Andrew S gave a great reply to my post last week, which I decided to turn into a new post. I always like bantering with Andrew because he is a smart, thoughtful guy, and we don’t see eye to eye on things, so it provides a good opportunity for me to expand my point of view.
See here for the comment and original post. https://wheatandtares.org/2018/03/08/john-dehlin-brooke-and-josh-miller-and-their-not-so-shocking-discussion-with-spencer-fluhman/#comments
On my misuse of the word nuance. I knew I was not being precise. I used a definition of the word that some use in the Progmo world and thought I gave enough context to explain. But I obviously failed. I’m not defending that. Everyone piled on me for that, but I deserve it. Live and learn.
I really wish there was a good word to describe what I intend with this. It’s not nuance. Because as Andrews rightly says, many people use nuance to retain literal belief. Example would be FairMormon view of BOM historicity, ie molding BOM belief with known science and history to come up with theories like LGT, two Hill Cumorah, Mixing Populations, etc.
In a facebook thread earlier this week, we tossed this around and the following words were suggested:
Liberal, progressive, unorthodox, secularist, humanistic, heterodox, normal, post-liberal, emerging, mystical, transrational, non-normative, reconstructionist, disbeliever, pragmatic, metaphorical, apostate, cafeteria, Liahana Mormon, non-traditionalist, non-literalist, woke, informed, independent.
Then there were many that said don’t try to describe it at all. Stop focusing on the differences. That goes back to my post last week asking the question, why do we seem to be so afraid to acknowledge the spectrum on this, or the difference on that spectrum between the mainstream Church and Neo Apologists?
Liberal is the best word for what I mean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity But it’s too tied together with liberal politics, which has completely different meaning.
Let’s come up with a good word but for today we will use ABCXYZ, which is to denote a variance from the most extreme, literal, orthodox belief. Not in terms of progressive ideas like LGBT stance or female equality, but purely on scripture historicity and literal belief.
Andrew’s main point of contention was that he is looking at belief in terms of three aspects: literal, metaphorical, and disbelief. And that since the Neo Apologists I mention are all literal believers, there is no valid distinction between them and mainstream Mormonism.
I am modeling it as a spectrum. Last week I threw out a simple test and scale of 0 to 100. That is useful, but really this is a multi-dimensional model with every belief being rated on a scaled of 0 to 100 and combined to provide an ABCXYZ score. I strongly believe this model is valid and provides important insight into the Neo Apologetics trend.
Take for example, one’s view on the Book of Mormon.
20: Word for word translation of an ancient document containing 100% accurate history and doctrine. No modern elements. No mistakes. Joseph dictated God’s words.
18: Word for word translation of an ancient document containing possible minor errors in history. Joseph dictated God’s words.
16: Ancient record translated by the power of God, but in Joseph’s language. Errors or modern elements could be present and could be due to Joseph using an imperfect word in translation.
14: Ancient record translated by power of God. Joseph used a KJV Bible in the process when he thought he should.
12: Ancient record translated by power of God, with Joseph expanding the text. Riffing on the ancient words of Nephi, Alma, etc. But probably only in small amounts here and there.
10: Ancient underlying text, greatly expanded by Joseph.
8: Ancient text with something on it that little resembles the Book of Mormon. Nearly all of it came through Joseph’s translation process. He didn’t use translation the way we do. It was translating worlds and ideas and true doctrine in a midrashic kind of way.
6: No ancient text, but the gold plates were delivered to Joseph to prompt him to seek revelation and produce the Book of Mormon which may be Joseph’s creative invention through the power of God or may be loosely based on an ancient people.
4: No ancient text, no ancient people, no gold plates. The Angel Moroni is real, but Joseph created the gold plates in an Ann Taves materialization process. Text is inspired.
2: No ancient text, no ancient people, no gold plates, no Angel Moroni, but the text was inspired in a miraculous process that is outside human ability.
0: No ancient text, no ancient people, no gold plates, no Angel Moroni, we consider the text inspired because we canonize it and treat it as a sacrament, and we observe its transformative power, but we don’t think there is anything necessarily pushed from God to Joseph in the inspiration process.
