…There was a debate, in the late 1800s, about whether “imagination” was simply a turn of phrase or a real phenomenon. That is, can people actually create images in their minds which they see vividly, or do they simply say “I saw it in my mind” as a metaphor for considering what it looked like?
Upon hearing this, my response was “How the stars was this actually a real debate? Of course we have mental imagery. Anyone who doesn’t think we have mental imagery is either such a fanatical Behaviorist that she doubts the evidence of her own senses, or simply insane.” Unfortunately, the professor was able to parade a long list of famous people who denied mental imagery, including some leading scientists of the era. And this was all before Behaviorism even existed.
The debate was resolved by Francis Galton, a fascinating man who among other achievements invented eugenics, the “wisdom of crowds”, and standard deviation. Galton gave people some very detailed surveys, and found that some people did have mental imagery and others didn’t. The ones who did had simply assumed everyone did, and the ones who didn’t had simply assumed everyone didn’t, to the point of coming up with absurd justifications for why they were lying or misunderstanding the question. There was a wide spectrum of imaging ability, from about five percent of people with perfect eidetic imagery to three percent of people completely unable to form mental images.
Dr. Berman dubbed this the Typical Mind Fallacy: the human tendency to believe that one’s own mental structure can be generalized to apply to everyone else’s.
via LessWrong.com.
Of everything I ever read in high school or junior high, my favorite passage was a selection from Annie Dillard’s The Writing Life that was used as a selection for an AP English test section. Here’s just a tidbit:
The written word is weak. Many people prefer life to it. Life gets your blood going, and it smells good…this writing that you do, that so thrills you, that so rocks and exhilarates you, as if dancing next to the band, is barely audible to anyone else. An ordinary reader picking up a book can’t yet hear a thing; it will take half an hour to pick up a writing’s modulations, its ups and downs and louds and softs.
When I read that passage, I felt, for the first time in my life, like someone really understood my troubled relationship with reading. For, growing up in honors, gifted and talented, AP, and other classes for supposedly promising students, I felt that there was this emphasis on having a love of reading that I simply didn’t have. Give me a video game over a book any day, I thought.
But Annie! She understood that how anemic the written word is! Visual media…movies, television, video games, and things like that…they can ensnare an individual immediately…but one doesn’t “fall” into the written word. Instead, they have to climb up and over a rocky summit and then rappel back down into the valley depths waiting beyond. And the only gear one has in this pursuit is a frayed rope…a tenuous connection threatening to give with any outside push.
Eventually, after having discussed this passage with others (who were not quite as enamored with it as I was), I thought — rogue thought that it was — that perhaps others simply experienced books and the written word in a different way than I did. Whereas I don’t “see” much of anything, no matter how much descriptive prose the writer etches into the face of the cliff to serve as grabbing ledges for the imagination, perhaps others simply were better equipped to scale the mountain?
Although I wouldn’t have a name for it until years later, I now realize that I had fallen prey to the Typical Mind Fallacy.
Why does this happen?
I think that on a day-to-day basis, we don’t spend too much time thinking about how differently others could perceive the world. (There I go…with that “we” language. Maybe I should be ok with admitting that it’s I who wants to think that my experiences are relatable to others. For the sake of this discussion, though, let’s just pretend that this applies to all of us, OK?) Since we have our own lens (and many times, we don’t recognize that it is there…we take for granted that what we see is what actually exists), we don’t recognize that our lenses may be peculiar to us.
But even when we do get to thinking about it, I think that we fundamentally want to believe that we are all the same. Or, at the very least, we want to believe that our subjectivities are normal, representative, or relatable. That the thing that you would recognize as “red” is also the thing I would recognize as red. But this isn’t just an assumption we want to make about our inner subjectivities. We want to think that our experiences are relatable to others.
What does this have to do with Mormonism?
One trend I’ve noticed recently is this trend of people asserting their experiencing of Mormonism as being more valid or authentic a representation of Mormonism than some other representation. What I’ve noticed is that it usually happens in couplets…some article in the media will come out, typecasting Mormon one way…and in response, various individuals will respond with their own characterization of Mormonism. For a recent example, take Ian Williams’ piece in the New York Times Room for Debate. Therein, he asserts:
[Mormons’] much-vaunted “worldliness” comes from the missionary program, but when the missionaries go to Brazil, Angola or New Paltz, N.Y., they experience those places wholly through the prism of religious conversion. They are there to spread gospel and baptize, not to revel in local custom. In many cases, Mormons see the world, but they don’t get it.
To this commentary, James Goldberg responded by asking whose world is realer?
Because of my church, I’ve seen [the world] up close. I’ve helped struggling people in two continents move out of apartments due to all sorts of crises, from crooked landlords to persistent gunshots at night to serious vandalism by drug-addicted friends. I’ve eaten in homes where the first language has been Spanish, Navajo, Telegu. Where it’s been German, Turkish, Portuguese, Russian, Marathi, Farsi, French.
And no, I wasn’t following the news when I was a missionary in the former East Germany, and I never went out clubbing or whatever people do in your world to get to know the locals on a European trip. But I’ve sat in an old woman’s apartment and listened to her struggle to make sense of what she remembers feeling when she saw Hitler at a rally in her youth. “He was like a god to us then,” she said, “like a god.” And I’ve been cooked meals by women who served in that war, and who can never forget the hunger they felt as the war dragged on and ended with near chaos in its wake, some of whom walked for hundreds of miles from confiscated homes toward uncertain futures. I’ve learned by experience how to recognize someone who won’t feel right unless you eat every last scrap on the plate. And learned deep respect for the endurance of the old.
(Definitely check out the link for more.)
What’s interesting about Ian’s post and James’s response isn’t just that the two individuals see very different sorts of things as comprising the “real world,” but that the two see very different sorts of things as comprising Mormonism. For Ian, Mormonism is stifling and naive…while for James, Mormonism is eye-opening and gritty.
Fundamentally, James’s and Ian’s characterizations aren’t new. The dance between people like Ian and people like James’s positions on Mormonism is as old as the religion itself. Not to go too far back in history, however, just last week I was contrasting Carrie Sheffield’s Mormonism with Carl Cranney’s Mormonism, but even they weren’t the first to go through this pattern.
Most importantly, these aren’t isolated to a few individuals. As you’ve read the characterizations of the church from the various links in this article, you may have found yourself agreeing with one and disagreeing with its counterpart, based on your own experience with the church.

A while back, Joanna Brooks had a big story with Belief Blogs for CNN. If you’ve ever seen or heard Joanna via her involvement with Mormon Matters podcast, her blogging at Ask Mormon Girl, Religion Dispatches, or Feminist Mormon Housewives, then much of her story and position as reported in the CNN article shouldn’t be new to you, but I was intrigued by a comment that Ralph Hancock was quoted in the article for:
Who she is and what she believes rankles Ralph Hancock, a political science professor at BYU who’s taken her on in an LDS blog review called The Bulwark. Simply put, he says in an e-mail, “Joanna thinks or assumes that Mormonism is compatible with (or intrinsically drawn toward?) a contemporary liberal-progressive agenda – and I think not.”
The thing is…Hancock isn’t the only one who thinks that Joanna Brooks is mistaken when she lives a Mormonism that seems resistant or anathema to her liberal-progressive politics. Disaffected and ex-Mormons also often find issue with Joanna’s approach, as forum posts and Facebook comments revealed. As caedmon at PostMormon wrote:
She writes about (and believes?) in a Mormonism that doesn’t really exist. Like other new-order mormons she wants there to be a big-tent Mormonism, a safe place for questions and doubts. But that is not Mormonism as it truly is.
She can pretend it is because she isn’t married to a Mormon priesthood holder, has a career, and doesn’t live in the morridor where every move is watched by the overlords who are ready to jerk you back into line.
Also like many other new-order mormons she seems to know about many of the troubling issues but refuses to look over the edge at the conclusions.
Even if the orgnization she wants Mormonism to be existed, it still wouldn’t be ‘true’.
Today’s Questions
- What is Mormonism “as it truly is”? To what extent do you recognize that your answer to this question says more about you than it does about Mormonism?
- Why do different people come to have different understandings of what Mormonism at its core is?
- What would you like others to recognize Mormonism as?
- How would you go about showing those others that Mormonism is like that (whatever “that” is)?
- Earlier, Hawkgrrrrl introduced a metaphor comparing the church to a diet. One point that came out through that discussion was that, as with diets, the church might work for some, but not for others — and there often is tension between our individual experience and others’ competing experiences. Do you take into consideration that your experiencing of Mormonism simply may not be how others experience it…how does that play into how you practice the religion?
Andrew S
Profound frame of reference explanation, very well done.
I find it fascinating how we project our selves onto everyone else. I am always astounded when I discover that everyone else is not just like me, even though I know that we are all so different in our perceptions.
In my mind my way of seeing the world is normal, and everyone else is seeing it in a strange way. I don’t see myself as unorthodox in ways, but as being fully orthodox and everyone else just has weird views.
Which makes me think that there are two things involved here; one how we perceive other people, but also how we perceive ourselves. For instance, I have a friend who considers himself a TBM, even though he is completely heretical in almost all of his views.
First, let me say that Ian Williams is an idiot. Not because of his ridiculous view of The Church but because he thinks he’s being cute and profound to a crowd we probably do not wish to associate with in the first place.
Secondly, Each person’s experience with Mormonism is their own. Some find it stifling, some find it liberating. Some find it Pharisaical, others find it without much formal ritual.
