One of the more peculiar comments I’ve seen made by those who claim to be “non-orthodox” Mormons is that the Church has no alternate, more flexible option that accommodates those who hold, what they might describe as, more liberal views regarding key Church doctrines and practices while retaining their cultural identities as Mormons.
The example most often cited as far as I’ve seen is that of Reform Judaism. Many seem to regard Reform Judaism as the “liberal” portion of the Jewish religion. That is, more flexible, more accommodating than the other parts of Judaism as if Judaism is one whole organization made up of different sects or divisions.
It’s clearly different than the other movements, but is not a piece of one great whole, but a separate entity under a very loose umbrella.
There are practically no comparisons between the structure and organization of Judaism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Therefore, the comparison is wrong.
I wrote this piece for Mormon Matters a while ago that compares the various divisions of Judaism to Mormonism. You can find it here.
One must remember, that Judaism has undergone significant change in the 6000 years of its existence. What was once a Temple-centered, Prophet-centered, home-centered religion morphed in a Rabbi-centric, Synagogue-centric series of movements. Those movements are largely grouped by levels of belief and observance. My article above attempts to explain that.
The claim made by John Dehlin and others is that Jews have it all figured out how to accommodate both liberal and conservative, or, better yet, strict observant Jews and less observant ones. But, is that really the case? I think the answer is no.
A look at the Jewish History.
The term Judaism or Jewish is derived from those who originally lived in the Kingdom of Judah, named after the territory associated with Judah, one of Jacob’s sons. It first appears as the Hellenistic Greek iudaismos in 2nd Maccabees in the 2nd century BCE. (Wikipedia). However, prior to the Babylonian captivity in 587 BC., there was a Prophet who spoke for God, a Temple and, to the best of our knowledge one religious observance. As a result of this captivity, their religious worship was forever changed.
It was from this point forward that the Oral Law, the Mishnah, and its commentaries, the Gemara (the two together forming the Talmud) became the basis for the interpretation of the Halakhah (the whole of Jewish Law). “Scribes and rabbis were exalted to the highest rank in the estimation of the people, higher than that of the Levitical or priestly orders; and rabbinical sayings were given precedence over the utterances of the prophets, since the latter were regarded as but messengers or spokesmen, whereas the living scholars were of themselves sources of wisdom and authority.” (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 3d ed. [1916], 64)
Synagogues were built as a place of learning and worship with a Rabbi as teacher and spiritual leader. His teachings would become the beliefs of his followers. This gave rise to the many sects that existed when Jesus came. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, the Zealots and others, all with their own version of Judaism.
Modern Orthodox Judaism is thought to have derived directly from Pharisaic or Rabbinical Judaism. Yet, even so-called Orthodox Jews cannot even agree among themselves. Orthodoxy is divided into what is called three streams, Modern, Haredi and Hasidic. Haredi and Hasidic Jews are the most observant with their black dress, peyos (sidelocks), beards, hats and the fringe (Tzitis) of their prayer shawls hanging out of their waistbands. They pray multiple times a day, study Torah and Talmud regularly and strictly follow the 613 and dietary laws. The other distinction of the Ultra-orthodox is their devotion to their spiritual leader, the Rebbe (Rabbi). In some cases, many thought (think) their Rebbe was the actual Messiah, not dissimilar to what occurred in Jesus’ day.
The other key point is that the orthodox movements do not recognize as a legitmate form of Judaism, even to the point of rejecting their Jewishness at all.
The Reform movement in Judaism began in Germany in the 19th Century with the idea that Jewish traditions should be modernized and compatible with Western culture. (Wikipedia). However, even this movement is not homogeneous. There are a number of denominations, namely American Reform and British Reform. British Reform is more conservative than American, which in Britain is considered Liberal Judaism. These denominations are loosely organized into the World Union for Progressive Judaism as an umbrella organization, but without any doctrinal authority. In fact, as stated above, there is no central doctrinal authority over any branch, movement or denomination of Judaism.
This is what makes using any type of Judaism an example for a progressive branch inside the Church a fallacious one.
There are also regional divisions within Judaism, Ashkenazi and Sephardic (North and South) as well.
Latter-day Saint Movement
There have been a number of splinter groups off the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since its inception. Sidney Rigdon, James Strang, Alpheus Cutler and Granville Hedrick are a few of men who organized new Churches from the original started by Joseph Smith. After Joseph’s death the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was organized with Joseph Smith III as its President. This remains the largest of the offshoots. They renamed themselves Community of Christ in 2001 and have moved away many of the original, early (prior to Nauvoo) teachings of Joseph Smith and adopted an open communion, ordination of women to the priesthood, support for same-sex marriage, the triune nature of God and many mainline Protestant Christian beliefs. The Church has, according to some, moved so far away from the intent of the original reorganization, that many conservative members have left the Church to form Restoration Branches. A comprehensive chart of all denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement can be found here.
So what is the point?
Harkening back to 1000s of years ago to this modern day, when people have been dissatisfied by the direction of their religious organization or what was taught to them, they typically abandoned that faith in favor of a new one. Martin Luther began the Protestant movement as a result of being unhappy with Roman Catholicism. In fact, many denominations of Christianity were formed for just that very reason to the extent that there are now some 33,000 Protestant denominations worldwide.
