[dropcap]F[/dropcap]or a religion idealizing a unified Zion, Mormonism is kinda bad at unity. In the succession crisis after Joseph Smith’s death, some followed Brigham Young, while others followed Joseph Smith III and others still followed Sidney Rigdon or James Strang. Polygamy introduced new splits: those who abandoned the practice and those who continue to practice. Splits still abound within the fundamentalists.
Even within the largest of the Latter Day Saint denominations, metaphors for Mormonism as a map or a spectrum are not new. Typologies multiply like heads of the hydra. Iron Rod vs Liahona. Chapel Mormon vs Internet Mormon. Sunstone Mormon. Orthodox, heterodox, unorthodox Mormon. Conservative, liberal, progressive. Ex, post, former. Neo-orthodox. New Order Mormon.
In blogging in particular, we can recognize the fractures and factions. For example, most of us here are familiar with the term the Bloggernacle. And even if we don’t use it, we are familiar with the blogs on the Mormon Archipelago aggregator.
…Similarly, if you consider yourself ex- or post-Mormon, then maybe you’re familiar with the blogs of Outer Blogness (even if maybe not the aggregator itself.)
…and if you tend to think that both the Bloggernacle and Outer Blogness are dens for apostasy, then perhaps you are more of a fan of the blogs of Nothing Wavering.
Through these aggregators, one can see the spectrum of Mormonism, and one can choose where he or she will travel.
…So then…if the idea of a Mormon spectrum is not new, and sites for aggregating various places on the spectrum are also not new, then what can yet another site — “The Mormon Spectrum” — offer to a saturated field?
[dropcap]M[/dropcap]ormon Spectrum popped up almost overnight. As a reference to a specific website (as opposed to the general metaphor), everything seemed to happen around July 30th. When I arrived at Sunstone’s annual Salt Lake City Symposium on the 30th, the site had its own table and representatives eager to share it with the Mormon world. And it was not just Sunstone — I saw posts go up on several major Mormon Facebook groups…Mormon Stories Podcast Community, Mormon Hub, A Thoughtful Faith, Mormon VIP Lounge, to name a few. But I also saw posts on the exmormon sub-reddit, links at MormonThink, blog posts explaining why it came to be at Main Street Plaza, and so on.
Within my blogging circles, I heard quite a bit of skepticism. Wasn’t it just duplicating the efforts of every other aggregator? Even more, many people complained that whatever methods were being used to categorize sites was, to say the least, idiosyncratic — I personally noticed with slight befuddlement that in the “Unorthodox Mormons” section, Main Street Plaza (the primary group blog for the Outer Blogness disaffected Mormon blogging aggregator) and Millennial Star (the primary group blog for the Nothing Wavering conservative/orthodox Mormon blogging aggregator) sat right next to each other. Even more? in the ex- and post-Mormon websites section was listed Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought right underneath the CES Letter.
…certainly, Kristine Haglund, Steve Evans, and several other folks associated with Dialogue would likely not appreciate being thought of as an exmormon resource, much less one situated along with the CES Letter.
But, despite the criticisms I heard, when I viewed the site, I saw two things that intrigued me.
Firstly, when you go to the main page for Mormon Spectrum, you are presented with a colorful choose-your-own-adventure. As the site says, it collects resources for each of its defined types: Orthodox Mormon, Exploring Mormon, Unorthodox Mormon, and post/ex-Mormon…but you get to choose which materials you will view.
Secondly, when you click to “view resources,” the site takes you to a description of its typology — what it defines an orthodox Mormon as being, etc., One will not actually find any specific blogs from this main “choose-your-own-spectrum-location” page. In fact, the only substantive resource that is easily accessible from every page on the site is at the bottom of every page: the recommendation to Explore, Discover and Choose What Works for You via a map of in-person communities.
(To get to the lists of blogs, forums, Facebook groups, and podcasts, one actually must go to the left-side menu [not shown in the above picture], and drill down to see those options.)
I was curious about these two things, and when Alison Udall, one of the main promoters of Mormon Spectrum in the many Facebook groups, sent me a Facebook message asking me where I thought my solo blog, Irresistible (Dis)Grace, should go, I took the opportunity to ask further questions about the site and its goals. Certainly, you can read up about a lot of the site on its own about page or on Alison’s post at Main Street Plaza explaining why the site has been developed, so I will only cover a few elements.
Choose Your Own [Mormon] Adventure
[dropcap]U[/dropcap]pon visiting the site, I appreciated that it provided resources for each of several types of Mormon. I understood that this team was trying to allow people to look at the resources they were most comfortable with, but I questioned how sustainable this would be — how could one provide resources for Orthodox Mormons and have ex-Mormon material just a few clicks away?
Alison responded with a bit of personal history that influenced the site:
ALISON: …I grew up in a very traditional/conservative Mormon family and had the impression you were either “in” or “out” as far as the word Mormon was concerned. You were either active or inactive (a Jack -Mormon). Then I experienced my own faith transition and spent several years interacting online hearing the stories of others. I realized there isn’t a “one size fits all” Mormon, but rather a spectrum. So we broke down the areas, along the spectrum, into big umbrellas to make it possible to fit our goals and we focused on who we were trying to help. We knew there would be a lot of nuance, differences and variety within those areas but to create the website with our user driven goal this was needed. That allowed us to separate the content into specific areas with the user in mind.