There is life in the church outside of the Utah stereotype. And we exist in all shapes, sizes and political persuasions.
What’s so interesting to me is that so much commentary comes from people with an incomplete view of the Church. For example, someone like Johanna cannot really speak to the whole Mormon experience because she has not lived it. Even though she is as good a spokesperson as we might have, she is not all in. And I am not talking about her political views, her view on SSM or the like.
Andrew S asked: Why do different people come to have different understandings of what Mormonism at its core is?
I think Paul adequately answers this question.
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 1:10 – 13)
Jeff Your response blows my mind. For a person who generally produces very logical nd cohesive arguments, your first and last paragraph are well below your standards.
Your first sentence is an ad hominem attack on steroids. You know that “idiot” is an inappropriate description of the person, he obviously does not have the mental level of a three year old. A precise description of the comments he made would have been appropriate (e.g. “showed a profound ignorance of the missionary experience. . .”) You follow that with a sentence that would make Frank Luntz proud by using words or phrases with negative connotations (e.g. “cute” “people we would not want to associate with.”)
Your last paragraph implies a TBMcentric view of Mormonism. Specifically it seems to assert that only people who are “complete” Mormons can comment on the Church with any knowledge or understanding. Does that mean we are to ignore the work of Mormon historians like Jan Shipps because she is not a member of the Church.
Finally, can you cite where Ms. Brooks has ever asserted that she is a spokesperson for the Church? My reading has her stating she is a Mormon who has a home in the Church even though her ideas do not always fit the “TBM” ideal. It seems that you are creating a strawman.
Stan, I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest to you that Jeff was not suggesting a TBMcentric view of mormonism, nor is he saying that only “complete” mormons can comment on the church with knowledge or understanding, nor is he asserting that Ms. Brooks has set herself up as a spokeswoman for the church. It seem obvious to me that Jeff is actually saying that since the real mormon experience is much greater than any one person can experience that no one person can comment on it accurately. You seem to be the one creating straw women here.
re 2:
Jake,
That begs the question. Who decides that your friend is heretical in all his views? Does your own viewpoint of what “orthodox Mormonism” take priority?
This has a lot of importance, say, with respect to your topic from last week. If there are certain people who “believed too much” regarding the church, then we have to ask what is the right amount of belief to have, and in what? Who’s setting those terms?
re 3,
Jeff,
I think a lot of new york times articles could be adequately summarized as “[trying to be] cute and profound to a crowd we probably do not wish to associate with in the first place.”
I think this is interesting, but I probably find it interesting in a very different way than you imagine. For me, it seems that any person in the church cannot say that they have lived the entire Mormon experience…by virtue of being one thing or growing up one way, one doesn’t get exposed to other things. So, for example, a man simply never will be exposed to the experience of growing up in the church as a woman, and vice versa.
re 4,
Jared,
Long time no see.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t even appear to answer the question. Rather, at best it restates the issue: that different people do have different viewpoints.
re 5,
Stan,
I thought Jeff’s last paragraph was outstanding. Maybe you hold Jeff up to REALLY high standards? 😉
But seriously, seriously…if you want to disagree with Jeff’s comment, can you at least try to frame that disagreement in terms of the topic at hand.
In other words, what is a TBMcentric view of Mormonism? Is it this monolithic Thing? Is it “typical”?
Who is a complete Mormon? Can anyone be a complete Mormon (see my comment to Jeff)?
I mean, seriously, you seem to be getting way too stressed out over just one dude’s comment. Who needs to get bent out of shape over something on the *internet*?
#7 Hi Andrew-
I agree, it does restate the issue. However, note Paul’s analysis where he says the reason for different viewpoints is contention. Who is the father of contention? Who is the author of unity?
In the Book of Mormon account of Lehi’s family there are two responses to the rigors of religious experience: Nephi and Sam vs. Laman and Lamuel.
Jared,
Of course, we could eliminate contention if you all would agree with me.
See how that doesn’t actually help anything? We still don’t have one set standard, even though we *think* we have it.
We can have unity by all blindly following what the church says but what do we do when that is wrong (sorry Joseph was not monogamous) or at odds with psychology (being gay is not something to fix) or at odds with psychological health (females are not responsible for male worthiness regardless of how they dress)or at odds with our personal promptings of the Spirit? How big is the tent? How orthodox must we be to be accepted? What level of blindness, deafness and closed mindedness does this require?
Jared:
Isn’t there also a NT scripture in which Paul spoke of contending with Peter and/or John over the issue of whether non-Jewish converts would need to obey circumcision? And did not Peter receive a vision from God to settle the issue?
re 10,
Howard,
I think you’re straying just a tad bit away from the boat. Let me try to bring this back into where I wanted the discussion to go.
Do you think that “real” Mormonism entails or obligates us to “blindly follow what the church says”? Why is it then that a lot of people with different experiences (e.g., I have linked to Joanna Brooks for this point) definitely don’t “blindly follow what the church says,” but they perceive of unity through common heritage — even if they disagree on many points doctrinally or theologically.
Why do we continue to take for granted that Mormonism *is* one way or another? Is it just us projecting how we have experienced church onto the church?
Stan,
“can you cite where Ms. Brooks has ever asserted that she is a spokesperson for the Church? My reading has her stating she is a Mormon who has a home in the Church even though her ideas do not always fit the “TBM” ideal. ”
Never said she asserted she is a spokesperson. I said “she is as good a spokesperson.” That was a compliment, Stan. You have to admit, she is the new “go-to person” for the media at the moment. She is good at it. I do not always agree with her, but she is good. Compliment, Stan, compliment.
Now, she is entitled to whatever views she wishes. I am someone who some might call TBM, but my own views to not necessarily line up perfectly with most Church members. I support that.
Having said that, I also stand behind my statement that one cannot speak to the entire Mormon experience who has not lived it. If we believe, as we have been taught that the Temple is “The great symbol of our membership,” then without those blessings, we are not complete.
And I have been that Jewish spouse of an LDS wife.
Howard,
“Do you think that “real” Mormonism entails or obligates us to “blindly follow what the church says”?”
Simply put, blindly following is a sin.
A true mormon “Thomas S. Monson”.
The spokesman for the church (can’t imagine a woman being allowed to be a spokesperson) is the person hired by the Utah LDS church.
But aside from that, who gets to decide who a real mormon is and what they believe? McConkie tried to do that, and his book was never officially sanctioned and is now out of print.
To my mind, a conservative, orthodox member would never answer questions for the media like Johanna has done. So I guess since she is there and answering questions, she gets to be representative.
Aerin,
Kim Farah
Andrew S,
In #10 I was responding to #8’s contention is the reason and contention is of the devil argument which is often used to reign in those who disagree. I offered that one way of achieving unity is blindly following the church and I pointed out the problems with this expecting that this contrast would bring up “unity through common heritage” or some similar phrase.
I don’t take for granted that Mormonism as defined by those who self identify or those outside the church is narrow but I think it would be hard to argue that Mormonism as implied and practiced by the church is broad.
Jeff wrote Simply put, blindly following is a sin. Okay now we’re talking degrees. If you question too much you will loose your Temple recommend, be excluded from callings and you’ll be talked to by leaders as if there is something wrong with you or as if your are somehow lacking in faith or apostatizing.
This is the bloggernacle’s niche is it not to facilitate conversations that cannot easily take place at a meetinghouse?
I’ve been reading an interesting book that talks about the difference between the actual Israelite religion as practiced by the people, including illiterates and women and how it contrasted to the religion the Bible described. The Bible was a written correction to bring the local people under control. In essence, that’s how the church still works (and probably all churches). Consider that the Catholic bishops are completely anti-birth control, but 98% of Catholics are for it.
So, which is “real” Mormonism? The Mormonism lived at the local individual level or the imaginary Mormonism imposed by the orthodoxy and hierarchy? I suppose they both exist, but the latter is a response to the former, an attempt to correct and control it.
Howard,
“If you question too much you will loose your Temple recommend, be excluded from callings and you’ll be talked to by leaders as if there is something wrong with you or as if your are somehow lacking in faith or apostatizing. ”
We’ve discussed this before and the conclusion is that it depends on the way one questions, not the questioning itself. However, the individual natuire of the Church means that some leaders will act poorly toward questions posed to them. that is unfortunate.
Hawk, #19,
Right on!
Jeff wrote: it depends on the way
Example please. How could a BoM as inspired fiction discussion be held in an acceptable way at church?
Howard,
“Does it make a huge difference in the value of the BoM if it is a actual history of a group of people or not?”
Okay well I haven’t tried that at church yet but I have on the boggernacle and the first thing that happens is the faithful vigorously defend it with illogical arguments. It’s hard to imaging working through all of that at church without monopolizing a meeting or several and without a friendly but concerned talking to from a leader.
Let’s say I drink beer because D&C89 says it’s fine. How’s that going to go down?
You asked for an example, I gave it. I think that could be a way to approach it.
Jeff,
Yes you did and I think it was a well thought out opening line.
The problem is things like BoM fiction and beer and many other issues challenge and often offend the frame of reference of many members. Open mindedness, individual thinking and permeability of thought are not encouraged or readily apparent in the majority of members on these topics, instead being teachable and fitting in are considered a valuable traits. Investigators are encouraged to question but probing questioning is quickly attenuated following baptism. Isn’t it?
The brethren narrowly define Mormonism even more narrowly than Joseph did and the faithful members are expected to follow and for the most part they do.