The point of all this is to point out that it should not expect the LDS Church to make major changes when a minority of members simply no longer like certain aspects. And we are not talking about the huge majority of less-actives, who have clearly voted with their feet already. If you no longer accept the fundamental tenets of the faith, it might be time to seek another denomination or start a new one. In that manner, you can organize it with any set of doctrine, beliefs and laws you wish. You are free to retain the cultural aspect you cherish, but in a new paradigm of practices, doctrines, beliefs and advocacy.
It has worked for others for thousands of years.
Sorry to break it to you but liberal reformation has been underway within the church for some time now, that’s what all the push back is about and that’s what the essays are about.
I know and know of folks who are trying to change the church from within who believe the bom is fiction.
I don’t understand this sort of thinking. And I think it’s shady.
“The point of all this is to point out that it should not expect the LDS Church to make major changes when a minority of members simply no longer like certain aspects.”
Amen!
Howard,
The church will occasionally throw a bone to liberal causes, but will not bend on any major or significant doctrines. Likewise, you will see some policy changes (due to external events like the civil war) about when certain groups of men can hold the priesthood, but they will not bend on eternal roles of the sexes. The Church will always promote love and respect of others, like those with same gender attraction, but they will never violate the eternal nature of marriage. The Church may tolerate same sex marriage in in line with the article of faith encouraging honoring the laws of the land, but they will never endorse it as a law of God.
“The Church will always promote love and respect of others, like those with same gender attraction, but they will never violate the eternal nature of marriage. The Church may tolerate same sex marriage in in line with the article of faith encouraging honoring the laws of the land, but they will never endorse it as a law of God.”
The word “always” is a word that brings comfort to believers because it connotes stability and a possible eternal and divine nature of the church. In many cases its use is delusional. The church has not always promoted love and respect to gays. Any one who thinks so needs to read the church pamphlets by Spencer Kimball in the early 70s and return and report. Even as recently as the Oaks Wickman interview, an impartial person would not confuse Oaks’ words with love or respect.
Moreover, the word tolerate is not a word of love. I get the distinct impression that when Packer mentions gays and the need to tolerate them , he gargles with Listerine immediately thereafter.
Thanks for beating me to it and saying it so well Brian. Far too many “eternal” LDS ideals turn out to be only temporarly eternal! The church has bent and will continue to bend, the trick is they quietly spin it so as not to awaken the hetrodox leaving them with the impression of always and forever. It’s what they need to believe.
Sorry, orthodox not hetrodox.
Howard,
I know the liberals in the church keep pointing to all of these major changes that have taken place. I just don’t see it. The church still, and in my opinion will always, require faithful members to: sustain the Prophet, the Apostles, other GA’s, local leaders, be honest, be chaste (which chiefly means being faithful to your opposite gender spouse), to pay a full tithe, to not support apostate groups, to have no negative feeling towards your family, to strive to attend your meetings, to dress modestly by wearing your garments and to generally be worthy to attend the house of the Lord.
The spirit of these questions have not changed and I don’t see them ever changing.
Ken,
What ever happened to the church’s opposition to birth control, oral sex, mixed marriages and the belief that gays can be cured?
While I have no wish to downplay the profound differences between ‘mainstream’ Mormonism and Orthodox Judaism (of whatever stripe) I feel nonetheless, that there is no real place to go for many Mormons who value openness and honesty, including the advocacy of unorthodox positions, other than to leave active membership of the LDS Church. Change in the Church is slow, arguably understandably so. For those who find these realities unsatisfactory yet which to retain there Mormon identity, perhaps there
(continued)is now scope for the emergence of a Reformed Church.
In my view the Reform LDS Church is indeed the Community of Christ. I think a lot of folks who are stressed by various aspects of mainstream Mormonism could profitably check out the CoC to see whether it might not be a better fit for their sensibilities.
Good points Jeff. The liberal concerns on this blog are really such a minority. The church follows the wisdom of Spock: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
But there are slight changes in attitude, and I think Howard has a point. A woman gave a “dated” talk in church today which was extremely apocalyptic and strongly promoted political activism to save a world that was becoming increasingly wicked. But she quoted almost exclusively from older prophets like President Kimball. It was clear to me that her talk was out of touch with the general tenor of today’s prophets.
The reality is that it is harder to find as many dire, combative voices in the church today. While this is a positive thing, we will always have to bear with the curse of living in a church with the words “latter-day saints” in it, as well as having so many apocalyptic, combative revelations. The LDS God is a God of wrath and a God of love, and we can only escape so far from His primitive, tribal nature in the LDS tradition.
“What ever happened to the church’s opposition to birth control, oral sex, mixed marriages and the belief that gays can be cured?”
What about polygamy,the United Order, the priesthood ban on Blacks, the Law of Vengeance and the temple blood oaths?
…”Mormons who value openness and honesty…”
I think this descriptor fits many, maybe most, maybe even almost all faithful and active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!
Accordingly, I don’t understand Johnathan M’s use of the descriptor in his comment above.
Interesting post, Jeff. Yes, I too have wondered whether the concept of “reform” Mormonism isn’t just better referred to as Mormon Protestantism, but it seems more likely that the types of groups we are talking about (some of the MoSto communities) are really just Post-Mo groups and not religious in nature.
Howard,
I am not sure I would agree that the changes we have seen in the Church are truly liberalized on the same order as the Reform Movement in Judaism, which amounted to an almost complete repudiation of Orthodox Jewish thought save monotheism.