I pushed back — how could a user-driven website appeal to each group when content they would disagree with would be just a click away? Alison responded:
ALISON: …We defined our target audience as exploring, unorthodox and post & ex Mormons as we felt those were the people that need resources and support. The orthodox member has the church for this.
…Some have criticized us for how we defined the orthodox section and have wondered why we even included it. It was important to me to include this as it is part of the spectrum. Not only that but we certainly hope people are utilizing those official resources as they study and navigate this experience. I welcome the orthodox Mormon to the site and hope they find value in a very easy reference to many of the church’s resources. That being said they are not our intended audience as this member relies on the church for their information and may not be willing to even visit a site like this.
I asked Alison over the course of our conversation about what she thought that Mormon Spectrum brought that other aggregators did not. When I mentioned Mormon Archipelago and Nothing Wavering, she admitted that she had never checked out the Archipelago and hadn’t even been aware that Nothing Wavering even existed. Yet, as the conversation continued, she seemed uncertain about how to incorporate these aggregators — she didn’t want a full list of every blog, but she also couldn’t necessarily determine which categories the aggregators themselves could go into.
It was then that I began to suspect that I was wrong in my initial assumption. Perhaps Mormon Spectrum was not trying to be just another blog aggregator?
More Than Just a Blog Aggregator
ALISON: Part of the goal in the website is to help people understand each other better and what these spaces look like. I had a great conversation with my active believing married daughter, while showing her the website, when she asked “what is an unorthodox Mormon?” These are the conversations I hope others can have so that we can understand each other better…If someone is willing to read the overview page in each section (even if they never look at anything else) I believe they’ll benefit by understanding others the spectrum better.
This explained why the link to resources emphasized the description rather than any listing of sites. But I still had questions about why certain sites were categorized certain ways.
ALISON: Some people may not feel they fit neatly into just one area of the website and we recognize that! Some resources are listed in more than one area and again this is because the design is focused on being user driven. We assumed someone would only be viewing resources within one area and therefore we included all content we thought would be helpful, applicable and interesting to that area of the spectrum. There is overlap and we tried to keep that in mind.
…but over all, in-person conversations and communities continually appeared as a motif.
ALISON: …Mormon Spectrum began with an idea to support/encourage and provide a way for people to find each other through in-person communities. My husband and I experienced the loss of our social network during our faith transition and we decided to move across the country to have a fresh start. We wondered how we were going to meet people as the church had always been our method of developing community and friends. We came across meetup.com and decided to try that. Each week I posted a hike in the outdoor group we organized, and for the first few months it was just the two of us with our dog….5 years later we have over 1,000 members in our group and have a thriving wonderful community. It’s not Mormon related at all, but rather a group that loves to play outdoors.
This experience reinforced the need that everyone has for friends and community and that people are looking for ways to find and connect with each other. Over the last few years, interacting online I’ve noticed how frequently people share the pain of losing their social connections as they move away from being an orthodox Mormon. They often begin to feel isolated from their Mormon community, family and friends. Although online support is wonderful it just can’t completely replace in-person support. Within Mormon culture, community is an enormous aspect and something that provides meaningful, wonderful opportunities for service, interaction and socialization.
This brought into context why the site de-emphasized orthodox Mormons. As Alison said before: orthodox members have the church for this.
Yet, by entering the world of in-person progressive and former Mormon communities, I sensed that Mormon Spectrum was entering a far more fraught space. Purposeful, secular communities — especially ones that can maintain the social cohesion of religions like Mormonism — are rare. Various online Mormon celebrities have tried — John Dehlin with Mormon Stories Communities of Support, John Larsen with the Living Community — only to discover that communities are super difficult.
ALISON: …In February of 2015 I got together with several other people and we brainstormed about how to support others. I shared my idea of the in-person directory/communities and asked if any of them were interested in helping me. My good friend Steve Holbrook agreed. I began posting online about the project and searching for existing groups that people had created
…As we thought through it more thoroughly we recognized that the ability to find resources and online support were also super important for people going through this. So the website idea expanded and we decided to tackle the website as well as the in-person directory. The process of researching and gathering the content that would go into the site began while simultaneously continuing to expand the in-person group directory. I also reached out to find someone that would be willing to help me actually create the website since I don’t have those skills. Jason Howard responded and said he was interested and after we spoke on the phone he agreed to donate his skills and time. He is our amazing website designer/developer and took my ideas and content and turned them into something beautiful. We reached out to a few others and invited them to be a part of our team and they became the small group that reviewed content, suggested edits, offered skills and experience as needed, and were there when we needed to bounce ideas around.
…But what was their affiliation? Who really was behind Mormon Spectrum?