Howard,
“Open mindedness, individual thinking and permeability of thought are not encouraged or readily apparent in the majority of members on these topics, instead being teachable and fitting in are considered a valuable traits. Investigators are encouraged to question but probing questioning is quickly attenuated following baptism. Isn’t it?”
No, I just do not see it. I understand why you say that, but the reality is not that way.
Sure, In Sunday School a discussion can be derailed or ignored, but that is more having to do with time management than anything else. My High Priest Group goes off the deep end at least one every week. Sometimes, the instructor can never get it back. I feel sorry for George Albert Smith sometimes. His words get short shrift as we venture off into Kolob Kountry. It’s fun! No one gets ex’d for that.
Might your High Priest Group go off the deep end exploring the more controversial bloggernacle topics? Mine doesn’t.
Can I keep my Temple recommend and drink beer without lying about it?
Please explain what the real “reality” is.
Howard,
What is this? “Bait the Jeff?’
Why would I answer a question where you already know the answer.
Stop it!
Andrew, Raebnc. As to your comments on the comments A+
Hawk, that 98% number just ain’t so, though it’s certainly been tossed around a lot.
http://www.getreligion.org/2012/02/lies-damned-lies-and-98-of-catholic-women/
Aerin, I’ve known at least one female spokesman for the Church. She spoke at a regional young adult conference in Wisconsin in the early 80s that I went to the summer I worked at TSR.
So, you may not be able to imagine one, but I’ve met one. Even talked one on one.
OP –;) — I am fascinated by what you had to say about reading. Books are so alive for me.
Anyway, lunch hour is over, but this has been fascinating.
Howard, we have high priests locally who drink small beer without problems. Of course you would pick it up at the grocery as near beer. But for about four thousand years there have been minimal and no alcohol beers available.
I have been mulling over this post for awhile. And coming back to Andrews point. It does make me wonder who it is that gets to decide and set the terms on what being Mormon is all about. Everyones church experience is different, attending church in one area differs vastly from another ward or stake, let alone when we start looking at different countries.
It seems as if we are only justified in saying that our experience is real. But that does not make anyone else’s experience less real. As the problem is that in trying to define what a real mormon is, we will most likely end up cutting out half of the early church leaders in the process. On the other hand it runs the risk of being so broad that it doesn’t really capture anything.
I guess it simply highlights the poverty in trying to define a label.
I like Jake’s thought on this – we either cut so many people out, or we’re so broad that the term “Mormon” doesn’t mean anything at all. There is definitely a tension between those two, and I admit my opinion is somewhat fluid. Sometimes I hear people calling themselves “Mormon” when a) they don’t believe ANY of the teachings, and b) they don’t really follow any of the commandments that would make one “Mormon.” Yet, they claim it as part of their identity. That has bothered me sometimes, but at the same time I’ve been annoyed at people thinking I’m not a “true Mormon” either. I once had an ex-mo friend tell me that I was basically a secret agent, not really a member, and would be disowned if people really knew what I thought. It really does just go back to WHO is applying the label. Calling someone Mormon or not Mormon, or defining what Mormonism is, says SO very little about anything other than what the speaker is experiencing.
sw,
“Sometimes I hear people calling themselves “Mormon” when a) they don’t believe ANY of the teachings, and b) they don’t really follow any of the commandments that would make one “Mormon.” Yet, they claim it as part of their identity.”
I come from a culture, Judaism, that is all over that kind of defintion 🙂 In fact, i started WWIII in the family when I made that very statement.
Jeff,
I’m attempting to understand what you mean and what your reality is, I explained mine.
Stephen,
I suppose that is true I wonder if it would be allowed to become commonly accepted. In any case the term barley drinks includes much more than NA beer.
I’m glad to hear there have been official LDS spokeswomen. Did they explain to the media/community about the bishops’s storehouse and canning programs? Did they clarify misconceptions about mormon doctrine for mormons and non mormons? Did they meet on a regular basis with the prophet/president and the quorum of the twelve?
That’s what I’m thinking of in terms of an official spokeswoman. It’s interesting that a woman can fill that position but cannot be the ward clerk.
This is a major threadjack. And I haven’t asked about whether or not the FLDS count as “mormon” and how their experience plays into these labels. They self-identify as mormon and have most of the same spiritual texts. Yet most mainstream mormons vehemently deny the FLDS are mormon (including Gordon B. Hinckley, who said there were no fundamentalist mormons).
1. What is Mormonism “as it truly is”?
Mormonism is anything that the prophet Mormon would believe and do and say and think. We know, for example, from Mormon’s writings, that he believed in the Book of Mormon, which he mostly wrote, and that he believed in Joseph Smith, who he prophesied about, and also that he believed in the Bible. We can infer, that since he believed in Joseph Smith, that he would have likely also believed in the revelations that came from Joseph Smith. He also believed in the plates of brass and other records to come forth from the lost tribes, etc.
To what extent do you recognize that your answer to this question says more about you than it does about Mormonism?
Well, my answer is based upon what a Mormon is, namely, a believer of Mormon (the prophet), what he said, did, thought, how he felt, etc. A Mormon, then, is anyone who patterns himself or herself after Mormon (the prophet) and his teachings, just as a Christian is a believer of Christ, what He said, did, thought, felt, etc., and who patterns his or her life after Christ and His teachings.
This is the only accurate definition of a Mormon and of Mormonism, just as this is the only accurate definition of a Christian and of Christianity.
A person who follows me and my thinking, words, actions, and who believes what I would believe, and does what I would do, might be called an LDS Anarchistite. That would be an accurate label. But for someone who doesn’t believe what I believe, do what I do or would do, etc., or who only accepts part of my teachings, etc., although they are still free to call themselves LDS Anarchistites, it would be a false label.
Two hundred and ten years after Christ visited the Nephites,
Were these Christian churches? Of course not. Yet they used the Christian label anyway.
So, using this as the standard, who among us are Mormons? Hardly anyone is. And who among us practices Mormonism? Hardly anyone does. And that goes for Christians and Christianity. And that is what my response reveals about me, namely, that I see very few Mormons and Christians anywhere.
2. Why do different people come to have different understandings of what Mormonism at its core is?
Because people have come to detach the base or foundation of the label from the label itself. Mormonism is now detached from the prophet Mormon, so that anyone who professes to be a Mormon is free to define the term how he or she sees fit. Same with Christianity.
3. What would you like others to recognize Mormonism as?
Every term or label we use should not be a misrepresentation, as that creates confusion. So, just as I wouldn’t like a statist going around saying he’s an LDS Anarchistite, because that misrepresents what I teach, the same goes with all labels. But really, I don’t care what people call themselves, as long as they repent and exercise faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation, they’ll turn out fine.
4. How would you go about showing those others that Mormonism is like that (whatever “that” is)?
By being a Mormon myself and living Mormonism, meaning that I align my life with Mormon’s teachings.
5. Do you take into consideration that your experiencing of Mormonism simply may not be how others experience it…how does that play into how you practice the religion?
Everyone who follows the teachings of Mormon will end up seeing eye to eye, or coming to a unity of faith. This is how the Spirit works. Although experiences, mnnifestations and gifts will vary, initially, the gospel is such that as each person of a group lives it, they will start to have identical spiritual experiences, so that eventually they all will end up having one faith, one baptism, one eye single to the glory of God. Picking and choosing what parts of the prophet Mormon’s teachings to live and believe will not produce such unity. Although the gospel produces vast diversity and variety, it is a unified divesity and variety, all the fruit being good, not a multitude of bad fruits.
“the term barley drinks includes much more than NA beer” — sure does, Postum and Pero, for example 😉
But, it is the barley drinks that are made into beer with noticeable levels of alcohol that the Word of Wisdom proscribes. The others are just fine and encouraged.
re 18,
Howard,
How come it often seems that “question too much” is code language for “question too obnoxiously”?
I often hear it phrased a slightly different way: The bloggernacle’s niche is to facilitate conversations that the meetinghouse wasn’t designed to be the place for.
To put in another way, people come here seeking these discussions. They don’t go to church on Sunday seeking those discussions. If you don’t realize the difference, then you may find yourself in that “question too much = question too obnoxiously” population I was talking about earlier.
re 24,
The drinking beer/D&C 89 thing actually reminds me of another scripture that I wish people would read and internalize more: 1 Corinthians 8. That entire chapter.
Seriously, read that chapter exchanging talk of idols with what you *know* about the WoW. (TT had a post at Faith Promoting Rumor addressing this chapter for its implications for liberal/uncorrelated/whatever Mormons…which is really coincidental, because it appears that you commented on that post.)
re 28,
Doesn’t this get to the heart of the topic at hand? Just knowing that your High Priest Group doesn’t explore controversial topics and that Jeff’s does actually doesn’t let you conclude anything whatsoever about how the church actually is.
Here’s the interesting thing about temple recommend questions. They don’t ask, “Do you drink beer?” They ask, “Do you keep the word of wisdom?” If you answer, “Yes” because drinking beer is in accordance with the WoW, then that’s not lying.
This is almost straight word-for-word out of an uncorrelated Mormon playbook…I mean, have you not seen that idea *anywhere* before?
Even more, I’ve seen many people comment in discussions about things like this that the temple recommend interview isn’t about the Bishop finding you worthy or not, but rather it’s a process for the Bishop to facilitate *you* doing a *self-evaluation*. As such, the Bishop can’t stray away from the questions, and isn’t supposed to interject with his own views about what he thinks the questions mean. It’s about *you* and how you think you fit those qualifications as you understand them.
