Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
I agree with Ann.
But I also want to ask….where was the StayLDS.com plug?? I must have missed it somewhere in there
dammit, you’re right. fixing immediately!
DarkJedi wrote:It’s not bad. I discovered the CES letter well into my faith crisis and it had little impact. That’s partly because my issues weren’t historical and partly because I already didn’t believe in the one true church and its theology. That brings me to the opening part of the blog. I get you’re trying to make a distinction between historical and spiritual truth and this has given me something to think about in light of my current pondering about truth. However, I think those who have a testimony of the Book of Mormon by following Moroni’s promise and getting their spiritual confirmation won’t see that as an intersection of historical and spiritual truth – I think they see it as wholly spiritual. The belief in young earth is probably seen as less of a spiritual truth than the BoM witness, nevertheless those who believe that (I don’t) seem to be very fixed on it if only because it’s contained in the Bible. It does fit your description of the differences and intersection better than the BoM example, but I think believers might just testify “I know the Bible to be the word of God, therefore creation is as it is described therein.”
Thanks. I don’t want to convince any literal believers of my point of view. I’m just hoping they can recognize it as an acceptable perspective, especially maybe as a “last ditch” effort to save someone already out the door.
I’m all for the feminists. I’d love to see women get the priesthood. I’d love to see a female apostle someday. This Mother in Heaven thing is trickier. I’m not sure people are thinking this through clearly. People aren’t happy the church isn’t clarifying anything, but what would you have them clarify?
Full scale adoption of King Follet doctrine? Now we’re back to the insanity of everyone gets their own world and becomes their own Heavenly Father when they die. Not bloody likely. We’re going in the opposite direction.
No to full scale King Follet, but Mother in Heaven is a distinct, separate entity. How does that work? Does Jesus have a wife now? Does the Holy Ghost have a wife? Where is grandpa and grandma god? This puts us in our own crazy style polytheism.
Maybe we nix all that and nix our view of anthropomorphic God all at the same time and say Heavenly Mother is just an aspect of God?
You can see these all have HUGE doctrinal implications.
I have some common points in my path. I found a message through Marcus Borg and Progressive Christianity that has really helped me come to terms with Mormonism, intellectually. I hung on floating/floundering for about eight years and then for the past year I’ve finally flourished with this new perspective. Cadence wrote:Given the current structure and restrictions of a mission I would not like either my son or daughter to have to experience that. If some things were change overall I think it could be a healthy and rewarding experience.
My children are having very rewarding experiences.
rcronk wrote:Interesting conversation. So what if someone claims to have received a witness of some of these fundamental truth claims of the LDS church after doing their own studying? Are we ok with that stance or do we think they’re deluded or what? Isn’t that the guidance that the Book of Mormon, Bible, and D&C give?
I would never personally say that person is deluded.Roy wrote:churchistrue wrote:I made update to this topic.
http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/new-mormonism-scripture-and-authority/ Thanks for clarifying CIT. I find it very interesting. I was impressed with the viewpoint of Marcus Borg.
Quote:Question: In the Bible, you have God doing things that don’t seem like the God we believe in. For example, endorsing slavery or the genocide of the Amalekites. How do you go about deciding what you accept as truth and what is not? Whose job is that?
Answer: It is the discerning Christian community. It’s not up to the individual to pick and choose. You’ve heard the quip of Cafeteria Christians that just take what they like. No it’s the responsibility of the Christian community working under the direction of the Holy Ghost to make decisions of which of this material is relevant, and applicable, and authoritative for our time.
I believe that the “discerning Christian community” is a widely diverse group that may even include the Mormons. I agree that one could map out general trends among the entire Christian community and draw conclusions about what is “relevant, and applicable, and authoritative for our time.” Circumcision is an easy one that was a big topic in the new testament church that is not a relevant issue for the community today. Equality for women would probably also be trending. Because the community is so large it might be difficult to separate out which trends emerge from the Christian community itself and which trends are merely reflections of trends in larger society.
Applying this to the LDS church is slightly different because we have a definitive body of men that speak for the church. Is the “discerning [Mormon] community” the entire body of membership and discussion to include the bloggernaccle and every offshoot? Do Jana Riess, Joanna Brooks, John Dehlin, Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, and many, many more have a voice in the discerning Mormon community Or does the Mormon responsibility “to make decisions of which of this material is relevant, and applicable, and authoritative for our time” just fall with the Q15?
I ask not to convince you one way or the other but just to better understand. Thanks!