ALISON: I also made a very conscious decision to not align with specific well known people/organizations during the creation of the website or to house it within any existing non-profit foundations. This was important to get broad support across the spectrum and to truly show it was neutral. This website is owned by Mormon Spectrum Foundation – a non-profit we created. We received no money from anyone outside of our small team or any organization in creating it. We donated the funds, skills and time needed to create it.
While Alison was adamant to claim independence — to be broadly supportive across the spectrum — she also pointed out that rather than sponsoring its own events, it would be a centralized hub where other groups could list their own events, and in some instances, the Spectrum would show support to those events.
ALISON: Right now the groups that are listed within the MSiP directory are groups that were created by individuals all over the world. We don’t tell them how to name their group, what process to use in vetting or running their groups. We just offer them visibility on the directory so people can find them. We don’t plan on creating Mormon Spectrum groups ourselves…there are some newer groups that have named themselves after the spectrum because they liked it but it isn’t something we are spear-heading. We do plan to promote the benefits of in-person communities and encourage people to start them in their area if the map is empty where they live.
We might decide to show support/visibility to events now/then. Steve Holbrook runs the Post Mormon group in his area and they have John Dehlin coming to do an evening. We posted about that event to show support and put our logo on there. We are happy to do that for other events that people are doing and show support and help them get visibility. I reached out to folks in ATF [ed: A Thoughtful Faith] and a few well known people to let them know we were going to do that with the John Dehlin event and would love to do that for stuff they are holding. We certainly want to do that for our three groups we are trying to support: exploring, unorthodox and post & ex.
Reflecting the Spectrum
[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s an introvert and homebody who is more at comfort behind a keyboard than out and about meeting people, I don’t know how often or even if I will use Mormon Spectrum that much. As someone whose primary internet mediums are blogging and Facebook, I sympathize partially with those who say it looks like a duplication of effort — but I recognize that with the in-person component, there is still something there, even if it’s not for me.
Certainly for a site that has existed for less than a month, the ambition is palpable, but so too is its promise. Yet, still, as mentioned before, communities are super difficult.
No matter what happens with Mormon Spectrum…whether it can remain a bright light highlighting the myriad of Mormon communities and resources or whether it refracts (as through a prism) into a thousand dazzling disparate wavelengths (…as fits the Mormon story), it just goes to show, in contradiction to Gordon B. Hinckley’s father, that cynics can contribute, skeptics can create, and doubters can achieve.
(Addendum: for a few brief thoughts that didn’t make it here on orthodoxy as “official”, check out this followup post.)
Wheat & Tares 
Andrew-
Though we are in different Mormon communities I am always drawn to your post.
I discovered Mormon Spectrum a few weeks ago. It is an interesting site because of its “bandwidth”.
I’m convinced that the major difference between the various communities is based on the degree of interaction each individuals has with the Spirit.
Mormon doctrine draws our attention to the various degrees of glory we can arrive at based on our “faithfulness” in pre-mortality and mortality.
Mormon Spectrum seems to appeal to all of them. That make it unique and interesting.
Jared,
one thing that I did not have the space to discuss in this post (so I discussed on my personal blog) was the way that the Mormon Spectrum team has addressed orthodoxy. Under their typology, orthodoxy only consists of official church materials. This way, no blog, no podcast, no website, no matter how conservative or faithful, will count as orthodox. At best, they are exploring or unorthodox.
This suggests that the typology is set up around “the degree to which various individuals rely on church-approved material”…Do you think that works along with your idea about interaction with the Spirit? Or the idea of faithfulness in mortality?
As I become more familiar with the site I realize that its definitions of the various Mormon communities is very limited. For example, it doesn’t even come close to identifying a community I fit into.
I don’t rely exclusively on church material . I use it, but I draw from the full spectrum of material about church doctrine and history.
I think interaction with the Spirit has more to do with repentance than anything else. The Savior died so we can repent. Those who are repenting are the ones the Spirit interacts with the most.
The standard works repeat over and over again the importance of repentance. For example,
15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 19:15 – 20)
The following verse implies that church members who are not repenting are not really members.
67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 10:67)
Jared, the interesting about those scriptures is that they were REALLY popular with Rock Waterman at Sunstone…he was pointing out that his excommunication is meaningless because the church of Christ is defined as those who repent…not as those who are members of a particular organization.
I think it’s good to point out that the definitions of the communities actually do have slant and idiosyncrasy to them. I really do think that a lot of folks who consider themselves faithful and orthodox will really disagree — as you have — with the definition on the site.
At the same time, when I pushed back on this to Alison, her answer was very personal — she defines it that way because that was her experience growing up, so even if people disagree, the site will keep that because she is highlighting that that is still how many people (although, perhaps, a decreasing part as time goes on) grow up in the church.
I’ll use this comment to make a few clarifying points (that were first discussed on Facebook):
I think that Mormon Spectrum suffers a bit because of a few internal tensions, as listed below:
1) Tension of Goals: they want to be a space where the entire spectrum is represented AND be a space that caters to ex/post/unorthodox Mormons AND be a space where orthodox Mormons can find out more about the post/exMormon perspective. These goals don’t really mesh with each other, and sometimes they undermine each other. For example, if the site caters to ex/post Mormons and only includes orthodox mos so that they can learn about the ex/post-Mos, then there is the real risk of alienating the orthodox folks (and as a result, failing in the other mission of education.)