Isn’t it interesting how some members never come to see the recommend interviews like this?
re 34,
Jake,
Why would you say “It seems we are only justified in saying our experience is real?” Isn’t empathy and sympathy actually the idea that we are justified in saying others’ experiences are real — even if we haven’t personally experienced them? Or how about open-mindedness?
Maybe the issue is that when we try to define what a Mormon is, we tend to focus on aspects that have changed the most (and this is where we run into problems cutting out early leaders or believers)?
But that doesn’t mean that we either have to follow that criteria OR that there is no meaningful criteria. In other words, we can come up with a meaningful definition to Mormonism that seems to include a lot more people without that definition making the term meaningless or unable to exclude.
I’ll address this in response to a later comment…
re 35,
sw,
As I alluded to before, this is a false dichotomy. It’s not like there are only two options: cut “so many people” out OR distinguish nothing important at all. It’s really just about what criteria we want to use.
You focus on two criteria that are really popular to use: belief and behavior. But as you yourself note, these criteria don’t seem to do well at capturing the entire spectrum of people who identify as Mormon. This is evident from cultural, liberal, unorthodox, etc., Mormons…but it’s also evident, as Jake implied, from past members and past leaders. Belief and behavior serve as some of the poorest criteria for defining Mormons, past and present, because belief and behavior are some of the least stable things in Mormonism.
Identity, community, and shared experiences with a particular community…these kinds of things still provide distinctiveness…but they aren’t as ephemeral of distinction criteria as belief or behavior.
Maybe I should put it in another way…there is a select number of people who have — for whatever reasons — striven within a community of people who seem to collectively recognize that community as distinct (we call this self-aware, distinct community “Mormon”) to such an extent that they identify with that community.
Bam! there you have something that still has a meaningful definition (in other words, non-Mormons are those who haven’t striven with the Mormon community. They have no inclination to call themselves Mormon precisely because they haven’t done so.) However, it still includes people over time with differences of belief, behavior, etc., (E.g., the fact that I don’t believe doesn’t negate that I have striven with the Mormon community…or the fact that my choice to blog here and elsewhere means that I, in some respects, still do strive. And that also highlights something else: “strive” is more open a term than, say, “go to church regularly.” So just because I don’t “go to church regularly” doesn’t mean I don’t in other ways strive.)
The way this works over time *and space* is that it allows for different things to constitute the striving relationship. For those members who trekked westward, that becomes a binding activity that constitutes their striving. For those of us today who don’t have to do that (or for those of us at any time, who didn’t live in the location to have to do that), then this activity doesn’t become a fundamental constituent of our striving.
To bring this all back to the topic, I think where “Typical Mormonism Fallacy” comes into play is when we assume that the circumstances and experiences that constituted our striving are the only ones that *can* constitute that striving. For example, suppose we said, “You are only a “real Mormon” if you had ancestors who crossed the plans.” That would be missing the mark.
But so too missing the mark would be to say, “You are only a “real Mormon” if you have personally converted away from family and friends at great personal/social cost to your pre-conversion relationships.”
BOTH things may be sufficient to create a striving relationship, but neither is “necessary.”
re 36,
Jeff,
It must be just weird to continually confront Mormons who want to be *just* like Judaism — but only in that cultural sense…
re 39,
aerin,
I always feel that bringing the FLDS (and for that matter, the CofChrist) into the discussion makes me have to think REALLY hard about my own biases. It’s really easy to advocate for a big tent, but then on the other hand to fall into the trap of saying, “fundamentalists are out!”
(And this also goes for CofChrist, even if…if I recall correctly, they may not be trying to self-identify as “Mormon”.)
Here’s my tension. I read a bit of stuff that John (and I always get confused what the familial relationship between you, John, and chanson are…are you cousins with them…oh gosh, this is such a personal threadjack parenthetical comment) writes…and also, we have FireTag here as a permablogger…so it’s easy for me to include these two individuals as Mormons. (John’s situation is a bit more complicated here, since he’s a convert to the CofChrist, right? But my point still works for the lifelong CofChrist member FireTag…I think.)
At the same time…with the whole Latter-day Seekers thing as well…I’ve had to confront that at some level, the CofChrist itself doesn’t “feel” like part of the same “thing” I think I’m referring to when *I* say “Mormon community” to myself. I haven’t tested it out, but I *anticipate* that I’d feel like going to the CofChrist would be a really new, different experience. That I’d be learning a bit of a new language, rather than already being fluent from my own background.
This is similar to how I feel about FLDS, although I have seem a few posts from fundamentalists *on Mormon-community blogs*.
FWIW, whatever reservation I might have with calling the FLDS Mormon is probably not the same reservation that Gordon B. Hinckley had.
re 40,
Latter-day Anarchist,
Great comment as usual. I disagree with a lot of it (as usual), but great comment. (Or how about I say instead…I’m not yet ready to agree with it…)
I think my issue with this is that it makes language to prescriptivist. As if there are prescribed meanings to words, and words cannot *legitimately* change meaning over time or over circumstance.
But let’s not go there.
Instead, even if we use your definition…there is room for difference. If a Mormon is someone who patterns him/herself after Mormon and his teachings…then that introduces other questions: patterns over what? You provide a lot of ideas (what he did, thought, felt, said), and then also provide an attempt to answer (you have to pattern yourself after ALL. if it’s only PART, then it’s a false label.) You even point out the logical conclusion of this answer (it means there are a lot fewer Mormons/Christians/LDS Anarchistites than some people might think).
But I would counter and say that it’s more of a matter that people are really complex…they are multifaceted, so you can’t really pattern yourself after *everything* a person is. And if you pattern yourself after only certain things, that seems valuable or worthy of distinction anyway.
I have another question…what does practicing Mormonism mean in a practical standpoint when the religion prioritizes revelation, etc., In other words, Mormon is one guy who lived in one point in time…but revelation is not dependent on one man who lived in at one point in time. Should “Mormons” then instead be called after the prophet of the era in which they lived (which, for Mormons now, they would just have to be called “Monsons” instead?)
I’m going to push back in the same vein I was talking about earlier in this comment. The basics: I disagree that the two options are “base the label on ALL x person did/said/thought” or “free to define the term HOWEVER ONE SEES FIT.” There’s just so much more in the middle.
Let’s try it like this. So, given that Mormon is a multifaceted person, isn’t it possible for two people to come to differences in opinion regarding what to prioritize with him? If so, wouldn’t they be able to come up with a term that is still based on Mormon’s teachings/beliefs/opinions/actions, but which would still have diversity?
Suppose you had someone who “repented and exercised faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation,” but did not live/follow/believe/think/pattern themselves after everything Jesus said/did/thought/etc., Firstly, would it even be possible for this to be (or would the latter part basically mean that the person was not “repenting and exercising faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation”)
Supposing that it’s possible for that scenario to exist, should that person be labeled a Christian?
In some ways, I feel this preemptively answered some of the questions I pose in this comment…but I still don’t feel certain about that.
It seems like the Spirit becomes a plug figure: If you’re doing it right, then the Spirit provides a check figure for you to know you’ve got the same answer as everyone else, so to speak.
unfortunately, I don’t know exactly what question to ask to drill down deeper into this part.
I’ve experienced mostly a tolerable camaraderie. In rare instances a christ-like love, and in others scorn and abuse. My take is that Mormons make wonderful fair weather friends.
What Mormons believe in their minds and what they believe in their hearts are two different things, but that can be attributed to our schizophrenic Western culture. It’s not really a Mormon thing.
Mormonism can never be what it was meant to be because it has become an ism, and isms place the head over the heart.
Howard – I was going to say the same thing as Andrew S about the beer question. They don’t ask if you drink beer. Essentially we assess our own worthiness based on our understanding and without reading extra things into the questions. Alternatively, WoW violations are not confessional sins – only sexual sins are. So, if you have had a beer here or there in moments of doubt, but at the time of the TR, you are not planning to be a beer drinker, you also can answer fine. Given that beer has no benefits for the body and only causes beer gut, I’m not such a fan, but to each his own.
As to bringing up BOM as inspired fiction, you can always ask questions safely – you can’t always make contradicting assertions safely. For one, I mentioned that the story about Ammon cutting off all those arms, but nobody died was a story that to me strained credulity. I even appealed to the RS teacher, a doctor, “C’mon, not one died due to a severed artery? Really? What are the odds? This sounds like campfire storytelling to me (or a fish story: the fish was THAT big!).” My example also leaves the door open to the narrators of the BOM aggrandizing the stories, so even if it’s historical, that doesn’t mean we should trust that the narrators weren’t changing things for their own purposes (Grant Hardy’s book Understanding the Book of Mormon talks about this quite a bit as well).
Ben S – to clarify the 98%, this is from Newsweek (Feb. 20 issue), article titled How State Beat Church by Andrew Sullivan. 98% of sexually experienced American Catholic women have used birth control. So, whether they believe in it or not, when the rubber (so to speak) meets the road, they used it. The stat does come down when men are included (duh! since men don’t get pregnant) and when virgins are included (since the Catholics have only had one fail on that score). More Catholics believe contraception should be included free with health care (58% of American Catholics) than Americans in general (55% of non-Catholics). The point of the article is that the culture wars have been revived by the conservative right, but they aren’t convincing anyone, even in many cases, their own members.
re 41,
Stephen,
At the risk of becoming to postmodernist here…I just want to push you on the WoW. You seem to be pretty confident in speaking about what the correct interpretation of the WoW is…but who says specifically and explicitly that “barley drinks that are made into beer with noticeable levels of alcohol [are what] the Word of Wisdom proscribes“?
