Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
One criticism of the Book of Mormon is that the anti-Christs seem to espouse common religious ideas of the day and the BOM narrative embodies the conservative Christian push back you mentioned. Sharem seems to espouse Unitarian beliefs, that there should be no Christ. Nehor is a universalist and Korihor is an atheist. Nehor also promotes the idea that priests should be paid. I don’t think our Church has been very comfortable with Unitarians/Universalists. From what I understand the Unitarian congregation in Salt Lake is very old and is often left off Church-sponsored lists of oldest congregations in Utah. I think that the idea of not recognizing the divinity of Jesus is seen as extremely offensive to many Church leaders. I think this is part of what has made the BOM resonate so much with an American audience. In the old temple endowment, there was a sectarian minister. I know people have different feelings about looking up this information and I will be respectful and discreet. The minister teaches nonsensical Christian doctrines that are put forward for some comic relief and to show the absurdity of Christian creeds. As someone who never experienced this in the temple, now I realize where many of our long-held biases against other churches come from, especially our opposition to a paid ministry, religious credentials from a seminary and the doctrine of the trinity.
I spent some time shopping for a “side Church” where I could get some supplemental insights from listening to sermons. I tried the Salt Lake Unitarian/Universalist church for a few sermons. They typically have the Universalist pastor speak first then the Unitarian pastor. I didn’t really love it, felt really watered down and secular. There was not much mention of God, just a celebration of the human spirit and a call for social justice.
General Conference is always a mixed bag for me. I have fond memories growing up of Conference and like the family tradition aspect of it as well as the excitement that comes with gathering together and announcements, etc. I end up usually liking a few talks and have gotten better at ignoring the ones that make me mad. I took Saturday totally off and did not pay attention to any of the talks. We had a big breakfast on Sunday morning and tried to make it a fun celebration with our kids even though they lasted for about 30-45 minutes. I liked Uchdorf’s talk and Renlund’s talks a lot. I also liked President Camille Johnson’s talk. It was fun for me to show my kids NFL highlights of Vai Sikahema before he spoke. It gave me some great nostalgic feelings of the excitement I felt as a kid that it was awesome to be a Mormon, which I love.
I thought it was cool to show a video of the original temple foundation, something possible now that many of us would never get to see. I am curious what changes are coming to the temple ceremony that will be rolled out. I am predicting more of a shortening/streamlining and maybe some more paring back of the “symbols.” I have a really hard time with the doubling down on the idea that the temple ceremony is of ancient date and passed down from Adam, as that is so easy to deconstruct, but I would guess that rhetoric is not meant for people who have deconstructed it, but for the people they are trying to motivate to go to the temple more.
I caught some of the afternoon session and liked Dunn’s talk about cycling and 1%. I wager that will be a stand-out from this conference. I also thought Elder Gong’s talk was good. He seems to be aware and acknowledge the reality of some of the difficulties people face.
I never like the emphasis on obedience and listening to the leaders. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, no persuasive, charismatic speaker ever spends time emphasizing why you should listen to them. Overall, it was a largely positive Conference for me.
The New Testament/Jesus scholarship really shifts the ground and brought up big questions that are extremely uncomfortable for most orthodox Mormons, but I think are important. I think the Givens are gently getting people there, which is good and you are right, it’s not meant for the people who have been through a total deconstruction, but rather for people who want to stay squarely in the boat and explore different corners. A few additional thoughts after making some more progress: 1. I really like the reexamination of sin, obedience and the penal substitution atonement theory. These things are highly problematic and deserve reexamination;
2. Richard Rohr says there is no non-stop flight from Order to re-order, you need to go through deconstruction to make that work. This book is trying to bypass deconstruction, or maybe do a gentle deconstruction by criticizing early Christians and LDS “culture.” I recognize why they are doing it, but I’m not sure it really works;
3. What ended up deconstructing and helping me reconstruct was non-LDS critical examination of the Old and New Testaments. This creates huge problems for LDS theology however, because so much of it is based on a literal biblical narrative. I’m not sure the Givens could go here, but appreciate what they are trying to do and think it is a needed good-faith effort.