2) Tension of reflecting the users’ experience vs reflecting the creators’ experiences. One major criticism is that the definitions for orthodoxy, etc., wouldn’t be how the targeted audience would self-define. Alison defended this by pointing to her own personal history — but if that’s her personal history, then that rejects any potential user’s personal history. Additionally, since many of the creating team is now disaffected/post/ex-Mormon, to have the site reflect the creators’ experience biases the site in that direction.
3) Tension of definition vs experience: If the site bases its definition of orthodoxy based on the creators’ lived experiences from their youth, then this risks being incoherent. As Alison herself says, in the home she grew up in, you were either in or out — active or inactive. She would not have self-identified then as orthodox (because there was no other kind of Mormon). Orthodoxy and the spectrum — from her own experience — is retrospective, retroactive, and anachronistic.
But this goes further…the methods of describing orthodoxy on the site might make sense from a currently ex-Mormon perspective, but they are not ways that many members would self-describe. For example, in the orthodox section:
This makes sense as how many ex- and post-Mormons would see orthodox Mormons, but not as how an orthodox Mormon would self-identify. So, depending on which goal the site has, this either is entirely consistent or is completely undermining.
While I appreciate the overall aims of the project, I find its operating paradigm to be fundamentally flawed and possibly even more harmful than a simple blog aggregator. Rather than simply linking resources, it attempts to define each category. Presumably, this is for the reader’s benefit in navigating to where they most identity. However, I believe the site seriously undermines and even patronizes “orthodoxy,” revealing an obvious disdain towards literal belief, devotional practice, and official church materials. Furthermore, the implication seems to be that the more informed one becomes, the more inevitable it is that they will move towards post or ex-Mormonism. I could spend the rest of my day listing exceptions to this (Mike Quinn, Eugene England, Maxine Hanks, Richard Bushman, etc., etc.).
It appears that the site is primarily informed by Udall’s personal engagement with social media and Mormon-themed Facebook groups, blogs, and podcasts, which only represent a small and relatively skewed fraction of Mormon experience and identity (to say nothing of Mormonism outside of North America, Great Britain, and Europe). If equal representation of “all” Mormons along the spectrum of belief and practice is her intent, then completely rethinking her approach towards “orthodoxy” (which most devout Mormons likely wouldn’t self-identify as) and the preferential treatment of post and ex Mormonism is necessary.
My first recommendation would be to assemble a committee that adequately represents the spectrum and brainstorm ways to make each section relevant to the target demographic while not alienating or patronizing towards other demographics. While the site may not be specifically geared towards devout, practicing Mormons (Udall has suggested in other forums that “they already have the church”), the current tone can also be a turn-off for moderate Mormons who maintain respect for belief and devotion and don’t view disaffiliation as the inevitable or preferred outcome of exposure to “non-official” sources.*
* As a secondary point, sometimes the line between “official” and “non-official” sources is blurred. For example, Richard Bushman’s Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (1984) was originally commissioned by LDS Church leadership to be one volume in a sixteen-volume updated church history. Although the project was abandoned, Bushman eventually published his manuscript with the University of Illinois. Where would a book like this fit in the “official vs. non-official” spectrum, as it was commissioned by the church? Similarly, Glen Leonard’s Nauvoo and Thomas Alexander’s Mormonism in Transition emerged from the same church-sanctioned updated history. More recently, the LDS Church has published the Gospel Topics essays, many of which cite works that are not “official” sources; and the Joseph Smith Papers Project, which is endorsed by the Church but not an “official” publication in the sense that its manuscripts do pass through correlation review, but the independently-funded project has the final say in what is ultimately published. Perhaps this is splitting hairs, but the intent is to show that the line between “official” and “non-official” is sometimes rather blurry.
Brian,
answering the secondary point first…it’s easy: if they are not broadly available in manuals across the world, then edge cases are not considered official. As we’ve discussed elsewhere, I think the the definition of orthodoxy only to official materials is fairly narrow, but it seems like a place that Mormon Spectrum is going to stick to.
Alison has noted that she is willing to work with constructive criticism, and I have raised the issue of the language of the site. However, it seems that the solution may be to be more transparent on all pages as being “for” ex- and post-Mormons (and de-emphasize any claims to represent all Mormons equally.)
It definitely seems that assembling a committee to represent the spectrum would be extremely helpful going forward…but I wonder if some bridges aren’t already burnt? A lot of folks consider this project too tainted or whatever.
It’s an interesting discussion of “how big is the tent” versus what defines a “Mormon”? For sure, compared to the idyllic society portrayed in IV Nephi, we’ve a LONG way to go, since “neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.” (IV Nephi 17).
Andrew,
And again, we are running into issues of defining “official” church material as the new Institute manual for 2016 has incorporated the Gospel Topics essays into many of its lessons, which implicitly endorses the essays usage of “non-official” sources. Conversely, volumes such as Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine that are no longer considered “official” have been referenced in a number of church curriculum manuals. “Offical” is a fluid term.