I mean, I think that yes, this is a very popular interpretation (in the same way “hot drink” means iced tea but doesn’t mean hot chocolate.) But ultimately, the point I’d get at with my post is: is one person (or even many people’s) lived experience indicative of what is actually the case?
I’d go even further than that: consider that my last post was about unrealistic expectations…and that was related to Jake’s post about believing too much. The idea is that sometimes, we project these standards, expectations, beliefs, etc., that aren’t really institutionally sound, but are more cultural…
Why isn’t the current practice of the WoW one of those cultural things?
re 46:
Bradley,
Interesting thought here:
But a couple of questions…1) what was Mormonism meant to be? 2) How can you separate a system of “what things are meant to be” from an -ism. Maybe Mormonism has become the wrong kind of -ism, but it seems to me that -isms are all about saying what things are meant to be.
re 47,
HG,
Great points. I would say something like, “I agree,” but it’s awkward because you already basically said that you agreed with what I had been saying…
For years, I interpreted the WoW thusly:
iced tea OK
iced coffee OK
coffee ice cream OK
herbal tea (hot) OK
green tea (hot) OK
decaf OK
regular coffee NO
regular tea NO
beer NO
near beer OK
rum cake OK
I have since flipped on iced coffees and iced tea, but otherwise, that’s pretty much where I sit. I don’t wring my hands over it. We spend a boatload of time straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Andrew S,
I think I see your point but obnoxious is far more judgmental than it is descriptive. if these topics were more welcomed questioners would appear less obnoxious.
There are a number of comments I could make regarding 1Corinthians 8 let me know if you would like to go into it deeper.
I am familiar with the temple reccomend questions and process. The WoW excludes beer overriding D&C 89 a revelation via. Joseph that does not exclude beer. So how is it possible to honestly say that you keep the WoW if you drink beer?
Jeff never answered the question so we don’t know, your conclusion may be mixing apples and oranges. But if you’re right shall we conclude that sharing our experiences is a wasted effort? To the extent we can find common ground I think it helps to resolve our differences as the conversation unfolds.
#44 – chanson and John are my cousins. And yes, that is a personal threadjack! 😉
#40 – Latter-day Anarchist – if these splinter groups of mormonism believe in the prophet mormon, it sounds like they would still count as mormon.
So I think belief and behavior do partially define mormonism. There may also be a racial/ethnic identity that is part of it as well, but that is more debatable.
I still think a person can self-identify as mormon, although I agree that there is a lot of grey area there.
Also a part of this discussion, is the process of being officially mormon (i.e. on the rolls, not excommunicated) and considering oneself mormon. There are people who have been excommunicated but still consider themselves mormon.
Hypothetically, let’s say that I agree with the prophet mormon and believe in his teachings from the Book of Mormon. But I have been excommunicated for some reason (practicing polygamy or preaching the Adam God Doctrine). Am I still mormon if I consider myself mormon?
I think it depends on who is in control of the label. Is it the corporation in Salt Lake City or is it more than that?
Hawkgrrl,
While WoW violations are not a confessional sin I probably like many live in an area where it is common to see ward members at the grocery store or restaurant which is where I would buy beer.
Alcohol in moderation brings health benefits. I drank one occationally two beers a day for many years before returning to the church when I stopped drinking it my HDLs dropped from 58 to 44 with no change in exercise! Also it offers stress reduction that might be used for some people to offset antidepressants. So with regard to 1 Corinthians 8 the church is asking me to sacrifice my healthy blood chemistry for the idol worshipers something Joseph didn’t require.
LDSAnarchist and Andrew: re 40 and 45
I think one of the difficulties here is that Mormon would probably consider your definition of Mormonism as one following Mormon as heresy because it would place him as more central than Christ. So, at minimum, the definition would seem to require alteration so that a Mormon would be the sub-set of Christians who accepted the records Mormon left (historically or metaphorically) about what he believed concerning Jesus Christ.
There is a similar problem in understanding the relationship of the RLDS/CofChrist to Mormonism. The history — vastly over-simplified — went something like this:
We’re all LDS, even if outsiders call us all Mormons.
We’re the REAL LDS; you guys who went to Utah are not.
You guys who went to Utah are not, but you are bigger than we are, so we’ll call ourselves “Reorganized” LDS.
We still hate outsiders calling us Mormons, so we’ll let you have that aspect of the name.
We’re less and less sure about this whole “one true church” thing, so we’re more open to ecumenical reconciliation with other Christians.
On a global scale, no one seems to care about our distinctives, so we’ll let them go as necessary to pursue Christ’s mission for us better.
We become part of mainstream (read American center-left) Protestantism.
We now “strive” with the American Protestant community vis a vis issues with the non-Western protestants. (Out of the frying pan, into the fire!)
Me, I don’t feel any obligation to follow a covenant now interpreted in a way that no party interpreted it at the time I made it, unless I’m directed to do so by the same level of authority from which both Mormon and Joseph Smith claimed to derive the authority to make covenants in the first place. And that’s NOT what I’ve been hearing I should do. So, I instead try as best I can to keep the covenant I made through continuing with the mission that came with it.
Howard,
“Jeff never answered the question so we don’t know, your conclusion may be mixing apples and oranges.”
Jeff never answered the question because the answer is obivious.
Let me ask you a question,
“What makes you think that anything in Section 89 refers to beer or any thing alcoholic? Mild drinks made of barley?
Jeff,
You say you didn’t answer because you say the answer is obivious, but it is not. Andrew interpreted your position as being opposite of mine but I would guess that you would answer the same or similar to mine. So which is it?
To answer your question; Beer is one of the world’s oldest beverages. It is most commonly brewed from barley. The alcohol producing fermentation process was well known by the time D&C89 was revealed. Beer is available from very low alcohol contents up to 20% in rare cases but most common beers are under 7% generally 5%-6%. I doubt this process or it’s modern day potential was unknown to God by 1833. Common beer would not be considered strong drink. Hard liquor is strong drink and D&C89 says drinking strong drink neither “meet in the sight of your Father” but is “for the washing of your bodies”. Who washes their bodies in beer? But people do wash their bodies with alcohol. So common beer must be a mild drink. All grain is ordained for the use of man. Barley is a grain and is for mild drinks.
Wow, I didn’t expect so many detailed responses to what I wrote. So let me attempt to clarify what I meant.
The BoM was written with the house of Jacob, and more especially with the remnant found here in America, and also with the Gentiles, in mind, so that
The prophet Mormon was selected by the Lord to be the man who performed this task, namely, he was chosen to bring us to the knowledge of our Redeemer (Christ) and to teach us the very points of His doctrine (the doctine of Christ) and to teach us how to come to Christ and be saved. Mormon was chosen because the thoughts and words and actions and desires and feelings of Mormon, were patterned after Christ, and he wrote by the power of the Holy Ghost, and also because Mormon was shown the vision of the future, so that he saw and knew of our situation. So, when we follow Mormon’s teachings, we are actually following Christ’s teachings.
Mormon wasn’t just your average, everyday prophet. He was a prophet, seer, revelator and translator, having seen the vision of all things, from the beginning to the end, just as the brother of Jared had, for he could read the plates of Ether, as well as all the other plates. Thus, Mormon knew of all things, or his understanding of all things was perfect.
Because of his selection as our latter-day “Sunday school teacher,” with the assignment to teach us of the things of Christ, the whole work contains his name, even those portions that he didn’t write (the small plates of Nephi.) The entire thing, then, can be considered as a teaching coming directly from Mormon.
Now, Mormon’s writings are of such monumental importance, since he is the one and only teacher the Lord selected to teach the entire planet of Himself, that the Lord stated, of Mormon’s writings:
So, Mormon’s teachings would either save all those who believe and live them, or condemn all those who disbelieve and refuse to live them. In other words, it is Mormon’s words and compilation, and this alone, that will gather the elect from the four quarters of the earth. Hopefully this is enough to establish Mormon’s unique calling as a prophet, seer, revelator and translator, and the impact he was destined to have on all of us of the latter and last days.
Now, this comment was primarily directed to Firetag, regarding his comment concerning heresy in lifting Mormon up above Christ. A follower of Mormon, then, is perfectly fine, because Mormon points everyone to Christ.
Btw, my previous comment #57 was for Firetag #54.
Now, Andrew #45,
Re: all, nothing or part of Mormon’s teachings. It was Mormon’s mission and calling to teach us the very points of Christ’s doctrine. As long as you have all those “very points” in there, that is the pure doctrine of Christ. The minute you subtract even one of those points, you become like unto one of those apostate Nephite churches that existed 200+ years after Jesus visited them:
How can you be a follower of Christ if you deny even one or more of his points or parts? Can you be like Christ while denying any aspect of Him? The answer is, “No.” And since the gospel is simply that which, when believed and lived, will cause us to become like Christ, every single point is necessary.
Re: complexity of people. Jesus Christ is the multifaceted person, exceedingly complex, more so than any one of us, or any group of us combined, that the gospel is trying to get us to be patterned after. We are not to pattern the gospel after our lives, picking and choosing what we want. Instead, we are to pattern our lives after the gospel, even after every part of the it, to the best extent we can.
And if you pattern yourself after only certain things, that seems valuable or worthy of distinction anyway.