That certainly has not happened in the LDS Church as much as say, the CoC.
There has been, to my observation no fundamental change in Doctrine or practice outside of a few tweeks here and there.
What have you seen that would spell liberalization on the order that some members and ex-members are requiring?
Kevin,
thanks for stopping by. I do agree what for those seeking a set of specific changes in the Church, many have already been accomplished in the CofC.
And while many of those would be gained, a number of things would also be lost.
I guess one has to decide the price one is willing to pay for what….
Is CoC more liberal more than the LDS church?Yes, of course! Is the current LDS church more liberal than it was under ETB? Yes, of course! Is the LDS church “always” the same? Obivously not! Is the LDS church under reformation? Yes, it has been and will continue to be. Why? Because it’s butts on yhe pews tithing driven.
Jeff, we cross posted so my comment above was not specifically aimed at your most recent comments but they do apply to some extent. There has been tangible movement regarding gays, now (finally) we treat them with love, there has been token movement regarding women: we now recognize them with less condecending sacchrin placation.
Who do we think is responsible for the articles appearing on LDS.org?
I think there are 3 or 4 progressive Apostles. I also see the older 8, who are all over 80, as the more conservative element.
If we have to go through all of these, and the next group, Holland and Uchtdorf, who are now in early 70s, but will be mid 80s before they get to the top and can bring about more change, it will be a very slow process.
THE SOLUTION WOULD BE FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT TO BE CHOSEN ON MERIT. HOW DO WE CREATE A DISCUSSION SO WHEN PRES MONSON DIES THE NEXT OLDEST IS NOT AUTOMATIC, BUT MERIT IS PREFERRED?
I see most of the changes that progressives want can be achieved by returning to the Gospel of Christ and ditching the Conservative culture, that many, including the older 8 Apostles, believe are part of the church.
If you look at the changes mentioned by others above, they are all conservative culture, taught as if it is Gospel. Opposition to Gays, and opposition to women holding the priesthood, are also culture not Gospel.
So when Monson goes, if the 14 were persuaded that the members would be happier with a younger President chosen on merit (Uchtdorf would be my choice), we could have a more progressive church, and I think he could do it without alienating the conservatives too much.
Those older than the President would have no incentive to not retire, so we could have a batch of more modern/progressive Apostles, and bring the church into the 21st century and back to the Gospel of Christ at the same time. Then missionary work might work in the developed world not just the third world.
“THE SOLUTION WOULD BE FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT TO BE CHOSEN ON MERIT.” But since women don’t have the priesthood, we know that’s not going to happen. Next!
I will say I find it strange that people like kevin can’t imagine the mainstream LDS church admitting women into church governance or ordaining them. Heck, a not insignificant number of temple going LDS women believe they *have* the priesthood. The scriptural and historical record can easily be seen as supporting women ecclesiastical leaders (if one wants to consider the idea). JS envisioned the RS as a “kingdom of Priests”. I think there is so much for the LDS church to work with to change the role of women in church governance. What is clear is that today women live under a MORE restrictive regime than in the recent past when they could lay on hands, choose their own leaders etc. The idea that the status quo is “how it has always been” is just….blinkered. Saying “never” in a church that believes and has used ongoing revelation to update and reshape theology and practice is really strange and incredibly un-Mormon.
Good points well made, Rah.
I agree that the Judaism-to-LDS-Church comparison is wrong.
And I agree that if “I no longer accept the fundamental tenets of the faith, it might be time to seek another denomination or start a new one.”
It’s just hard to pick up my feet and actually go because I still can hardly believe that the church wants to maintain some of the off-putting positions it’s taken lately. I think there are a lot of people who are similarly stunned and just waiting…for what, I’m not sure.
good point Hawkgirl, Perhaps the next round could include women.
#14 Ji: I certainly do not think that liberal or indeed non-believing Mormons purely by definition are more open and honest than their more conservative,believing brethren and sisters and I apologise if I did not make that clear enough. But, for me as for many others, there is a longstanding trend among our leaders at least that can be discerned with relative little effort (more’s the pity),and I suspect you are being disingenuous in acting as if you’re not sure what I’m getting at.Change is too slow for a non-believing Mormon-lover like me, to put it crudely.
As for the CofC, well, I have attended services (when the Church was still RLDS admittedly) in the UK and in Australia, and lovely people though they were, even back then they seemed a little too ‘Protestant’ for my taste, and perhaps not ‘Mormon’ enough.
I’ll admit to having a personal bias here in that I was raised within progressive Judaism in the UK, joining the LDS Church 40 years ago. One of the attractions of Mormonism, I think, in those early days was that it did not feel overly ‘Christian’ to me (unlike the RLDS Church).I could take a little Christianity but not too much, I suppose. I’m apologise if I’ve driven the C.S. Lewis lovers here to apoplexy!!
Jonathan M,
By your own description, you’re a non-believing Mormon.
I do sincerely believe many or most Latter-day Saints value openness and honesty. It is disingenuous and even dishonest for non-believers to suggest that only non-believers value openness and honesty, implying that faithful members do not. Such dishonesty seems to be a common tactic in the war of opinion, and it saddens me to see it used. But it is an effective tool.