Perhaps a qualifier on what Udall considers “official” would be helpful (Sunday School, Seminary and Institute manuals, church magazines, and LDS.org would be my guess). However, many who align themselves with the “orthodox” definition may be just as likely to own several volumes by Hugh Nibley, which is hardly “official.” And another question is raised: are articles published in church magazines considered “official?” I think the difference could be easily qualified by “church-approved” (meaning literature that has passed through the church’s correlation approval process) sources rather than “official.” Again, I’m probably splitting hairs.
Division is endemic in the Book of Mormon, though. Even the idyllic 4 Nephi situation didn’t last very long (it literally did not even last through the entire chapter!)
Brian,
Definitely the challenge. I have said in conversations that I think — if Mormon Spectrum really isn’t focusing on orthodoxy — should say as little as possible about it, since defining it is loaded.
I have also raised in several ways that there’s inherently going to be backlash this way because a lot of people are not going to see orthodoxy in that narrow of a way.
The site currently does mention correlation…although some others have suggested that even mentioning correlation is a very…uncorrelated…thing to do.
In the end, perhaps the best move would be to reduce the site to three categories and simply explain that the site aims to be a resource for those within a spectrum of belief and practice OUTSIDE of mainstream LDS devotion.
Yep…but that leads to the next problem: the site has massive backlash from those would/could/(should?) fit as exploring/unorthodox Mormons.
P.s., Alison asked privately for concrete examples of “the implication…that the more informed one becomes, the more inevitable it is that they will move towards post or ex-Mormonism” because she didn’t see it. This is more evidence that there probably should be a wider team, but as she noted, a lot of people that she went to dismissed even the idea of participating. In a sense, the team is where it is because it has already been rejected by many folks in the “middle” (recognizing the problem of putting them on a line…)
With more than two thirds of the baptized members inactive and the rise of the internet the church is rapidly losing it’s ability to define itself! Sure they can circle the wagons and police the borders of who they allow to participate in meetings and zealot active members can pretend to enforce those boarders in the bloggernacle but with the ability to communicate with other like minded Mormons the true boarders of the religion have grown well beyond the church’s ability to enforce them and they are now forcing the church to redefine itself in many areas.
By default, if her language is antagonistic and patronizing towards orthodoxy/orthopraxy then it is preferentially treating heteropraxy, even if it isn’t specifically spelled out.
I appreciate the feedback here. As I have told Andrew I’m very willing to listen, engage and edit as needed. Let me try to address a few of the concerns/comments that I’m seeing here.
– The site was designed to offer support to exploring, unorthodox and post & ex Mormons. I have adjusted the language on the homepage to more clearly show this. The intent was not to somehow appear less than transparent in our goals….. this language was in our About page but it obviously was not clear enough on this homepage. These are the groups that we designed the site for as we feel they can benefit by our website and support.
– We recognize there is overlap in these “types” of Mormons. Someone may feel like they don’t entirely fit into just one area and that’s perfectly understandable and not unexpected at all. These are very broad based overview sections in order to allow the user to enter the area they want to view. The main goal I kept in mind when designing the website was to allow the user the control to select which content area (and therefore which links) they wanted to view. There was no way this would work if it was lumped in all together if our goal was to support exploring, unorthodox and post & ex Mormons.
– We are not attempting to make official definitions that will be used by everyone, accepted by everyone or referred to in some authoriarian way as to what an orthodox, exploring, unorthodox and post & ex Mormon are. We don’t have any delusions of grandeur about how our wording/verbiage is going to be used outside of this website. This overview language is a collection of thoughts, feedback edits, input and work from a variety of people from those areas along the spectrum. It is not only based on my personal life experience although obviously that influences my ideas and opinions. We had to create sections within the website in order to separate content and make the user driven design work. That meant we had to create huge broad umbrella categories. We tried hard to use the word “may” frequently and to describe that there is a wide variety within exploring, unorthodox and post & ex Mormons. On the one end of the spectrum you have the orthodox Mormon and the other end the post & ex Mormon…..we recognize there is huge variety within these two ends.
– We do not feel disdain for people within these different parts of the spectrum. We are attempting to point people to resources, online support and in-person groups for our intended audience: exploring, unorthodox and post & ex Mormon. That is the point of the website…that in one place we can do this with each other. I live in a mixed faith family situation – my goals are to show you can support, respect and interact (and learn about each other) while still holding to what works for you. We don’t all have to agree with each other and that’s OK.
– For those that that feel the site is redundant I’m not sure how to respond. I have not found one website that pulls in all these resources (not only blogs) for exploriing, unorthodox and post & ex Mormons out there. I have not found one website that offers a directory for people in those areas to find in-person groups. This combination seems to be something quite unique to this website. Sure there are blog aggregators out there. There are lots of super cool innnovative sites out there but what we have tried to do is pull them all into one place with the addition of the in-person directory for these different parts of the spectrum. We are linking to lots of content. Our goal is to help people find it, use it and increase traffic to all these sites and groups.