Greg Prince has said (I think quoting someone else) that there is no doctrine in the LDS Church that has not evolved over time. When you dig in, you can see our very idea of the Godhead has evolved. The “fullness of the gospel” is no different. The BOM represents the fullness of the gospel at that time. There is a trinitarian view of God, heaven and hell and a focus on faith, repentance and baptism. No temple, no kingdoms, etc. Kirtland represented a radical shift in thinking, with the Lectures on Faith and the degrees of glory. D&C 76 does not mention temple theology or sealings. In the Lectures on Faith, we have a teaching that God the Father and Jesus are the Godhead and the Holy Ghost is their unity of thought. In Nauvoo we have a huge shift in theology with the temple endowment, plural marriage more developed and a pantheon of Gods and progress to Godhood. In Modern Mormonism, we have tried to mesh these all together and make them work in tandem as one seamless fullness of the gospel. In the early 1900s we shifted our theology from a polygamy-centered theology to a much more streamlined theology that became more palatable to mainstream Christianity. We have continued on this trajectory, downplaying the “weird” elements of our theology that don’t fit, like becoming Gods, having our own planet, etc. I think those elements are what make Mormonism interesting. However, I love the simplicity of focusing on the fundamentals of following the example of Jesus and practicing a Christian life of service, personal growth and grace in a Mormon community.
Great thoughts. My wife taught this lesson in SS and did an amazing job. I have spent the last 12 years reading all kinds of material and getting exposed to critiques of the BOM and D&C. My wife is new to the faith crisis game and doing a much better job than I did. She opened the lesson asking what universalism was and then had someone read from Alma 1 about Nehor’s universalist teachings. She had never read this in anything by Grant Palmer or the Tanners and just connected the dots from something she read in Revelations in Context preparing for the lesson. Many member reacted strongly to D&C 76, arguing that it was universalism and using Nehor’s teachings as justification of it being false doctrine. But, in responding to the post, there is a tension in Mormon doctrine between universalism and more of a hard line protestant heaven and hell take on salvation that has plagued us since the beginning. The BOM definitely has an anti-universalist stance and only talks of heaven and hell, although there is a lot on the tension between mercy and justice. We then have D&C 76 which seems to offer a spin on universal salvation (my wife also shocked me by working in Swedenborg, which she’d also read about in revelations in context). We have D&C 137 where Alvin shows up in the celestial kingdom (given in 1836 before we had the endowment or work for the dead).
I think this tension is alive and well in the church, with the conflict between statements saying that one can progress between kingdoms and the whole idea of eternal progression people saying you are stuck in your kingdom after the judgment and will have to pay for your good works or sins in this life (much more the traditional heaven/hell paradigm).
I think salvation weighed heavy on the mind of Joseph Smith and early Christians and isn’t very interesting to younger people today. My view is that if we can’t figure out who should be sealed to who here and can’t explain much about the afterlife, we probably don’t know very much about it and should worry about here and now rather than worry about the afterlife. But, I think the eternal learning/progress idea in Mormonism is one of the most beautiful concepts and get frustrated that people want to sand it down because they are worried people will end up in heaven that didn’t deserve to be there.
I’m sorry I have been slow to respond to this thread. For me, the term “chapel Mormonism” resonated with my current Church experience is because I enjoy going to Church with my family each week, the community aspect of being part of a ward and having a calling and going to ward activities. I find there is enough overlap with my beliefs that I can find uplifting things and find it a good way to be part of a community of really good people. I don’t find any meaning in the temple part of the Church, other than attending weddings at this point. Hopefully that makes sense. I guess it would be similar to cafeteria Mormonism, in accepting and rejecting some parts. I like the cultural identity of being Mormon and being part of the community, but don’t subscribe to the truth claims, even though I find truth in them. I don’t think the BOM is historical, but view it as inspired scripture and sacred story. I believe Joseph had some mystical and visionary experiences, but think much of what he did was motivated by ego, etc. I believe the Mormon experience is the most true part of the whole thing. But, it sounds like other folks have not had the same positives with the Mormon experience.
Thank you for all of the replies and for sharing your experience. I have a relative who left the Church about three years ago and went to his bishop recently and said he would like to come back and participate as a non-believing member and purely on a social level. The bishop basically, said no. Was only interested in someone who wanted to get back on the covenant path. To me that is madness and tragic. I feel like there has been a push in conference to try to discourage chapel Mormonism and shame those who are not all in. I think that is something we will live to regret as a Church. I think so much of one’s experience depends on the ward, which is too bad. It has worked well for me in my ward. I occasionally have coffee with another ward member and catch up and there are a group of people who my wife notices are not wearing garments at ward activities (takes one to know one!). I think a ward works so much better as a community when people are neighbors and live geographically close. If you are driving 45 minutes each way to Church and all the kids go to different schools, it seems a lot harder to participate on a more casual level. From other posts on here, it sounds like a lot of folks in that situation have decided not to go back after Covid.
There is a group of people who seem to want to push out chapel Mormons and would be just as happy if they stopped coming.