From my vantage point, I see leaders of the church trying to do good and trying to protect the flock. I sometimes see imprudence and over-zealousness, but I try to overlook and forgive that. I hope we never become a society where our doctrines aware decided by argument and contention and sophistry and the majority rule — I prefer a society where good men and women, called by authority and the sustaining of their fellow members, do the best they can to seek and follow the promoting of the spirit in teaching and ministering to others — if this pattern means “reform” happens glacially slowly, I’m okay with that speed.
Brian:
“What ever happened to the church’s opposition to birth control, oral sex, mixed marriages and the belief that gays can be cured”
Alice:
“What about polygamy,the United Order, the priesthood ban on Blacks, the Law of Vengeance and the temple blood oaths?’
I have never been asked any of these questions in a worthiness interview. Never in 40 years of interviews and that is my point. In the end, all that really matters is how prepared we are to meet our maker. And the Church, in my opinion, has the best overall understanding of what worthiness means. Items, such as the word of wisdom and alimony/child support obligations have been added as times have changed, but from what I understand nothing of significance has been dropped.
Reform Mormonism DOES already exist. The denomination was legally organized in Seattle, Washington in the early 2000’s by Mike Richan.
In fact, one of John Dehlin’s very first Mormon Stories Podcasts in 2005 was an interview with Mike Richan about Reform Mormonism.
There was an active Google Reform Mormon Discussion Group from 2002 until 2008.
I have been writing the denomination’s Reform Mormon Gospel Doctrine Blog since August 2004.
( http://refmogospeldoctrine.blogspot.com/2004_08_22_archive.html )
Another Reform Mormon blog is Arthur Ruger’s “Abide with Me: A Reform Mormon Journal.”
( http://mormonborn.blogspot.com/p/not.html )
There are several Reform Mormon Facebook Groups.
( https://www.facebook.com/groups/13583564049/ )
Just last Sunday (Feb. 7, 2015) I attended, along with about 20 other people in Richmond, Virginia, the Reform Mormon Sealing of a gay couple.
On Feb. 19, 2012, I was sealed to my husband in a Reform Mormon Sealing Ceremony at a Reform Mormon “Temple Event.” This event was a gathering of Reform Mormons from Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Florida and Seattle where the Reform Mormon Endowment and other Temple ordinnaces (washings, anointings, prayer circles and Sealings) were administered.
Reform Mormonism embraces what some have called “The New Mormon History”–which is a secular, reason-based study of Mormon history, marinating that such a study can still be the basis of a vital faith, philosophy and set of ethics.
What this study does not support if the faith-based historical narrative and truth claims of the LDS Church–which Reform Mormons views as merely one of many Mormon denominations, albeit the largest.
Reform Mormonism is not interested in reforming the LDS institution or any other existing Mormon institution. Reform Mormonism is a distinct religious denomination that is NOT organized along a traditional church structure but instead is organized more along the lines of Freemasonry–with the “Temple Ordinances” being the central social aspect of the faith.
Reform Mormons maintain that Joseph Smith’s later Nauvoo-era theology constitutes a new theological paradigm that is neither Christian or even monotheistic.
Well, there you go!
Ken, you said
“I have never been asked any of these questions in a worthiness interview. Never in 40 years of interviews and that is my point.”
The only reason you haven’t been asked those questions is your age. Others have been asked those questions and made those commitments. Like you, I question their importance/value in preparing us to meet God, but just because you never experienced polygamy or the priesthood/temple ban or even the short-lived oral-sex-ban doesn’t mean they weren’t significant changes in doctrine for the church.
Do you believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ visited Joseph Smith in 1820? That a resurrected general named Moroni taught Joseph Smith for four years and oversaw his work of translating the Book of Mormon which Moroni helped write? That resurrected and translated apistles and prophets conferred authority on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery from 1829 to 1836? If you do, no man made church embodies authority from God and can fulfill promises concerning our eternal status. If you do not, you are going to have a rude awakening when you pass into the next life.
I thought all you nay sayers we’re leaving to start your own denominations?
Can’t leave the church alone?
Kicking against the pricks!
(Let the smart alec quips begin)
Brian,
You’re wrong.
It’s that simple.
“If you do not, you are going to have a rude awakening when you pass into the next life.”
Raymond, given my current beliefs, even a rude awakening will be welcome.
“Kicking against the pricks!”
Chris, don’t be so hard on yourself.
The orthodox call the heterodox to repentance whenever the heterodox invite the orthodox to awareness. And so it goes, around and around and around. An afterlife of rude awakenings! Indeed!
I have been greatly discomforted by this quote from Elder Maxwell, but it is this sort of discomfort that helps me to not be too content in my own ways, to not think my ways are higher than the Lord’s. How we all ought to follow Elder Maxwell’s and President Romney’s counsel. How we all ought to follow the Prophet, whom the Lord has hand-selected Himself to lead His Church.
“But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21).
“President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life” (CR, April 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ.”
-Elder Neal A. Maxwell, BYU Speeches, “Meeting the Challenges of Today,” 1978.
I’m not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ but at times I’ve been very ashamed of the church. I’m ashamed of what the brethren have said about blacks, gays and women and how they were (are?) treated. Who today can honestly say they are proud of following the unenlightened 1949 First Presidency Statement on blacks?