Yes. So, the idea here for me is that there is the scriptures are a live document in the LDS church, as it is in the Christian community, though by different processes. LDS does not make its doctrinal decisions and declarations on what scriptures are relevant based on the community. That’s the job of the living prophet and the brethren. That’s a completely separate issue about whether or not that’s appropriate or how or why it should change. What I’m addressing here is the answer to the question, why is the Book of Mormon (and Bible) more relevant than The Grapes of Wrath, in terms of our study material and doctrinal understanding. Answer: because we as a church define the canon and the BOM and Bible are in the canon. But what if there’s stuff in the Bible or Book of Mormon that’s deemed to be incorrect or outdated or irrelevant, what’s the process of declaring that? The brethren tell us.
So that takes you to the next question on whether the voices you mention above Joanna Brooks, etc, should the brethren listen to them and incorporate their voices when they’re making decisions? IMHO, absolutely yes. And further, I think they do, more than we give them credit for. Could they move faster on some social issues? Yeah, probably. But that’s the process we have, and I support it.
I made update to this topic. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/new-mormonism-scripture-and-authority/ amateurparent wrote:Quote:Churchistrue wrote:
And a question. I was invited to do an interview for the podcast naked Mormonism. The creator Bryce Blankenagel seems like a decent guy, but his podcasts are not LDS friendly and one is named “Special Edition Episode 10 – ROT IN HELL Boyd K. Packer!!!”. Not really something I want to be associated with. Good or bad idea?
I think you already know the answer. You knew before you asked.
Yeah, I wanted to check to make sure I wasn’t being too holier than thou.
rcronk wrote:churchistrue wrote:Thanks for the feedback, guys.
What do you think about my feedback? Am I being a jerk or have I misunderstood the “New Mormonism” principles? My delivery is sometimes blunt and I apologize for that.
We see it very differently, so it’s hard for me to give response. I don’t think you’re a jerk or too blunt. I appreciate all the feedback.
Quote:If we punt on the difficult parts of the history of the church especially about the Book of Mormon or whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then we become just another man-made church and that’s it.
I think the church is man-made. But I think all religion is man-made. So I wouldn’t want to de-emphasize the Book of Mormon. And I don’t want to take back the stance that Joseph was a prophet or that we have prophet today. I might have a different view of what a prophet is, but I think it’s still a powerful concept.
You may read me as saying “These things are hard or scary, let’s sweep them under the rug and just focus on Christ.” but I’m not saying that. I’m saying, let’s acknowledge these were man-made origins (or at least acknowledge those who believe that way are acceptable) but continue to operate in the same way, with the robust restored gospel message we have today.
Roy wrote:In your sacramental/metaphorical paradigm (as I understand it) the religion represents the collective expression of the community in trying to draw closer to God. I believe that to be good and true but I also believe in the value of the individual offering/journey/sacrament. The individual path or sacrament is where the individual brings/builds his or her offering and tries to draw closer to God. This offering can be independent of any communal worship or it might dovetail/overlap to various degrees.
There can be tensions between the individual path and the community path as they diverge.
I like what you say here. I think the role of church is heavily leaning towards that community path. While individual worship is the place for the individual path. It’s good to acknowledge and understand the different needs of each and how they might clash.
DarkJedi wrote:I also looked at the site your referenced CIT, and I guess it all depends on what you want to accomplish. My brief first impression is that the site is not a site for believers who want to be a part of the church, rather there seems to be a fair amount of negativity and mockery there.
What do you think is negative and mocking there? That’s my site, and everything there I wrote. And I wouldn’t want to come across as mocking Mormonism at all.Ann wrote:churchistrue wrote:And a question. I was invited to do an interview for the podcast naked Mormonism. The creator Bryce Blankenagel seems like a decent guy, but his podcasts are not LDS friendly and one is named “Special Edition Episode 10 – ROT IN HELL Boyd K. Packer!!!”. Not really something I want to be associated with. Good or bad idea?
Just looked briefly at the site, and I would say: bad idea. I assume you’re trying to reach a large audience and any podcast that talks about “Joe” isn’t going to do that.This next is truly friendly (there are so many ways in which I hope the church will change) advice. In your blog post you’ve labeled a picture of Terryl Givens as the “Godfather” of New Mormonism. I don’t think that’s a great idea. Anything that sets someone up as a leader is going to get negative attention, I think. Now, if Terryl Givens (or you, or anybody) writes a book or a blog that creates incredible response and discussion, I think that’s a little different. The ideas are out in front. But I don’t think others should call
hima leader. Maybe that’s splitting hairs. This is my gut reaction. I’m opened to being disagreed with.
🙂
The Godfather bit is meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, humorous. But I think it’s also a bit observational. He is a thought leader in this post information era of Mormonism.And a question. I was invited to do an interview for the podcast naked Mormonism. The creator Bryce Blankenagel seems like a decent guy, but his podcasts are not LDS friendly and one is named “Special Edition Episode 10 – ROT IN HELL Boyd K. Packer!!!”. Not really something I want to be associated with. Good or bad idea?