Metaphorical belief would be a 0. Pure fundamentalistic belief would be a 20. Everything else would be a mix on that spectrum of fundamentalistic to metaphorical. None of these would qualify as disbelief in the Book of Mormon, but there certainly are strong distinctions between the different views, with significant theological impact. And these positions are contested very seriously in the Mormon world.
We could do a similar test on various other issues: Book of Abraham, First Vision, Polygamy, divinity of Christ, nature of God, Old Testament and New Testament historicity to come up with a more precise score than I threw out last week.
Basically, what we’re measuring is “how involved is God in this religion”. From extreme/always to not at all in a direct way. That’s a spectrum. Not something binary. And the reason it’s significant is that it spills into the important theological concepts of exclusivity and authority. It’s also very important, because in my opinion the high side or the “dominant narrative” is getting killed by the CES Letter and we are dropping our loved ones like flies. Down on the low end of the scale, the Neo Apologists have answers that work.
I can’t say for sure where each Neo Apologist or each apostle sits in this spectrum. But I suspect Bushman-Givens-Miller-Mason are lower than the average Mormon. I suspect there is variation in the Q12.
It’s probably not good to sit and speculate where a given person lies on the spectrum. BUT, I always wonder WHY? Why it such a taboo to peg any given person at a certain spot? This goes back to the main question from last week. Why can’t we talk about this?
Neo Apologists don’t want to get tagged as being low on this scale because they’re deemed apostate and become targets for the ultra conservative Orthodox. Even those on the high end of the spectrum don’t even want to get tagged or tag a Neo Apologist. I think they want to pretend the distinction doesn’t exist, because there are some good people that have some sway and are deemed very rational in that Neo Apologist list. And they are afraid it might make them look backwards if someone else is further down? Don’t know. Please tell me. Why can’t we talk about it?
Another point from Andrew:
But what I want to emphasize is that I don’t think that most of the folks placed in the “neo-apologist” bucket are operating that way. The Givens aren’t just feigning deference to the brethren — no, because they are actual believers, they actually have deference to the brethren.
If Neo Apologist was code word for disbeliever, then yes I agree with this critique. I believe the Givens are somewhere lower on that ABCXYZ scale than the average member, but I know they’re not metaphorical believers. Lower than the top but higher than the bottom. They would call themselves true believers and have sincere deference to the brethren. I am way further lower on the scale than Givens or Bushman, yet I consider myself a believer. I also have deference to the brethren.
You may look at all this and think, what’s the big deal. So some people have little bit different beliefs. But this is critically important to talk about and get in the open.
At BYU, where religion professors should be up on the most recent research, my son’s teacher taught that positions 16 and lower were incorrect and on the slippery slope to rejection of the Restored Church. Yet, in his department there are others who are acknowledging modern content and looking for better ideas. The Neo Apologists are breaking down how Joseph used the word translation and encouraging us to move lower on the scale.
The reason it’s vitally important is that the Neo Apologists have the answers to the CES Letter. But they require members to move down the scale. The message is difficult to understand. The Millers from the post last week were shocked at the answers they were hearing from Neo Apologists. They never knew this view existed.
It’s time we push back against the taboo and the ultra-Orthodox of the church to make the Neo Apologist message visible and accessible to all who are struggling with historical problems.
Wheat & Tares 
You could expand your list by including the roles of Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Emma, and Hyrum Smith. There was also the role of nonmember John Gilbert who provided punctuation and typesetting.
I take the Book of Mormon rather literally, but my testimony of its truthfulness would not be changed if someday I learn that it is more allegorical.
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. – F. Scott Fitzgerald
I really like that Tom. I could rewrite that with a bunch of different options, some being “I believe in X but I think Y is possible.” and “I believe in X adamantly and nothing else is possible.”
I keep wondering how this label/differentiation is useful. is it being used to merely categorize a group as “more on my side” or “them, the apostates”? It is so we can sort away the “ultra orthodox” from the “slightly less orthodox”, so we know when we can go make a sandwich during General Conference?