Three very important things to consider: 1) Don’t conflate the gospel of Jesus Christ with either the church or the words of the brethren, they are often quite different things. 2) Don’t assume the current version or practice of the church is the correct one, they had blacks wrong from BY through SWK, so what magic keeps them from being wrong about LGBTs and women? 3) Don’t assume rote obedience to the LDS checklist has anything to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ beyond teaching you a beginning obedience lesson.
Jonathan M: “As for the CofC, well, I have attended services (when the Church was still RLDS admittedly) in the UK and in Australia, and lovely people though they were, even back then they seemed a little too ‘Protestant’ for my taste, and perhaps not ‘Mormon’ enough.”
A few years back when I represented my CoC congregation in joining the local ministerial association several evangelical pastors attempted to block admission precisely because they believed the CoC was “too Mormon and therefore not sufficiently Christian.”
Does that qualify as being between a rock and a hard place?
Just out of curiosity, what kind of response do you think the Community of Christ would get if it launched what amounts to a targeted evangelistic/missionary effort among inactive and disaffected LDS? (As far as I’m aware no such major push is anticipated, but then I’m hardly privy to plans being formulated by top church leaders. Anyway, currently they’re focused on making some major budget cuts.)
Howard,
“they had blacks wrong from BY through SWK”
Says you!
I don’t see it your way based similar patterns all through the scriptures. Jehovah/Christ instructed his people not to intermingle with various groups. Esau, for instance, choose to Marry outside his tribe and lost his birthright (among other things) for that decisions. The Children of Israel were instructed not to intermingle with various races and cultures.
I am willing to acknowledge God has his reasons and we have ours. Along these lines, I am willing to accept the Prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball acted under the direction of God on the issue of who could hold the Priesthood.
With respect to Polygamy, Jacob 2 specifically outlines when having more than one wife is acceptable and when it is not. As above, I believe the early church leaders in this dispensation “raised up a righteous seed” and some practiced it per instruction from God.
I don’t see it as changing policy; rather, following the Prophet.
The church is already far “reformed” over time and out doctrines are fluid. Joseph Smith or Brigham Young would be hard-pressed to recognize today’s church. We’ve changed the eternal order of marriage, change the temple ceremony, changed garments significantly, removed the use of wine from the sacrament and changed the wording in the Book of Mormon to adapt to it, have given blacks the priesthood, and dozens and dozens of other substantial and doctrinal things.
We change.
There are a number of Mormon-alternatives for people who don’t believe in the basic, everyday-preached tenets of faith. Yet the disaffected aren’t going to them.
I believe this is because the disaffected’s problem is not with the *doctrine*. If it were, there’s are many who are willing to teach and receive those doctrines. (c.f. CoC, Reform Mormonism, Denver-Snufferism, UU, and roll-your-own).
It’s not a problem with *community* because there is nowhere in the world that you can’t find a *different* congregation, or start your own. Even in deepest Utah, there are other Christian denominations, and also social and fraternal clubs that don’t require LDS church membership.
The disaffected’s problem is one of *control/pride*. There are people who are not happy unless those that surround them bow to their ideas and self-evident superiority. If they are not influencers or deciders, then they are unhappy. They are not willing to join hands with fellow-believers if it means that they won’t the glory laud and honor from those they’ve “helped.” People who want to make gods in their own image are never happy with stones wrought without human hands.
Ken,
Following the prophet? Under Joseph blacks could hold the priesthood, from BY through SWK they could not, now they can again yet the prophet cannot lead the church astray. Please explain this apparent contradiction.
If LDS prophets march us in opposite directions what is the point of following them at all? If marching both North and South is acceptable to God what is the point of prompt rote obedience to these men on this issue? If marching both North and South is acceptable to God why did SWK have to ask God for permission to reverse course?
Howard,
I don’t know. I don’t know what any of these leaders were thinking or feeling about the issue, or what their interaction was with God concerning the Priesthood. I do know some of them said some inappropriate things towards blacks. I have, however, received my answers regarding the Book of Mormon and base my perceptions and judgments about the truthfulness of this Church and it’s leaders.
My personal opinion on the issue, and it is just that, an opinion is that the tensions associated with slavery and the corresponding civil war had a significant impact on people’s views both for and against blacks. Along these lines, I don’t feel like any religion in the United States (and at the time the Church was largely a US based religion) successfully integrated blacks and whites in faith. As you know, some faiths completely segregated people based on color. I don’t think one can truly worship God with those they have resentment, bitterness or feeling of superiority about.
Thankfully, the church was able to integrate blacks and whites about as soon as it was feasibly possible—as soon as it would be successful. With the tensions all through the 1960’s, I don’t think it could have been implemented any time before this time.
Rich, I always love your perspective (and I’d love to have a guest post, hint, hint!) 😉
I’ve been to Sunstone a few times, and met CoC apostle Susan Skoor, historian Mark Scherer, and Seventy Robin Linkart. I’ve never seen any LDS General Authorities there, and always wondered if this was some sort of an effort at outreach by the CoC to liberal or ex-Mormons that attend Sunstone. (I have seen LDS Historian Marlin Jensen at MHA meetings, and it was a pleasure to meet CoC prophet Steve Veazey there as well.)
I do know that John Hamer recently converted to CoC, and I’ve wondered if John Dehlin would ever find a home in the CoC. I’ve said before that if I ever left Mormonism, I think I would find the CoC or Greek Orthodox Church most appealing to me due to some of their shared theology with Mormons.