– The intense pushback regarding the orthodox overview language is over-shadowing the benefits and uniquenss of the site. I have made edits to that language and am open to continuing to make edits to make this portion of the site be accurate and reflect our design goals. I don’t anticipate everyone we’ll be able to come to 100% agreement about the language, why we felt the need to design it this way or why we are even doing this all in one spot to begin with. I get that. I’m not opposed to feedback and if you spend anytime online in the bloggernacle you’d be hardpressed not to have come across something or someone that read my posts asking for feedback and discussing this project. I’ve reached out to a variety of people in these spaces to ask for help and input. Some of those spaces reacted poorly to the project, dismissed it and did not want to help. I did have some people that were willing to read and give feedback/edits and I utilized those and appreciated them.
–
“We defined our target audience as exploring, unorthodox and post & ex Mormons as we felt those were the people that need resources and support. The orthodox member has the church for this.”
This makes me think of a maker of rainbows who would dis-include blue; If they want blue, they can look at the sky.
But a rainbow without blue just isn’t the same.
Frank – I love the color blue and on our site we list tons of official church resources in that orthodox section. We didn’t leave them out. We just recognize that according to our orthodox language this person will utilize official church approved resources and their local ward for in person commmunity.
Brian –
“My first recommendation would be to assemble a committee that adequately represents the spectrum and brainstorm ways to make each section relevant to the target demographic while not alienating or patronizing towards other demographics.”
I did have a team and I worked hard to reach out to people online that I interacted with for their help. I posted in the Hub, ATF, Exploring Sainthood to get help with the exploring, unorthodox sections because those were the groups I was a member of. I posted in larger groups of broad participation that are filled with a range of members. I really did work hard to do this in an accurate way.
“While the site may not be specifically geared towards devout, practicing Mormons (Udall has suggested in other forums that “they already have the church”), the current tone can also be a turn-off for moderate Mormons who maintain respect for belief and devotion and don’t view disaffiliation as the inevitable or preferred outcome of exposure to “non-official” sources.*
It would be helpful to me if you can give me specific language currently showing up on the website about the tone that you feel does this.
My personal opinion is that the criticism Mormon Spectrum has received regarding its content aggregation is less of a reflection on the site, but rather a symptom of the fractured nature of the Mormon religious community, and specifically the strange competition and blatant insecurity that various projects and personalities feel towards each other. I use the word “symptom” because as someone that has lead, participated and interacted with various organizations and projects within the broader Mormon community I feel that this is a sickness that is incredibly counter-productive. To this point, the negative feedback Mormon Spectrum has received because it hasn’t used the right words, or right labels, or included the right sites, etc. feels very nit-picky and pedantic. To me it demonstrates the paranoia, suspicion, and offense-seeking that has somehow become inherent in Online Mormonism.
Plus this all over-shadows what is likely the most valuable aspect of the site: the regional community map directory. The greatest resource people will have in their faith journey isn’t podcasts and blogs, it’s people. And while I totally and respect those that don’t feel this need for in-person interaction, I can say for myself and hundreds of Mormons like me that finding friends and mentors is absolutely crucial in having a healthy experience while finding your new path.
I’ve been fortunate to be one of the dozens of people Alison has utilized for help and advise as she’s built this site, and I think Mormon Spectrum is an amazing accomplishment and will prove to be a valuable resource for our community.
It’s important to include the section for orthodox members, if only to convey that their level of belief is acknowledged. Otherwise Mormon Spectrum gets branded as just another site for non-believers. It may ultimately be perceived that way anyway, but the site itself at least tries to message the idea that real believers are not considered less intelligent than those who actively question or have moved on. Even a small signal like that may enable a privately struggling and questioning Mormon to feel more comfortable browsing the site and maybe find a community to help as they navigate their changing faith.
Micah,
I think that you’re definitely on to something when talking about the fractures of the Mormon online religious community. As I think about the different blog aggregators, I have to admit that some of them were created specifically to get away from the others (e.g., Nothing Wavering created because they thought the Bloggernacle was apostate).
So, it would make sense that there would be disagreement there.
But as well, there is a lot of angst, I think, from those who would identify with the Bloggernacle…these are folks who see themselves as faithful, and yet they often get castigated as being apostate. So, being lumped along with ex/post groups can’t be comfortable.
Alison, you’ve completely missed the point, and probably the same point that was mentioned a couple of times in the OP.
You can’t call yourself a “spectrum” if you leave out one colour. You keep arguing that you have many links to official church sites, but no one, -no one-, who is or ever was lds has a hard time finding lds.org. Point at the blue just outside your rainbow all you want; it still remains missing from your full spectrum.
We don’t need an aggregator to show us what’s official. We need an aggregator that includes the -whole- spectrum, even those that are more supportive or believing in the church.
Frank,
In the discussion (that didn’t fully make it in this post, but I have linked to my companion post at the bottom of the post), Alison mentioned that per the view of the Mormon Spectrum team, orthodoxy represents those who are only aware of official materials. This is a controversial definition to be sure.