14 and 16 seem the same to me?
This is another great narrative. I find the discussion healthy and helpful. It’s ironic (to me anyway) that once I accepted the real possibility that the Book of Mormon was simply a faith based allegory – and that Laban’s Breastplate and Sword are, most likely not, in the Granite Vaults in SLC – I felt most of my angst relating to the arguments surrounding the historicity of the book just disappear. And, I can enjoy the uplifting message for what it is. (In fairness to the discussion, I probably should admit that I’m just exchausted with trying to make the historical question “work” for me.)
Frank, I know it sounds like a divisive message to some. How can we categorize people and say I’m in one group and you’re in another, I’m better than you, whatever. But the purpose, for me, is actually the opposite. It’s to show the Mormon tent is big, and when I look at my beliefs and silently suffer because I feel like I’m different than everyone else, I can take comfort knowing there are many others like me. And especially so that if my beliefs shift down to a certain level, I don’t feel like the Millers in the post from last week, that I think my only choice is to leave.
Stephen, the point of the scale is to generally show there is a broad spectrum of beliefs, which some think are very serious distinctions at each level. Think of the difference between 14 and 16 the use of the KJV Bible and maybe the amount of Joseph’s language being a major role vs a minor role. The BYU religion professor referenced in the article thought the claim that Joseph used a KJV Bible a special distinction of heresy.
Frank Pellett: Personally, I use the categories to determine what level of discourse I can expect from a person. I can ask someone else who’s familiar with the categories if so-and-so is a “progressive” or “intellectual” believer, and get an idea of how carefully I should tread in, say, my hometeaching lesson.
The BoM is all about these frustrating contradictions.
531 pages + 116 lost pages seems like a lot of work if you’re going to write a book about your theology. Especially if you’re going to deviate off course by creating your own weights and measures, battle strategies, and flashbacks. Especially considering TGPS was only 395 pages.
Yet, the book addresses all the current topics that were being dated at the time.
I have no idea what to make of Isaiah 48-53 being in the Nephite record and requires some serious contorting of the history in order to make it work.
But that same understanding of history and scholarship doesn’t allow me to believe that Joseph could have made up 1N 1-17 unless I contort history and start assuming that Joseph was accessing documents showing and describing a trail from Jerusalem to the only fertile areas of Oman that archeologically checks out.
Only 11 people certified that they saw the plans. Many of which were close friends and family.
Yet, many of those same people also turned on Joseph and didn’t rescind their testimony.
DNA says there’s no Israelites in the new world.
Linguistics on the other hand show Uto-Azetecan has cognates from the Middle East.
I missed my chance to participate in the other discussion. If you see label ABCXYZ (like Neo-Apologist) as a dog whistle for someone who only feigns belief, then of course people are going to object to using that label for themselves. And if you believe someone you respect is getting thrown under the bus by getting that label, you will speak out against categorizing that person as such. John Dehlin popularized the term “Neo-Apologist” within a Mormon context (see Hawkgrrrl’s post here: https://wheatandtares.org/2017/08/22/neo-apologists/ ), so the term carries TONS of baggage. How John Dehlin defines the term matters, because he’s the one who has pushed it the most, and many people do not want to be associated with him or how he’s defined the term.
Whenever you start categorizing someone and their beliefs as a particular “type” of Mormon (as Dehlin does with Neo-Apologist), you are separating them out from the flock. You are saying that they are not mainstream, and with how territorial our religion is, anything outside mainstream becomes suspect. Givens and Bushman define themselves as Mormons. Full stop. They’d likely be okay with a label of apologist, in that they defend the church, but the label Neo-Apologist is a Dehlin thing, and it comes with a LOT of assumptions about what people are saying publicly versus how they *really* feel. That’s a problem.