Not in the eyes of God. The gospel produces the good fruit. If you add to the gospel or you take away from the gospel, that is considered, by God, to be bad fruit. All trees which produce bad fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire. So, the gospel is all about aligning one’s life to every single point or part of the gospel, according as the circumstances allow.
In other words, the entirety of the gospel is the standard used to judge goodness or badness, not what percentage your life conforms to the entirety of the gospel. “He obeys 60% of the gospel, therefore he is mostly good,” doesn’t fly. The comparison will be, instead, “He conforms to the gospel standard on every point, therefore, it is a match and his is deemed as good fruit.”
Mormon is one guy who lived in one point in time
True, but he also saw the vision of all times and all things, therefore, placing time limitations on Mormon, or any of the other Nephite seers who also saw the vision of all things, is kind of pointless.
To be continued, since you brought up many points…
Andrew #45:
We don’t have any living prophets in this era. What we have are men who are sustained as prophets, who do not prophesy, and who are sustained as seers, who do not see visions, and who are sustained as revelators, who do not reveal any new words of God, and who are not sustained as translators, and who also do not translate.
So, if we are going to be called after a revelator, let’s start with someone who really does receive revelation from God. There is no evidence that Monson or any of the others qualify for any of these designations. The prophet Mormon, however, does.
Re: diversity, differences in opinion, etc. These questions are based upon current practices of the LDS, who are not followers of Mormon. Mormon’s doctrine is not being practiced today, so we can’t compare apples to oranges.
For example, the Mormon apple, Mormon’s teachings, say that the gate is faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism of water by immersion, and then comes the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. And then you can speak with the tongue of angels. Now, Mormon’s teachings (and remember, the entire book’s teachings are Mormon’s teachings, since he compiled it and it carries his name), anyway, Mormon’s teachings give some examples of the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost and speaking with tongues of angels, namely, with the Lamanite converts of Nephi and Lehi in the prison, and also at the baptism of the people in Bountiful. In both occasions a pillar of fire came down and encircled the convert and angels came down and ministered to the people. Now, these were the examples Mormon gave. How does this compare with the latter-day saints?
There have been a few occasions of pillars of fire and angels, namely, Joseph, Oliver, David, and Martin, but not much else. (For the most part, it’s all been oranges, even the works of men.) And how were they able to obtain this baptism of fire and speak with the tongue of angels? Said the Lord:
By exercising “that faith which was had by the prophets of old.” These are the fruits of Mormon’s teachings, which are not manifested by the latter-day saints. Notice the last chapter of the BoM, written by Moroni. These were his last words to us, which typically would be the most important words, right? And what does he talk about? The gifts of the Spirit. Again, these are the fruits, which are not manifested among us. Why not? Because our minds “have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received…even the Book of Mormon…not only to say but to do according to that which I have written, that [you] may bring forth fruit meet for [your] Father’s kingdom”.
So, the current church is doing the works of men, not the miraculous works of the Father, and when a people do the works of men, disagreements occur, arguments happen, etc. But when a people do the works of the Father, they come to a unity of faith and of all things, for they work by the power of the Holy Ghost and follow the teachings of Mormon, who taught that it was the doctrine of Christ that all contention and stirring up the hearts of men to anger, one against another, should be done away.
Again, it is comparing apples to oranges. Consider this: Mormon doctrine, meaning the teachings of the prophet Mormon, regarding missionaries, shows that every Nephite missionary saw an angel and had the spirit of prophecy and revelation. In other words, every Nephite missionary was a holy prophet of God. What does that teach us about missionary work, how it is supposed to be done?
The diversity of the gospel is all good fruit, none of it bad, meaning that all the works of those following Christ are done by the miraculous power of the Holy Ghost, for all good gifts or fruit comes from Christ and his power, and no good gifts or fruit comes from any other source. (See Moroni 7.) This is why Mormon teaches over and over again that we are to “deny not the power of God.” But this is exactly what the modern latter-day saint does. They deny His power and thus have little to no gifts.
One more comment, and I think I’ll have finally answered the points you brought up…
Andrew #45,
We are saved by becoming like Christ, namely, justified, sanctified and purified, so it is impossible for a person to repent and exercise faith in Christ unto salvation without patterning their lives after Jesus, which is why the BoM is so important, since it shows us how to do that, in every single point.
The labels Christian and Mormon are not important. The only label that is important is “saint,” which is what the Lord calls His people who have entered into His fold. A saint is, by definition, a sanctified person, or one who is under the influence and power of the Holy (Sanctified) Ghost. In other words, they’ve been set apart from the mundane, worldly people, by the Set Apart Spirit, for the purpose of worshipping the Lord, or worshipping the Father in the name of His Son by the power of the Holy Ghost.
So, if we do not become a saint, by following Mormon’s teachings, all is lost. Every other label is ultimately meaningless.
Mormon taught the following:
Mormon doctrine is what is called in the scriptures, “seeing eye to eye.” It means having the same vision, prephesying the same prophecy, having the same angel deliver the same message, obtaining the same gift of the Spirit through the same exercise of faith, etc. Lehi had a dream or night vision. Nephi asked to see the same thing and was given the same vision. A Nephite missionary preached the gospel, declaring to all the words that were communicated to him via an angel; the listener believed the word, then went to the Lord in prayer, asking to have the same messenger come to him and deliver the same message, which, through his faith, was done. This is how the Nephites operated, for this was the gospel of Jesus Christ given to the Nephites, which is now given to us through the writings of Mormon.
Now, the latter-day saints of today take the stance of Laman and Lemuel, namely, “the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.” But this is because they do not follow the teachings of Mormon. If they did, they would see the same things Lehi, Nephi and any and all of the ancient Nephites prophets saw and did, for this is how it works, through the power of the Holy Spirit, all men coming to a unification of the faith through the power of the Holy Ghost, having the very same gifts and manifestations of the Spirit, and exercising the same strong faith.
Again, this is unified diversity, meaning that the powers of the Spirit are many, but they are all good and of benefit to all, and accessible to all who exercise faith, no gift being contrary or contradictory or causing contention among them, but actually causing them to become more unified.
Anyway, I’ll wrap this up now. No latter-day saint can attain to Mormon doctrine unless they first believe the BoM to be true, to be the word of God. Unfortunately, the trend of this people is that that belief is waning. But for all those who desire Mormon’s gospel, which is the actual doctrine of Christ, the instructions are pretty straightforward: you must believe the entire BoM, plant it in your heart, come down into the depth of humility, casting away all your learning and wisdom and riches, considering yourself a fool and unworthy and mere nothingness before God, repenting of all your sins, striving to keep God’s commandments, and weep to the Lord with sorrow for all your sins, which is the broken heart and contrite spirit, even walking “mournfully before the Lord of Hosts,” looking to the Lord (even Christ on the cross) in every thought. That’s the only prescribed, doctrinal, Mormon way which produces the good fruit.
re 50,
HG,
one thing I would find really interesting is asking people how they interpret the question about affiliating with any group whose teachings/practices are contrary to the church…some time, when I was growing up, someone explained that that was basically just asking if you sympathized with polygamists.
Ever since, that has seemed to stick with me. I don’t even bat an eye at anyone else, even though I ostensibly probably affiliate/support people who are contrary to church positions in many other ways.
re 51,
Howard,
But that definitely gets into my point about the differing roles between church/sunday school/sacrament mtg/priesthood or relief society VS the bloggernacle.
Let’s put it this way…even on the bloggernacle, where the questions are welcome, it’s very possible to piss people off because of tone, because of being a one-issue pony so-to-speak, butting into any discussion just to address that one issue, etc., When this happens and the person is rebuffed, they think, “Why are people mean to me? Why aren’t they open to questions?”
But here’s the thing…other people can discuss those same issues just fine…because they do it in a different manner, at appropriate times and in appropriate places.
re 1 Corinthians 8, your numerous comments…would they make sense in a comment, or would it be long enough to make a blog post. If the former, comment on…If the latter, maybe you can write a guest post here about it if you’d like, so we all can have a conversation just about it? Let me know if I should contact you for more info.
On the one hand, I feel like this is getting off-topic…and also, I’m not a history expert. Still, I want a citation for this.
Maybe it’s because I’ve been away from the discussion for a long time, but I lost you here.
re 58,
LDS Anarchist,
This just doesn’t seem to fit with the regular use of the phrase “being like (insert thing here).” I don’t have to accept every aspect of a thing, person, idea, whatever, to be like that thing/person/idea in some respects.
I guess you already address that in the “Not in the eyes of God” part of the comment, though…
I guess I don’t have any questions at this point. I’m just not where you are, haha. Nor at the depths of humility, yet. So it feels like I don’t even have the background to ask questions that would produce really interesting results.
What I’d like to see is a discussion between you, John Gustav-Wrathall (via Young Stranger), and Alan Rock Waterman (via Pure Mormonism), all of you have really interesting, refreshing views about religion, Mormonism, etc., and I feel like I’d get a lot farther just being a fly on the wall while you all talked among yourselves…
Howard,
“Beer is one of the world’s oldest beverages. It is most commonly brewed from barley.”
There are a number of drinks made from barley throughout history that do not have any alcohol.
Sorry, but I remain unconvinced by your insistence that the WoW does not prohibit alcoholic beverages of any kind.