Ken,
Thank you for you reasoned answer, while I disagree I found your thinking to be a refreshing faith based position.
Rich: I’d love to see the CofC engage in a more concerted and formal effort to attract disaffected Mormons. I do in fact, hope that many more inactive or former Mormons might consider your faith as an alternative; some at least, would feel very much at home I suspect.
Rob: I think your Reform Mormon movement has great merit, but you do have (as do all faiths)your own orthodoxies. You mentioned one yourself: the emphasis on sealings and temple ordinances which is not hugely personally appealing (I am aware that their use and meaning differ from those of the LDS Church). Nonetheless, I wish you well!! We need more varieties of ‘liberal’ Mormonism, not simply one option in my view.
Oh, man. I almost hate it when I agree with you… 🙂
There is a very big difference between the Gospel and the Church. the church and its leaders consistently struggle to figure out what is really most important in the Gospel that we should be focusing on/following.
Is it Reactivation? Is it missionary work? Is it service to the community? is it being a good example? Is it asking the Golden questions to everyone we meet? Is it Family Home Evening? Is it personal prayer? Is it family history and Temple work?
Is it all that? or is it something different?
It changes all the time to some degree.
And yet, we are commanded to Know God and Jesus Christ for that is life eternal… which one of those helps us do that really?
here is the link to Reform Mormonism. I saw this when writing the post, but didn’t pay much attention to it at the time…
http://www.reformmormonism.org/aboutus.htm
Because I have spent so much of my adult life as an editor, words and their definitions probably matter more to me than “normal folks.” And so I see a significant difference between “reformed” and “reorganized” when it comes to talking about latter-day saints of various stripes.
When I look at the history of our (that’s everybody who’s in the movement, btw) movement, I see an early-church period (up to the mid-1840s), followed by various expressions of new church(es). Certainly the largest of these was led by Brigham Young and a majority of the 12. I find it interesting and instructive that he required rebaptism for his followers during the Winter Quarters period before they could head west. A whole bunch of other folks declined to follow him. Chief among them were the saints who eventually came together under the leadership of Joseph Smith III, the slain founder’s eldest son. They eventually added “Reorganized” to the church name, mainly to avoid confusion with the Utah group. But in a more descriptive way I think you could say both these groups (and an amazing array of others) “reorganized” the so-called early church. Since the mid-19th century both the Utah LDS and Midwestern RLDS have been reforming their organizations. Both view April 6, 1830, as the official birth of the church. Neither one is the same as it was in the mid-19th century. I expect both to continue their separate and different reformations.
As each has reformed and evolved, new members have joined and older members have left. There has been some crossover between the two groups. I have no figures to firmly support this, but it does not appear to me that it’s been major. Maybe the reason for the divergence is that the two churches, LDS and CoC (formerly RLDS), are just so very different in organization, theology, practice, and mission focus.
There was a time in my church when the thought of leaving it put one’s eternal salvation at risk. Not so much anymore. Granted, I can’t say I was thrilled when my own daughter joined the Episcopal Church, along with her Catholic husband, a couple years ago. But I’m OK with it. Marriage requires compromises, after all. However, from what I read here at W&T and elsewhere, leaving the LDS Church is still a multilayered issue bound up with family and community as well as what may happen in the next life.
I have heard a rumor that some CoC leaders might be interested in adding a ministerial staff position to respond to inquiries from disaffected young-adult LDS members who are seeking a new church home/family/community. Given the current need to significantly reduce the denominational budget because of income shortfall, I’d be surprised that goes anywhere for at least a while.
Jeff I agree that because of the centralized nature of our church the “reformed” branches analogy doesn’t work. That’s why so many of us advocate for big tent / big table mormonism. Don’t marginalixe the unorthodox, just let us have places at the table. We won’t oroselytize that our path is better if you don’t. Like the Givens’ say straight and narrow is the way …. Because we each have an individual path to follow back to God. Other people’s paths don’t need to concern you so much….
Kristine:
The Church is already a big tent as it accommodates a wide variety of beliefs within “the bounds the Lord has set…”
“We won’t proselytize that our path is better if you don’t.”
It isn’t “our” path, it is The Lord’s path, though we might follow it imperfectly.
But you cannot preach atheism or agnosticism in a Church whose first article of faith is “We Believe in God…” or preach that the Book of Mormon is fiction when we declare “We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God…..”
Being the Word of God does not mean that a text has to be non-fictional. Whether the BoM has to be non-fictional to be scripture is because of other things, not because of a categorical exclusion of fictional texts as being the word of God.
Andrew,
I think you know what it means in the context that the Church means it….
“But you cannot preach atheism or agnosticism in a Church whose first article of faith is “We Believe in God…” or preach that the Book of Mormon is fiction when we declare “We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God”
Amen Brother! Amen
re 56,
Jeff,
Yeah, the entire argument from big tenters is that the church isn’t as close/restrictive of a reader on these things as a lot of members are.
On blacks and the priesthood, as I have studied the lives and teachings of past prophets, especially president MacKay, I came to believe that we as a church of imperfect members and leaders weren’t ready for the blacks to hold the priesthood. I believe the Lord allows this as He works with us as individuals and as a church to improve line upon line, precept upon precept. I believe that our best hope for perfection and salvation is to follow the living prophet.