Givens, Bushman, et al, are trying to create a Mormonism where nuance in literal versus metaphorical belief is more allowable in the *mainstream.* As Bushman said in one interview, ten years ago if someone were to argue that the Book of Mormon was not historical, he’d call that view heretical. Now, even though he does NOT agree with that sentiment, he’s leaning towards accepting these non-literal beliefs as valid expressions of Mormonism. But there’s a key difference – he is not espousing these beliefs himself. He still believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. He would still sit down and argue FOR the historicity of the Book of Mormon, likely with some nuance. But when you label him a Neo-Apologist, it is entirely understandable that someone would then see him, personally, as *not* believing in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. That label runs a high risk of mischaracterizing his personal beliefs. ANY label runs a risk of mischaracterizing someone’s personal beliefs. When it comes to Mormon scholars and theologians, their public influence is maintained in large part on assumptions about those personal beliefs. Mischaracterize those personal beliefs, and that level of influence can be severely affected.
Another great post, thanks. I agree that this is important. I think it is crucial we make room for this kind of belief in the Church. There are many challenges, mainly that people higher up on the scale tend to regard those lower on the scale as being non-believers, or worse, trying to ruin the Church. There are also people high on the scale who see their mission not to work out their own salvation or to love and accept, but to keep the doctrine and Church pure at any cost. Nuanced ideas are extremely threatening to many of these kinds of people. You will probably agree if you’ve ever been shot down for what you saw as a sensible comment in Sunday School or Elders Quorum. For me, worst case scenario is that literal believers lead the charge to keep the doctrine pure and make the Church an uncomfortable place for anyone who is not in lock step with a literal belief. Most of the interviews you hear on Mormon Stories tell some version of this story.
What it means to be Mormon has changed radically throughout the course of Church history. In pioneer times, attending Sacrament Meeting, attending the Temple and keeping the Word of Wisdom were not very important to being Mormon. What was important was loyalty to the Church in terms of supporting polygamy and being willing to settle remote areas and build the kingdom. We had our own economic system and political parties that we were required to give up with polygamy to call off the dogs of the federal government and to become a state. While I don’t think anyone wants to go back to settling remote desert areas or polygamy, I do think a return to a communitarian identity to define being Mormon would help the Church grow and retain members. I would love to see a day when being a Mormon in good standing centered around loyalty to the organization (not blind obedience but a desire to be called a Mormon and be part of the community) and energy to build the Kingdom of God (not the Church organization, but what Jesus taught about making the world a better place). We could focus less on correct belief and personal behavior and more on a desire to be part of the team. I think this would make room for all kinds of believers and if someone went through a faith crisis, maybe they would just identify with a more loose belief system, but still retain their Mormon identity and ask to be put to work building the Kingdom through teaching life skills to homeless people or making hygiene kits for girls in Africa. I would love to see missionaries spend a big portion of their time doing service work and would hope we could put the same money and energy into serving in the community that we put into family history and temple work.
Mary Ann. I’m not sure Dehlin really coined the term, but it doesn’t matter. It’s being used, people know what it means, it serves an important purpose to explain a general position which is simply less literal, less orthodox, less traditional than the mainstream. It doesn’t mean they’re atheists. Even Dehlin doesn’t use it that way. Ralph Hancock and a few of his pals might, but that’s about it. I know Bushman and Givens think the BOM is historical. But on a scale of 0 to 20 on a variety of issues, they are going to be significantly lower than traditional. It’s not a binary thing. It’s a scale. Plus they’re not the only two. We have Mason, Hardy, Miller, Fluhman, Brown, Barlow and many others. I’m sorry if some people think that if by pointing out the lower ABCXYZ scale, that some people will think they’ll get muzzled. I don’t necessarily think that. We’re losing hundreds if not thousands of our best and brightest every week. It’s not helping very many of those to keep this view on the down low in vaguish terms unless you invest a thousand hours and figure it out for yourself. It’s time to own the Neo Apologist label.
PS I hope this is clear by now, but I absolutely do not mean Neo Apologist or ABCXYZ as someone who feigns belief. I think the only people who do that are the extreme orthodox side of LDS. I haven’t even seen Exmo’s use it that way.