Jeff wrote: There are a number of drinks made from barley throughout history that do not have any alcohol. Okay I know there are some barley drinks that do not have alcohol however they are relatively obscure compaired to beer. Which ones were made throughout history? How did their popularity compare to beer in 1833 or so? Did all of them combined come anywhere close to beer’s barley use? I strongly doubt it. Given beer’s popularity do you honestly beileve D&C89 was refering to them instead of beer?
…I remain unconvinced by your insistence that the WoW does not prohibit alcoholic beverages of any kind. Is this what you meant to say? Because I insist no such thing! How did you come to this conclusion?
Andrew S,
Thank you for describing what you mean by obnoxious. I agree there are different discussion venues and it’s possible to piss people off depending on how it’s presented. To expand on this as long as you are polite (let’s say not crude, personal or disingenuous) you can be very blunt without pissing off people who agree with you and generally without pissing off open-minded people who disagree with you. This mostly leaves closed-minded people who disagree with you. Also psychologically the listener has responsibility for how they respond as well so depending on maturity some in this group will be easier to piss off than others. Also pissing people off isn’t all bad, anger is a motivator. Military boot camps make use of this and verbal butt kicking to accelerate learning and from what I’ve read so does medical school. So a discussion can be politely and nicely held being very careful not to offend the most sensitive member’s view point but what comes of it? Not much, at best maybe a seed is planted in a few. Greater fruits come from more stimulating discussions and even from arguments.
I will comment separately on the rest as time allows.
re 65,
Howard,
I would expand upon it in a different way. It’s more than just being polite, too. If you have credibility in a particular circle, you can get away with a lot more with people who agree *or* disagree with you…because you are a known quantity rather than being some random person.
I think it’s somewhat dangerous to rely on rhetoric like, “the listener has responsibility for how they respond.” For example, if I stomp on your foot and say, “You have the responsibility for whether you get angry at me for stomping on your foot,” then this PROBABLY won’t go over well in *your* mind.
Anger is a motivator, but probably not in the way you want it to be. For example, in the church example, making people angry motivates them to neutralize you, not to continue the discussion.
The thing with boot camps (and other totalizing institutions) is that they aren’t really trying to make people angry as motivation…rather, they are trying to break people down…so that when those people are torn completely down, they can be remade in the new image of the totalizing institution. The institution and the people being socialized by that institution are not coming into the engagement from equal standpoints, and the institution is trying to make that point clear. So, I don’t see how that fits with your point…
Erm, this isn’t the dichotomy you’re dealing with, though. The dichotomy is, “Watch your tone so that you can even have the conversation to begin with” or “Don’t your tone and alienate your audience so they don’t want to talk with you at all.”
The latter approach isn’t going to make a “more stimulating discussion.” It’ll make people avoid you.
Andrew S,
Yes I agree creditability is an important factor.
With regard to stomping on someone’s foot I have posted elsewhere on the difference between physical and non-physical suffering pointing out that non-physical suffering is optional, most of physical suffering is not. It is not possible to physically stomp on someone’s foot in a bloggernacle discussion and it is not something a mature adult would do in the other venues so sorry this example simply does not apply to this discussion.
…in the church example, making people angry motivates them to neutralize you, not to continue the discussion. Can you support this claim? I think there are many possible outcomes.
they aren’t really trying to make people angry as motivation…rather, they are trying to break people down Have you been to boot camp? I have and I believe they do both. Breaking people down takes much more time and cannot be done to the extent you imply during a typical discussion.
Erm, this isn’t the dichotomy you’re dealing with, though. The dichotomy is, “Watch your tone so that you can even have the conversation to begin with” or “Don’t your tone and alienate your audience so they don’t want to talk with you at all.” Sure this exists and it appears to be a point you want to make but this is the first mention of tone my comments as I stated assumed a polite but blunt presentation. If you analyze it my comments assume the receiver’s reaction is largely due to content not tone.
Howard, I think that if you’re arguing that someone who is suffering should just get over it because it’s coming from non-physical causes, that is an extreme position of weakness. Maybe the one who instigates suffering should just stop instigating it? Most people will see it like that, I think, except for, of course, people who commonly instigate suffering, I imagine.
I still don’t know how this applies to the discussion at hand. It doesn’t help your point, in any case.
But that’s the thing: EVERYONE with poor tone assumes they are being poorly received because of content, not tone.
I really don’t know what you think we’re talking about…but this entire discussion derives from a comment you made:
Your contention is that too much of a kind of content (questions) will make you lose your Temple recommend, be excluded from callings, etc.,
My contention instead is that the people who talk about “questioning too much” being something that will get you in trouble in the church often do it obnoxiously — they don’t realize a) they are not doing it in the right time, place, or manner, b) they are focusing on issues that were not even topical to the discussion, c) they have a poor tone while doing it, or d) all of the above.
These people will conclude that questioning will get you punished BECAUSE they assume (erroneously) that “the receiver’s reaction is largely due to content.”
No, it’s because the speaker had poor social awareness.
Andrew S,
No, not just get over it. Non-physical suffering becomes optional once you truly realize that it is caused by not accepting things the way they are, instead clinging to the way you want them to be. It is a higher level of enlightenment that produces a higher level of maturity and generally more open mindedness because you are less defended. It places you a giant step closer to autonomy. I do not have the power to cause someone who understands this to suffer by simply engaging them in discussion regardless of the level of my social ineptness.
Well I’m glad we talked this out, I think we are coming closer together. I think these topics can be poorly received due to either tone or content or both I was not excluding tone but I do not accept that this problem is solely limited to the presenter or the presenter’s poor social awareness. There are two or more people involved in any discussion and each brings their own strengths and weaknesses. Also discussions of these topics at church are generally discouraged citing limited time constraints, diversions from lesson material and a concern of teaching false doctrine. Quoting from the often quoted June 1945 Improvement Era: When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God. It is not uncommon encounter this kind of thinking in the church today.
Andrew S
1 Corinthians 8 apparently takes place during the transition from idol worship to christianity with apparently many still worshiping idols so the goal seems to be to retain the weak while one would assume they are converted to christianity. It says; But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. The same is not true regard to drinking beer, my blood chemistry is negatively affected by abstaining increasing my risk of disease and early death. See #53 paragraph 2 of this thread. Joseph used acohol does this contradict this scripture? He is recorded as drinking both beer [Millennial Star, vol. 23, no. 45 p. 720 (9 November 1861).] and wine see #29 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom.
I wrote: The WoW excludes beer overriding D&C 89 a revelation via. Joseph that does not exclude beer. You want a citation for this? Why? Do you think the WoW allows beer drinking? Do you think D&C 89 prohibits beer drinking?
Nothing weak about Annie Dillard’s writing, is there? Love her. I’ve thought that it’s people who THINK they write like her that are menaces to society. She humbles me.
“perhaps others simply were better equipped to scale the mountain?” I’m beginning to come to this. It’s hard to understand a life without reading–I wonder “what do you do?” But I have a visiting teacher who hates to read, but boy, she’s a goer and she serves and she seems to understand concepts I spend so much time studying, without studying them.
Your quote by James Goldberg reminds me of Elder Busche’s book, which says much the same thing.
Answers to questions:
1. Todd Peterson said it for me: “it’s the best explanation for how the universe works I’ve found.” Living in southern Utah as I do, I know that Mormonism can damn well represent a way of life that’s sociologically significant (there’s power to conforming to norms and mores) but I believe what it really is, is a minute (think Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s) explanation for, uh, how the universe works. We see shadows, but maybe a bit more clearly than some others. Although, there are other religions (not Christian) who have somewhat of a handle on existence, too.
2. Different people are attracted to Mormonism for different reasons. They see what they want to see.
3. I would like others to recognize that the Plan of Salvation represents “the best explanation of how the universe works….etc.”
4. and 5. I basically suck at this because of my onery personality and the ambivalence that characterizes my whole life. So some people might be the recipients of my compassion and generosity and think Mormons are good people while people like my daughter-in-law, who I’ve griped about to no end, use me as an excuse not to go to church, an attitude I despise. A cop-out.
Although….my activity–as opposed to my faith–has been sorely tested by jerks.
At this point in my life, I wouldn’t want anybody to use me as any frame of reference for anything.
Jews and Catholics can be their religion and define themselves as such without totally conforming. They argue amongst themselves about how they should live their religion and still consider themselves religious. Why can’t Mormons do that? Well, I think we can. I think Joanna Brooks’ interpretation or what others reject in NOM are examples of Mormonism if THEY say it is. She’s a Mormon and she feels this way. We all have our own brand of Mormonism.
The poster who keeps harping on the prophet Mormon sounds like his brand of Mormonism centers on Mormon being infallible and worthy of worship. Makes me nauseous.
A good deal of this is over my head. I’m kind of wondering how Annie Dillard segued to a discussion of how we see Mormonism.
I wonder, too, if other religions have this sort of discussion. For instance, a Catholic yellling at another Catholic “you’re not a Catholic! You don’t eat fish on Friday!”
I wanted to check you out after you posted on MM. Good job. Good food for thought.
re 69,
Howard,
how very buddhist.
however, there’s a huge hole in your statement. Can you find it?
Anyway, moving on…
I guess that’s fine. But the end result is that you’ll be wondering why you can’t talk about x issues in certain venues.
Basically…have you heard of the phrase, “You can be right, and you can be dead right?”
re 70:
But neither 1 Corinthians 8 or the WoW are (ultimately) talking about physical health advantages or disadvantages…they are talking about perceived spiritual advantages/disadvantages, and how perception can be different than actuality.