This will probably not be popular, but I actually have mixed feelings about this. I think the reasons people articulated for getting rid of it are good. This meeting got so switched around that it was hard to keep track and know what it was going to be. As a male, I thought it actually provided a good venue to bond as an extended family, with my dad and my brother and my sons. As I’ve kind of drifted away from wanting to go to the temple, it was a good chance to bond with my dad and my sons over something that was church-related. We used to go and go out to eat after. Lately we’ve gotten takeout and watched it all together. I will miss that part of it, but think there were good reasons for cancelling it. Quote:I’ve gone from devout Mormon to nuanced to atheist, back to nuanced, back to atheist again, etc. I still haven’t found a way for the broken pieces to fit together.
I can appreciate that and hope you make peace with whatever you decide. I do think at a certain point you can only deconstruct so long and it can make you angry, jaded and cynical, which is no way to live. I applaud people who move on and find peace in establishing good values and a belief system, even if it’s totally secular. Many in the ex-Mormon community have done just that.
I’m always surprised when I hear people identify as atheists and find out more about their views which are essentially what I believe about God and spirituality. Not sure where you are.
I would sum up my reconstructed faith as follows: God is a mystery, there is some kind of divine force that I don’t understand but have felt guide me and can tune into. Jesus was a stellar example of someone who lived a very enlightened life and showed us the way to bless others and access God. I see all religion as the best ways people can think of to draw close to God through ritual, symbols and spiritual practice. The LDS Church generally has good tools to access God and offers amazing community, opportunities for service and produces good people. Other religions also offer good, but the LDS Church is my tribe and my people. I feel at home here and take the parts I like and leave the rest.
I can see why the Church wouldn’t want a whole ward or stake of people who think like me. Probably would not be as committed, would not obey or serve as well as people in the “order” stage.
Quote:I am not sure that the earliest garments were intended to be worn all the time as is the intention with modern garments. I read one quote arguing that you should always have your garments on under your clothing in case you are asked to participate in an impromptu/emergency prayer circle. I found that quote funny because that practice of wearing the garment all the time did indeed become the norm but we no longer do prayer circles outside the temple (at least that I know of) so the speaker’s point is now moot.
That is fascinating. I had not heard that one. I know there is a quote from George A. Smith in 1845 from the Quorum of the Anointed minutes that proposes the “robes” (what they used to call garments) be worn at all times. This was after Joseph’s death and would imply that they weren’t worn at all times before, which would explain why Joseph, Hyrum and John Taylor were not wearing them at Carthage.
Quote:Now I hear people say that wearing the garment all day every day is “an outward expression of an inward commitment.” Even though it’s underwear so it’s not all that outward. Plus when we do things only to be seen doing them we have our reward… which I guess is a TR.
The garment was seen as almost like a magic talisman that offered physical protection. This is what I heard growing up and I think sounded super weird on the 60 Minutes interview when Bill Marriott shared the story of being spared burns in a boating accident. I think around the late 90s we made the big pivot to the outward expression view. That was presented in this Ensign article
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1997/08/the-temple-garment-an-outward-expression-of-an-inward-commitment?lang=eng It will be interesting to see where the Church goes with garments. I would guess with the latest TR interview question change and from what I see and hear out and about in Utah, that people are wearing them less and that the Church will either police it less and allow for more interpretation or just announce that they are not to be worn outside the temple and pull the plug entirely.
Quote:The temple represents the proverbial motivating carrot for orthodox believers. It’s come to represent the pinnacle of Mormon worship. The promise of attending the temple can be a motivating goal for members to become more active and obedient.
I think this is one of the most troubling aspects for me. We are getting a little better, but we generally throw someone into the temple before a mission or before marriage, surrounded by family members and have them commit to some big things on the spot. When you break it down, it’s almost the equivalent of what a nun or priest would commit to with their vows (minus celebacy and poverty) and then hold it over their heads for the rest of their lives.
Great thoughts, I appreciate the comments. I have renewed my recommend, but mainly to attend weddings, etc. and don’t know if I ever will re-integrate the temple back into my faith paradigm. Good to hear that others have given themselves permission for that not to happen. Another temple question I have is how committed Joseph Smith was to the temple ordinances by the time he died. The version of history we hear is that he worked to get the ordinances presented in some form and the temple built, but died too soon and Brigham finished the work. The Community of Christ views it very differently, saying that the temple ritual “phase” fizzled out a few months before his death and he had moved on to different things. Some historians view the whole thing tied up with polygamy and that Joseph abandoned both shortly before his death. I do think it’s interesting that Joseph and Hyrum were not wearing garments in Carthage Jail and that Emma did not seem to thing the temple ritual was important after Joseph’s death.