Yes I’m well aware of the fact that the orthodox think their path is the only way back to God, the “straight and narrow”….. I brought up the Givens’ quote from the first Maxwell institute podcast. They asserted that each individual has their own path back to God that He has designed for them …. And that it is straight and narrow path scriptures teach about…. Look at that, a different interpretation of scripture that could be just as right as your interpretation is…. It’s just so hard for orthodox members to believe the Holy Ghost worked in members’ lives to bring them to unorthodoxy….that this is who God wants me to be. That this is where I need to be to make it back to God. I’m not confused, I’m following the promptings of the Spirit. And it’s just as plausible he keeps the orthodox on their path bc that’s what THEY need to return to God.
Amen and amen, Kristine. I know that I am not the least bit confused about my relationship with God or the path that I am on; in fact, since I turned from the orthodox path and began down the Reform Mormon path, I have felt a great peace than I ever felt previously. The demands that the Spirit puts upon me, the commandments that it writes upon my heart are so much more strict and demanding than those of orthodoxy…and this is because they have to do with the way I live my life hour by hour; they have to do with my relationships with everyone n my life; they have to do with self-examination, self-honesty, repentance of sins that are private, internal, not seen and known by other.
And though I disagree with my orthodox brothers and sisters, I am not angry or bitter toward them in the least. They have to follow the Light and Intelligence that is revealed to them.
A Google search would certainly reveal a self-styled group with that label. However, more properly the “Reform Mormons” are in fact a group that professes none of the spiritual dogmas and practices associated with either the ‘mainstream’ LDS Church or even the CoC, but is rather an “anti-” or “counter” religious group…not so much to rail AGAINST the ‘mainstreamers’, but to beat its own drum.
http://www.reformmormonism.org/whatwebelieve.htm
I’d say if ‘liberal’ ideas are a hallmark of a ‘reform’ movement, be it Judaism or Mormonism, then the CoC would serve that function, though it didn’t start out that way. In fact, b/c it had so changed from what Joseph Smith III knew back in 1860, a significant group broke away in protest over issues like ordination of women priests, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints
However, as Mike S and others have pointed out, the “mainline” LDS Church undergoes constant transformation…it’s what’s called “continuing revelation”. Sure, Brigham Young wouldn’t recognize many things that we take for granted today, but he was an intelligent man and a dynamic leader. I’m sure, assuming that he hasn’t been updated “up there” all along, that if he were briefed on what the Church does these days, he’d be on board with it.
Kristine,
“They asserted that each individual has their own path back to God that He has designed for them.”
And I believe that 100%. but you are the one who also asserts things like, “Yes I’m well aware of the fact that the orthodox think their path is the only way back to God, the “straight and narrow”.
Who is “the orthodox”? If each individual has their own path, then likely they think their own path is the only way.
But it is the only way for them. So you contradict yourself when you use the term, “the orthodox.”
Douglas,
You are mistaken when you write that Reform Mormons “profess none of the spiritual dogmas and practices associated with either the ‘mainstream’ LDS Church or even the CoC.”
In fact if you follow the links at our denomination’s central website (www.reformmormonism.org ) to the Reform Mormon Gospel Doctrine Class Blog, you’ll find over a decade’s worth of essays that delve deeply into Reform Mormon theology–the foundation of which is the theology that Joseph Smith laid out in his famous King Follett Discourse.
The foundation of Reform Mormon theology are Joseph’s distinct teachings on the eternal, uncreated nature of God, of the human mind/spirit and of the elements themselves.
Reform Mormons embrace what we sometimes call “Mormonism’s New Theological Paradigm” which can be summed up in this paraphrase of Lorenzo Snow’s statement: “As we now are, God once was; as God now is, we may become.”
EVERYTHING in our theology and in our ordinances is based upon this paradigm–a paradigm that is unique among world religions to Mormonism.
I’m not Kristine, but I don’t see a contradiction there.
I think that part of heterodoxy is not simply recognizing that one has an individual path, but learning to cope with the fact that that individualized path doesn’t really necessarily mesh with the normative community path.
Now, for whatever it’s worth, I think that the normative community path is also a social fiction — I absolutely think that there would be a number of differences between those we colloquially refer to as “orthodox” and that there actually is no way of defining Mormon orthodoxy. But I think there is something to be said that there is an institutional system by which certain people (e.g., people called to be bishops, stake presidents, and higher authorities) can make *their* path institutional for others. In other words, your Stake President’s path may only be for him, but he’s going to think it’s the only way for everyone, and he has the power to actually affect people’s standing with the church based on his understanding of the path.
I think the basic issue is that even if everyone has their own individual path, not everyone recognizes that this is or should be the case. That’s kinda how the idea of orthodoxy gets to be — because as a church, we are socialized to believe (even if we are heterodox) that there is a standard path, that there are certain beliefs you must have to be a Mormon, etc., etc.,
Douglas,
The central communal/social aspect of Reform Mormonism are the Temple Ordinances–which, again are distinct to Mormonism and the teachings of Joseph Smith.