I want a citation for this because the entire point of this topic is that so much of what we think anything is in Mormonism is taken for granted. We take it for granted based on many sources: one talk (ignoring a bunch of talks to the contrary), what our friends or family members have said and done (ignoring that different people and different families have done), hearsay, tradition, expectation.
I’m asking for a citation because I want to see what you think is authoritative. (This gets back to the first question I asked at the end of my post: What is Mormonism “as it truly is”? To what extent do you recognize that your answer to this question says more about you than it does about Mormonism?)
My answer is that whether someone believes the WoW allows beer or not says more about them and the Mormon community they experienced than it does about the WoW itself.
re 71,
Anne,
Thanks for coming by to comment! I just want to probe deeper on a few of the answers.
Your answer to the first question still is pretty open for interpretation. After all, two people can come to very different conclusions about “the way the universe works”…and then, they can both label these *very different conclusions* BOTH as Mormonism. That doesn’t decisively determine what Mormonism OR the way the universe works is.
This gets to your response to 2. If people see what they want to see, then is Mormonism simply what people want to see in it? Is there not a Mormonism separate from how you or I see it?
That gets to the response to 3. What is the plan of Salvation? Is it just what YOU see in it? So does that mean I could see something different from it, and therefore it would be something different?
re 72,
:D. Beats me! But it sounded good when I was writing the post, so in it went…
I guarantee this thing happens. Even though we think of groups like Catholicism and Judaism becoming more cultural, there are still very orthodox groups within these religions who view less orthodox members as being either poorer of members or not members at all.
I was reading this article about how this Australian Bishop was ousted by a conservative element of the church for being too liberal procedurally (but the reason for this was more circumstantial/demographic. It wasn’t Just Because.)
Andrew S,
Now that the concept has been laid out the hole can be filled by the fact that people are at varing levels of understanding regarding non-physical suffering being optional. For instance when I was growing up my mother’s understanding was; “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”.
If the issue were tone alone those who agreed with the presenter would be just as pissed off as those who disagree with him. I’ve never sceen this, have you?
re 75:
Howard,
I have — all the time. In fact, I’m surprised that you haven’t ever encountered this…haven’t you ever had a thought something like this: “Man, this guy (or girl) is rock on…but he is totally ruining his own case“? Don’t you ever cringe when you hear certain people make their cases, not because you think they’re wrong, but because you think they are being totally ineffectual about how they are presenting?
Or haven’t you ever thought, “Wow, even though I agree with this person on x issue, I think s/he needs to give it a rest — s/he’s always talking only about that issue, during any conversation”? I’ve had that impression several times in several places.
I think this can happen in an especially acute way when people agree with the presenter in a way that doesn’t happen when people don’t agree. The people who agree are upset that the person is hurting their cause, so to speak, and that they have to go around and do damage control.
Anneg,
“I wonder, too, if other religions have this sort of discussion. For instance, a Catholic yellling at another Catholic “you’re not a Catholic! You don’t eat fish on Friday!”
I think it is human nature for those who are orthodox to look down on anyone who does not conform to their beliefs.
Catholics do pretty commonly refer to one as being either a “good” Catholic (follows the holidays, does Lent and so forth) or a “bad” Catholic (anyone who was divorced or is otherwise not observant).
Andrew S,
Sure that happens but that isn’t what I am talking about. When those who agree are upset at the presenter running his own case I doubt those who disagree with him are just as upset for the same reason. Wouldn’t you agree? Therefore being upset is content dependant not just tone dependent. This is my point when a controversial Mormon topic is presented there is resistance and push back at a subconscious level and often on a conscious level by many TBM members. Generally the topic is not welcomed or well tolerated.
Also when people don’t want to talk about something they look for a way to end the conversation. Many of these topics are difficult to defend so this threatens the receiver/defender’s frame of reference and defense is not an effective way to end it so they look for something else often blaming the presenter in some way for being rude or for offending them. It’s a psychological defense similar to covering their ears and humming!
Regarding The WoW excludes beer overriding D&C 89 a revelation via. Joseph that does not exclude beer. Andrew S wrote:…I want a citation for this.
The WoW excludes beer…
See – Gospel Fundamentals The Word of Wisdom: “Our Father in Heaven has commanded us not to drink beer, liquor, and other drinks that contain alcohol.” http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=d093cb7a29c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
See – Words of the Prophet: The Body Is Sacred By President Gordon B. Hinckley: “Stay away from those things proscribed in the Word of Wisdom—no alcohol, no beer, no tobacco.” http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b4f935c4ceeae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
…D&C 89 a revelation via. Joseph that does not exclude beer.
See – #56 paragraph 2
re 79,
Howard,
But that’s the the thing: you can disagree with someone without being disagreeable, in which case, no one is upset. Since you automatically think that people who disagree will be pissed off about that, you miss the fact that people can disagree without getting pissed off about it at all.
We have already had commenters point out that in the right time and place, you can have discussion on controversial topics. It’s really not anyone’s fault if you can’t tell where the right time or place is.
P.S., if you are presenting information in a way that is threatening — and that others feel they must *defend themselves* from, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Inappropriate time, place, manner, and tone.
I don’t know how you’re not getting this.
re 81:
So, your version of Mormonism prioritizes correlation (e.g., Gospel Fundamentals manual) and recent prophets’ interpretations (e.g., Gordon B. Hinckley). This says a lot about you (and many other members). Not so much about the WoW.
Andrew S wrote: I don’t know how you’re not getting this. I’m not missing your points Andrew I am commenting beyond them, in addition to them. As I mentioned in #65 a discussion can be politely and nicely held being very careful not to offend the most sensitive member’s view point but not much comes of it. You had the discussion. So what? Why bother? You might as well have been discussing the weather.
Oh, so the issue is instead we’re at an ideological impasse. Because I simply don’t agree that if you have a polite, nice discussion that “not much comes of it.” And the alternative — a rude, mean discussion — seems to have worse results in every way, imo.
It’s not binomial and if some of the audience gets pissed off it isn’t necessarily because the presenter is being rude.
One can have a polite, nice meaningful discussion with a mature open minded audience. This is much easier to do with a non-controversial, non-emotionally charged topic. But presenting highly controversial Mormon topics to TBMs isn’t exactly that example, is it?
Here is a comic that was posted on Mormon Heretic which makes a similar point:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/02/15/costs/
I hope you enjoy the humor in it.
And here is a short video clip that you might have posted for me Andrew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Hzgzim5m7oU&vq=medium
Enjoy!
What a long strange trip it’s been. This site should have the following warning (somewhere at the top):
WARNING! You are about to read more and learn less than you ever have in your life!
I should have stopped clicking on links about 20 minutes before I ended up here, but hope kept me going. Hope of what? I don’t even remember anymore.
I just saw lots of discussions about discussing discussions properly. Oh, and which Mormons are “more Mormon” or “less Mormon” or even “true Mormons”, and how to drink beer and go church?
I like the video from #86 though. That was nice. I can post it on my Facebook wall.
Fafu was here and now I’m gone.
1. I think Mormonism, what it “truly is”, is “whatever you want it to be” it hides a lot of doctrine from new or young members and tells people to completely rely on feeling. So its different to every one because everyone wants something just a little bit different, and if whatever you feel is right, you think is actually right.
re 89,
Tekeydie,
While I think I get what you’re saying, I don’t think that’s completely accurate. For example, I would love to think that Mormonism is a big open tent. I *want* it to be that.
But I can’t really convince myself that’s accurate. In this sense, I have an understanding of what Mormonism is…so how I feel or wish it to be can’t really challenge that.
#89:Tekeydie,
“I think Mormonism, what it “truly is”, is “whatever you want it to be”.
If that’s true__then it can’t be whatever it says IT is (?)
This may be a reduction into absurdity — but:
Except if IT can’t say that it is anything. Mormonism is a concept — the Church is a collective term. These things can’t say anything.
The scriptures say that “the church” is something that can repent — concepts and terms can’t repent. Only individual people can.
I think that in that sense, Tekeydie has a point.
Wow, I just have to say that this discussion is a perfect example of the author’s original point. Every body here has their own definition of Mormonism, and y’all are arguing about which view of Mormonism is correct.
It reminds me of an experience I had once. I ran into someone from my childhood ward while my husband and I were thousands of miles away from where we grew up. He started gushing about what a great ward we grew up in, how friendly, kind, giving. I about threw up because,y experience of that same ward was that it was snobby, self righteous, and would sell their mother down the river for a nickel. Same ward, vastly different descriptions. See his experience was one of acceptance, so every one was friendly and kind. My experience was that our family was not accepted and my brother experienced dangerous harassment even to the point of assaults on his life. My every Sunday experience was that I would go into church and sit by someone in my class and try to be friendly, and that girl would get up and move.
Who was “right” about the ward we grew up in? If I was to describe my ward growing up, it was your worst nightmare. Yet for this man, only a year younger than I was, it was the best ward in the world. See, we each had a “narrow view” of that ward.
In the exact same way, everyone here has a narrow view of Mormonism. You simply cannot see what you cannot see. It is all dependent on your personal experience with Mormonism. Like the blind men and the elephant, every one here has a narrow experience of Mormonism.
The cure for this is “shut up and listen”. Really listen to others and assume their experience is different, and ask what their experience is. Then you might begin to see a broader picture of Mormonism.
In my experience for example, those with the narrowest view of Mormonism are the true believers. They refuse to really listen to others because they already “know” they are right and have the only correct view of Mormonism. They are the ones who are quickest to jump to defend the church from any and all criticism.