Andy, I agree with you the BOM is very impressive and quite a mystery. But I think the Stubbs research is overstated and a potential embarrassment for LDS scholars if they continue to glom onto it.
Churchistrue, the vast majority of members don’t know what an apologist is, let alone a neo-apologist. And no, there is not a universal definition. This “less literal, less orthodox, less traditional than the mainstream” is incredibly vague. The whole point of expanding the literal/metaphorical tent is to say it is JUST AS orthodox and traditional as the mainstream. I can be an orthodox/mainstream member without being a 20 on your literal BofM scale. Also, when I say that the label neo-apologist could be seen as one that feigns belief, I mean in the sense of how Givens, Hardy and others have been accused (by other apologists, no less) of injecting bad doctrine under the guise of faithfulness – being wolves in sheeps clothing. Questioning the level of their testimony and their ultimate goal.
Really detailed criteria for the Book of Mormon- kudos. Depending on the day and frame of mind, I’m anywhere from 8-16.
Still, for the life of me, I can’t understand having deference to the brethren if one doesn’t believe the Book of Mormon is, essentially, what it claims to be. Heck, I don’t even have deference to the brethren, and as you can see, I rank pretty high on the BOM scale. Perhaps you could define what you mean by deference. I respect them; I don’t wish to tear them down in any way; I’m interested in what they have to say about the scriptural texts before me as well. But in terms of authority and simply accepting what they say, even if it contradicts previously recorded scripture, I can’t agree to that. Also, does having deference mean holding them up as prophets, seers, and revelators? I can’t do that, either, unless the definitions have changed vastly.
Dylan, It means I don’t oppose them. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/elder-dallin-h-oaks-opposition-in-all-things/ It means that I sustain them per Terryl Givens description of the meaning of that. https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2016/02/terryl-givens-on-what-it-means-to-sustain/ It also means per the way Richard Bushman described it:
I don’t think you can ever abandon your conscience. Ultimately you have to be responsible for your own lives, you have to decide for yourself what is right. President Uchtdorf has told us the brethren make mistakes, so we can’t expect perfect, unmitigated, exact truths of every kind come from the brethren. It’s coming from their minds, we have to decide how it applies to us, there’s no escaping that responsibility. But what I’m pleading for is respect for those opinions. Recognize that they come from very strong, good, very experienced men. And take what they say very, very seriously. In the end you may come down slightly different, but if your spirit is right and you really are trying to do what’s right, you’ll be ok. They’re not going to condemn you for disagreeing with something like that if you do it in the right spirit.
First of all, I agree with Mary Ann. And I feel like ultimately I’m just going to send up saying the same thing she did but in different words, because I think it’s important.
I don’t think it necessarily matters who coined the term, but I think he is trying to popularize it’s use in a way that makes it easy to attribute the term to him. That is, NO ONE would be saying neo apologists if dehlin didn’t keep trying to make it happen. And again, I agree with Mary Ann that there’s a way in which JD uses the term to try to separate and divide, and to point out a winking duplicity. Like, ok, you’re a believer, wink wink, sure, but we really know that you’re trying to present a different kind of Mormonism than what’s institutionally taught. And this perspective is NOT the way an extreme orthodox member would put it. The extreme orthodox member would have it be accusatory. Only exmos and disbelievers have the “wink wink” connotation because the connotation is that the neo-apologist is “one of us”…one of us non-believers using their status to try to change the church. If you haven’t acknowledged that posture from dehlin or other disaffected mos, I don’t know what to say.
I mean, the best thing I can say is that ABCXYZ is meaningful only because ultra orthodox and disbelieving members have similar suspicions about it.
Because of this, we don’t actually know what the term means. It’s too laden with those murky connotations.
You say:
”it serves an important purpose to explain a general position which is simply less literal, less orthodox, less traditional than the mainstream. It doesn’t mean they’re atheists.”
But this really isn’t certain, because it’s used to describe such a wide range of positions and elides the differences in those positions. A 0 on your book of Mormon belief list is very different than a 14, but both of those would be nuanced or ABCXYZ. that’s simply not very meaningful. Even 2 is very different than 0.