These ordinances include: Washing & Anointing; the Endowment (an interactive symbolic drama depicting our relationship with God through the Adam & Eve story–incorporating covenants with God, signs, tokens, names, a New Name, the True Order of Prayer, an interview at the Veil and a symbolic passing into Celestial Glory); Prayer Circles; the Sealing of Spouses to one another in the Holy Order of Matrimony According to the New & Everlasting Covenant of Marriage; the Sealing of parents and children to one another; the ordinance of Adoption; the anointing of the sick with oil and the laying on of hands; parental blessings; the naming and blessing of newborns.
Anyone with even a casual knowledge of Mormonism would recognize these ordinances are Mormon–and they are CENTRAL to Reform Mormonism
Douglas,
Reform Mormon’s are certainly NOT “Anti.”
In fact, whereas most modern day LDS apologists soft-peddle, deny, misrepresent or attempt to explain away Joseph Smith’s most distinct and innovative doctrines (polytheism; the limited nature of Deity; God’s human past and humanity’s potential future divinity). Reform Mormons put these front and center.
Also the label “Counter” is also misleading because it is so broad. One could say that LDS Church is a “counter Christian group” using such a word.
Douglas,
As for your statement that Reform Mormonism “beats its own drum”–I wonder why you use this pejorative.
The use of this phrase implies that there is something wrong about a religious denomination hosting a websites on which it publishes what it believes and stands for.
Is the LDS Church “beating its own drum” when its missionaries knock on someone’s front door?
…Or when it produces TV commercial and videos promoting itself?
…or when it produces outdoor theatrical pageants advertising its history and beliefs?
…or when it employees pollsters, advertising and media professional in a public relations department?
….or when its individual members go one online making untrue assertions regarding other denominations of which they obviously have little or no knowledge concerning?
…or when its members go online and announce that deceased historical figures now look down from heaven with approval upon the policies of the LDS Church?
Is the pejorative “beating its own drum” applicable here?
Rob/Douglas:
I don’t see “reform Mormonism” as Anti Mormon, but more of a lukewarm version of the Scriptures. It seems be anti and accepting in the same sentence — an oxymoron. The ideology clearly has itching ears, gleaning bits and pieces from the Scriptures. Confusing pieces I might add. I can see some groups that find the notion of Hell objectionable and do not believe in such a place. But to disregard both Heaven and Hell misses the whole point of faith. The ideology is a juxtaposition of liberalism, atheism, fantasy and secularism rolled into one paradigm from what I read.
Andrew,
“I think the basic issue is that even if everyone has their own individual path, not everyone recognizes that this is or should be the case. That’s kinda how the idea of orthodoxy gets to be — ”
I think if you asked people to define it in Mormon terms, they probably could. If you asked them did they themselves line up 100% behind it, depending on the forum and their sense of honesty, you may get different answers.
If we were observing and grading each other on orthodoxy, it would probably come out different than a self-grading.
The church has dumped polygamy, the ban on blacks holding the priesthood, the doctrine of Blood atonement, and they even admit that it’s possible the church leaders admitted in one of their essays that the Book of Abraham is not a “literal” translation. The point is reform is already happening. I would be surprised if women do not hold the priesthood in 50 years. That being said the churches origin is based in a fraud I’m not in the church anymore. It’s better to leave the church behind me then to keep going to church waiting for reform.
Ken: Could you explain what you mean when you write: “to disregard both Heaven and Hell misses the whole point of faith.”
From an orthodox Christian faith perspective that makes sense because Christianity focuses on where one GOES after this life; escaping damnation in a burning hell and be allowed into Heaven by the grace of God through Christ.
BUT that would only be true for this Christian perspective.
In Mormonism, faith is a principle of action–it is the belief or conviction that if one does a particular things, a particular result may result. From this perspective faith is the principle of action behind EVERYTHING that humans do.
Reform Mormons do not think in terms of WHERE they will go when they die, but what type of person will they BE when they die and pass through the veil into eternity. Reform Mormonism is not focused on God giving us something when we die, or letting go to a particular place when we die; Reform Mormonism is focused on emulating God, developing a Godliness within ourselves. The degree to which we do this corresponds to the degree of glory we will possess in eternity.
Faith as a religious principle by itself is not–and need not be tied to a concept of Heaven or Hell, or a punishment/reward paradigm.
Those like Hamer who join the CoC, I find to be the most intellectually honest “liberal” Mormons.
JPV wrote: “Those like Hamer who join the CoC, I find to be the most intellectually honest “liberal” Mormons.”
How so? Could you elaborate?
And why are the labels “liberal” and “conservative” (usually used in discussions of politics and social issues) so often used when diuscussing THEOLOGICAL differences?
Rob,
There has been a convergence of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” of use to describe Church members with differing views. But it has its basis in the political rather than the doctrinal.
In other words, those terms are almost meaningless in the Religious context, because what does it describe? doctrine, pracrice, behavior, etc?
Jeff:
I agree completely. They are useless terms theologically for the very reasons you cite.
Conservatives view Liberals as a threat and visa versa…which confuses things because so-called Conservatives and Liberals could share many theological common denominators.
At the same time so-called Conservatives probably have major theological differences among themselves—as do so-called Liberals.
Rob,
Here is some examples that I have used from a biblical perspective
Conservative – Views the flood as it is described in the bible – a whole earth experience.
Liberal – Views the flood as a limited geographical experience.
Yet both agreed on the theological lessons.
Conservative – Stays in church clothes all day on Sunday to honor the Sabbath
Liberal – Changes clothes after Church
Yet both honor the Sabbath in their practice.