There are very faithful (yet unofficial) blogs and resources in the other categories. Do you think that there should be more work done to distinguish these faithful/supporting/believing resources? Do you think that the unorthodox and exploring sections are biased toward non-faithful/opposing resources?
One thing that seems to be a common theme is that many think that the categorizations blend things together. For example, Millennial Star, By Common Consent, and Main Street Plaza are listed in the same lists, when realistically, these cater to very different audiences.
Frank – Help me understand how it’s missing? Did you read my explanation of what our design goals were for the site and who we are trying to support?
When I helped start LDS WAVE (Women Advocating for Voice and Equality) one of my priorities was in-person groups (we currently have 4 around the U.S.). I love that Alison and her team have helped us by sharing our groups on her site.
This is an awesome resource
It’s important for people to have a real-life community and this is a great way to help connect people with common interests and experiences.
I can’t imagine how much work this was, so I’m grateful for those who put it together.
Allison, I agree with others who seem to suspect the site of having some kind of unorthodox agenda. “We recognize and empathize with the overwhelming feelings that may accompany the discovery of information outside of the correlated church material..”
Right there in the opening statement, it seems you are addressing a only a certain narrow spectrum, the blue that is starting to turn orange. So aren’t you facilitating that color change by pointing them in the direction of colors further down the spectrum?
If the basic premise of the site is to provide resources for a wide variety of people in the Mormon spectrum, then shouldn’t it be simple enough to just say: “there are a wide variety of beliefs in the LDS church. Here are a few categorisations of those beliefs and resources to support those who fit into those various categories.”
Instead, the website seems to be itching to promote a diversity of belief, to validate each categorisation, and to facilitate exploration. That’s fine in the outside world. But in the strange world of the church, one can’t validate one category without denigrating another. That is the nature of orthodox belief in particular. Orthodoxy doesn’t accept unorthodoxy, so any attempt to validate unorthodoxy is an attack on orthodoxy. The best this site could do is simply present each category with a bare minimum of explanation. It’s pretty obvious what terms like orthodox or post-Mormon mean anyway.
Also, I think it would be better for the orthodox section to include non-LDS sources like FAIR and M*. Otherwise, you might imply that orthodox believers are so blind that they never read anything not published by the church. While some orthodox believers might be like that, the majority of orthodox believers WOULD be comfortable with websites like FAIR.
And its a bit strange that the list of blogs for “exploring” and “unorthodox” are almost identical. It’s pretty useless to have a site like M* side by side with Rational Faiths.
And the category of “exploring” could be improved. “Exploring” implies movement, movement from blue towards red. I’m not sure how I would replace it. But there is a spectrum of Mormonism between orthodox and unorthodox which isn’t necessarily moving from one to the other. Maybe something like “dangerously open-minded believers.” I don’t know. But I don’t like the name “exploring.”
Nate
If providing resources, online and in-person support to folks in the exploring, unorthodox and post/ex Mormon world all in one spot/website is considered “itching to promote a diversity of belief, to validate each categorisation, and to facilitate exploration” then I guess I’m guilty! I mean good grief isn’t that exactly what we want to encourage for each other? Don’t we want to support each other’s diversity in beliefs and encourage support each other’s needs for in-person communities?
“That’s fine in the outside world. But in the strange world of the church, one can’t validate one category without denigrating another. That is the nature of orthodox belief in particular. Orthodoxy doesn’t accept unorthodoxy, so any attempt to validate unorthodoxy is an attack on orthodoxy.”
I understand and appreciate this view. I get that this is the tradtional Mormon cultural view. It’s certainly the view my parents have and that I grew up hearing. I disagreee with though. I don’t believe this is the ONLY way to view and do things. I don’t believe that by showing support for one kind of Mormon you are deginerating another. I reject the idea that by validating unorthodoxy you are attacking orthodoxy. That is exactly the type of thinking that has gotten us into this mess where mixed faith families/friends/loved ones don’t know how to support, accept or understand each other.
“Also, I think it would be better for the orthodox section to include non-LDS sources like FAIR and M*. Otherwise, you might imply that orthodox believers are so blind that they never read anything not published by the church. While some orthodox believers might be like that, the majority of orthodox believers WOULD be comfortable with websites like FAIR.”
Again….we are not trying to be the final/authoriative defintion of the words orthodox Mormon, exploring Mormon or unorthodox Mormon. For the purposes of our website we made sections and overview language. For the purposes of our website the orthodox says: “This section only includes official (church-approved) material that aligns which what a member would hear at church, General Conference or from official church manuals.”
We are not asking people to promotoe/self identify or use our overview language/sections/definitions when in discussion with others or when describing themselves. We are merely giving OUR sections/overview language for the purposes of the website and content. That’s it. People can and should identify using the words orthodox, exploring and unothodox however they want.
“And the category of “exploring” could be improved. “Exploring” implies movement, movement from blue towards red. I’m not sure how I would replace it.”
Naming this type of Mormon was challening because let’s face it lots of terms have negative connotations with Mormon culture. This term seemed to best fit what we were trying to convey (someone who is now aware and studying, reviewing, and researching outside of that correlated (church-approved) material).
