dehlin? I can only speak for myself. I have not actually read Dehlin for a long time. He is a friend on Facebook, and I occasionally follow his comments there. However, I have not listened to his podcast in quite some time. (Sorry to say for Dehlin, that I actually prefer John Larsen's podcast...although I don't really get a huge opportunity to listen to that one, either. )

My point is, when I went through my faith struggle, I was very touched by Dehlin's "middle way" presentation, and how it was OK to continue in my Church membership, even if I had some serious questions and disagreements about gospel tenets such as polygamy.

You stated earlier that there was no place for those of us who have chosen to remain active, and yet "pick and choose" which tenets work for us. It seemed to me that you were saying that those of us who do this need to be out of the Church rather than in. That is the main bone of contention I have with Bob Crockett, who vocalizes the same sentiment.

Now, it seems that you are saying something slightly different, which is why I would like some clarification. For me, anyway, I believe that as long as we can come together in Christ, and live/believe the core gospel principles (i.e., the Sermon on the Mount, the Ten Commandments, the Articles of Faith), that we will, in the Lord's due time, receive answers to those things which do not make sense.

Dehlin's message that it was OK for me to continue my method of worship, even though I disagreed with, what I considered, and frankly, still consider, tenets of men, gave me a tremendous sense of peace. I also believe that it has actually helped me become a more productive member of the Church, overall.

I have spoken to others, and I am not the only person who has taken from Dehlin this same message. I understand that there are others who have also chosen to leave the Church after hearing Dehlin's message, but have managed to do so in a way that is not combative to their LDS family members. Again, how is this a bad thing?

I just have a hard time seeing Dehlin as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" based on my own personal experience.

I would like to open this up for general thoughts for anyone who cares to comment.

Is the big divide between struggling members and apologists the fact that we NOMs are viewed as basically another breed of apostates?

Liz,

If I implied that there were "no place for NOMs" within the church, then I misspoke. As I said above, I believe there is room for everyone who believes in the teachings and mission of Christ, and who believes that Joseph Smith was a prophet. What you're saying above is fine, I just wonder why we have to place labels on groups of people. Dan Peterson, in a popular fireside, advised members to "put it on the shelf."

People really do need to put difficult items "on the shelf" and not panic in the meantime as they patiently and faithfully work through their assumptions, issues, etc. People who are struggling really need to go back to the basics, too.

This is the same thing as what you said above.

we will, in the Lord's due time, receive answers to those things which do not make sense.

And I believe it to be true.

So what's so bad about JD? Nothing, except that he is leading people to believe that he is a fully faithful member when he is not (naming his site "Mormon Stories," etc.) To his credit, he does give a complicated description of his faith if you read the bio on the site.

Darth J.,

I don't see any issues that you're presenting. They are all Mormons. Yes. Okay.

[_Darth J]

As I said above, I believe there is room for everyone who believes in the teachings and mission of Christ, and who believes that Joseph Smith was a prophet. What you're saying above is fine, I just wonder why we have to place labels on groups of people.

I think so, too. So you'll no doubt agree with me that the LDS Church is wrong to say that other people (like the FLDS) are not Mormons when those people believe in the teachings and mission of Christ, believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and self-identify as Mormon.

Dan Peterson, in a popular fireside, advised members to "put it on the shelf."

People really do need to put difficult items "on the shelf" and not panic in the meantime as they patiently and faithfully work through their assumptions, issues, etc. People who are struggling really need to go back to the basics, too.

That's a really profound way of looking at things. You know, I have maintained for some time now that the Loch Ness Monster killed JFK, and then faked Elvis' death but really abducted him in a flying saucer. Some of the people I talk to take issue with certain aspects of my claims, but I just advise them to put the difficult parts on the shelf and wait patiently for the day when a cogent reason to believe any of this arises.

Whoops! Did I make it seem as if "put it on the shelf" can be used to justify belief in absolutely anything? Silly me!

[_static]

That's a really profound way of looking at things. You know, I have maintained for some time now that the Loch Ness Monster killed JFK, and then faked Elvis' death but really abducted him in a flying saucer. Some of the people I talk to take issue with certain aspects of my claims, but I just advise them to put the difficult parts on the shelf and wait patiently for the day when a cogent reason to believe any of this arises.

Whoops! Did I make it seem as if "put it on the shelf" can be used to justify belief in absolutely anything? Silly me!

Another conspiracy theorist. I love conspiracy theories. Remember that one about Schryver being Nibley's son?

I urge you to pursue these theories, and put your doubts on a shelf. One day, I hope you get a final answer!

[_CaliforniaKid]

What you're saying above is fine, I just wonder why we have to place labels on groups of people.

So what's so bad about JD? Nothing, except that he is leading people to believe that he is a fully faithful member when he is not (naming his site "Mormon Stories," etc.) To his credit, he does give a complicated description of his faith if you read the bio on the site.

How do these two statements fit together? How is Dehlin supposed to signal he isn't a "regular" Mormon if not with a label?

[_Kishkumen]

How do these two statements fit together? How is Dehlin supposed to signal he isn't a "regular" Mormon if not with a label?

Simon never concerned himself with consistency before. Why would he change now? Especially with a handle like "static"?