“dangerously open-minded believers.”
LOL…ya that would have had great reaction. 🙂
“And its a bit strange that the list of blogs for “exploring” and “unorthodox” are almost identical. ”
I think it means that the categories are almost identical.
As Micah says above, the main purpose of this site is to provide community for ex/post mormons. Why not just focus on that instead of pretending to want to provide sources for “orthodox,” “exploring,” and “unorthodox” Mormons? Also, the aggregator is pretty useless as the sources, websites, groups, blogs, etc, are all but identical for everyone who isn’t an “orthodox” Mormon.
I think “exploring” and “unorthodox” could be merged. When I viewed the resources, I couldn’t tell what the difference was.
Also, I think that you could split “Official” church resources as in LDS.org official church publications (there are plenty), and then have a “Faithful” perspective. Include blogs like M*, LDS Alive in Christ, FAIR, etc. that aren’t official but definitely lean heavily to faith promotion. (I think this is what Frank is getting at.)
“Moderate/Exploring/Unorthodox” might include W&T, BCC, etc. Post/ex are probably just fine. While I think W&T is pretty welcoming to a lot of viewpoints (both faithful and faithless), I’m not really comfortable putting it in the ex-mo category, even though we do have ex-mo’s here. We’re much different than MSP, and while Andrew frequents both, I’m not super comfortable at MSP. (I’m also not comfortable at M*.) Those of us in the middle don’t really want to be seen as too faithful or too faithless. We’re more than happy to be moderates. We have faith, but are definitely unorthodox/exploring.
Creating a Big-tent organization is tough because the orthodox just don’t like the apostates and vice-versa. Both groups battle to kick the others out. I think Sunstone gets the big tent idea down the best of any current organization, but because it allows non-believers and those hostile to the LDS Church, the orthodox tend to boycott it. If you want to attract the orthodox, it’s going to tick off the DAMU and they’ll leave and vice-versa. The 2 sides just aren’t very compatible, and that’s just the nature of the beast. They don’t play nice, and complain if they think you’re being too nice to the other side.
That’s my 2 cents anyway, and it’s probably worth less than that.
“As Micah says above, the main purpose of this site is to provide community for ex/post mormons. Why not just focus on that instead of pretending to want to provide sources for “orthodox,” “exploring,” and “unorthodox” Mormons?”
That isn’t what Micah said. He said “Plus this all over-shadows what is likely the most valuable aspect of the site: the regional community map directory. The greatest resource people will have in their faith journey isn’t podcasts and blogs, it’s people. And while I totally and respect those that don’t feel this need for in-person interaction, I can say for myself and hundreds of Mormons like me that finding friends and mentors is absolutely crucial in having a healthy experience while finding your new path.”
We aren’t trying to pretend to provide resources and support to exploring, unorthodox and post & ex Mormons….that’s exactly what we are doing on the site by listing all the content.
When I read this blog post I was excited for the idea of being able to find in person communities of unorthodox Mormons. However, when I go to the map, all the in person groups I could see were ex Mormon (and some seemed anti Mormon.) maybe this is because the site is new or because ex Mormons are more likely to create support groups than unorthodox Mormons, but I hope that will change.
Also, Alison mentioned she wanted examples of what makes the orthodox section sound off. I noticed that in that section you used the phrase “they may” a lot, while in unorthodox you used the phrase “they may or may not.” It’s a small difference that I think has a huge impact on the tone of the descriptions.
EBK
We’d LOVE to include more unorthodox/ATF type groups and I’ve tried very hard to post in those groups I’m in about the MSiP directory and site. I’m hopeful that we’ll get lots more of those registering and creating groups. The feeling I”ve gotten is folks in those spaces are more hesitant to organize a group, registeer a group and join one because of privacy concerns and reaction from their leaders. I hope that can be overcome (although I certainly validate and empathize with those concerns). We want to help exploring and unorthodox members to find each other and get that additional in-person support.
Thanks for the feedback about the may/may not. I will go back into the language and review and edit.
EBK,
Yes, exactly. Micah, “what is likely the most valuable aspect of the site: the regional community map directory.” And the only communities on there are ex/anti mormon groups. That is what the website has been set up to promote.
Sam,
We don’t control what type of group is registering into the MSiP. We are inviting all epxloring, unorthodox and post/ex Mormon groups to register and get visibility. We are welcoming, posting and discussing it everywhere we can! If more unorthodox groups don’t register….we can’t control that as we aren’t creating the groups ourselves. We are just registering them and getting them into the dirctory. We’d love to have broad representation in the dircectory and just so you know….you are wrong…..it’s not currently onnly post/ex (I’m not sure why you put anti here) Mormon groups. Look again….there is variety in here and we welcome and would love more.
I recommend going to https://sites.google.com/site/bestsellerproductlist/health-fitness/exercise-fitness-instant-resources , there you can find lots of great information about getting in the best shape of your life. Whatever your situation is there you will find a weight-loss solution to meet your specific situation.