0 may not be disbeliever, but it’s going to look enough like disbelieving atheist to most other people (both believer and non) as for the difference not to matter.
RB – Do you have a scale for saving ordinances? No offense to the BOM and all the other things you based your scale on in Part 1, but in the end it really does not matter how orthodox or literal you are on any of them. To me, the church’s claim to fame lives and dies on whether ordinances are necessary and whether God only recognizes Mormon authority in doing those ordinances. I really don’t see any wiggle room in that one. Enlighten me.
OK, sure guys. Nuance doesn’t exist. ABCXYZ doesn’t exist. Only literal Orthodoxy and total disbelief. No other distinction is relevant. Is there also no difference between conservative Evangelicals and the most Liberal side of Mainline Protestants? Are there no degrees of distinction in between? None of these issues have any degree of relevancy in the faith crisis going on in Mormonism? Evolution, no evolution. Polygamy was commanded by God or maybe it was a mistake. BOM is word for word translation. Or Joseph was expanding it. NBD. It’s all the same. Thousands of Mormons are in faith crisis over how to sort this stuff out. But it’s all the same. And Neo Apologists don’t exist. The Millers lose their faith and are told stuff by the head of the Maxwell Institute that SHOCKED them. They had no idea any Mormons believed that way. But it’s all the same I guess.
I think I’m asking the right questions if the people in the middle can easily see it but the people on the TBM and Ex side don’t want to acknowledge it.
Zach. I’m sure there is a spectrum on the view of saving ordinances and that the view of the well known Neo Apologists would be more ABCXYZ than the traditional view. Yes. I’m not saying they would reject them. I am saying on average the view would be materially different in ABCXYZ and it would be lower on the scale.
I have to “like” Mary and Andrew’s comments more than once.
There is semantic contamination going on that affects the terms and it has been intentionally introduced (NOT by the OP) and that needs to be understood.
Good evening, Mary Ann:
I so enjoy your observations and perspectives. In light of the ongoing discussion taking place here, I thought I’d share a note which I wrote to an acquaintance (perhaps a friend) who decided to take upon himself, the “responsibility” of challenging me on what he perceived to be my poor performance, my errant ways; and my misguided beliefs as relating to my engagement with the LDS Church. After a somewhat cantankerous exchange (over a two-day period) I wrote him the following:
“G’day:
So, I have a question for you. However, before presenting my question – may I summarize (what I perceive to be) the primary differences between our positions:
You believe that the LDS church is the only true church on the face of the earth: and that it represents God’s kingdom on earth.
I no longer do: but I can acknowledge the great good that the organization (and it’s people) perform throughout the world.
You believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God: chosen to usher in the restoration.
I do not. I consider Joseph Smith to be a somewhat fallen prophet: an opportunist, an adulterer and a liar: especially in regards to polygamy, polyandry and his wife.
You believe in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon: and perhaps in it’s comprehensive historicity.
I do not. I believe it to be a faith based allegory: and entirely man made. But, I also believe the message to be positive, uplifting and helpful.
You believe in modern day prophets and apostles: and ongoing revelation.
I no longer do. While I consider many of our leaders to be great men and women – who are trying to do tremendous good – I believe them to just be people: like everyone else.
You consider the “good word” of Mormonism to be of utmost importance to share all across the world: and to all of peoples.
I think Mormonism has become intolerant of other beliefs, cultures and faith based beliefs. I think this is the reason that LDS missionary successes are slowing down. People and cultures are “pushing back” against the sometimes arrogant presumptions of Mormonism..
You believe that all truth is contained in “the Gospel (as defined by the LDS Faith).
I do not. I believe that ” man” should seek out truth wherever it is to be found: even in other faithful traditions and beliefs.
You believe that God and his Son, Jesus Christ – live and love their creations: including all men and women born upon the earth: and that he wants them to succeed and return to him.
I do too! So, at least we have one marvelous thing in common!
So before we figuratively “flip each other off” and declare each other closed minded idiots…(and here comes my question):
Do you think you and I have the capacity within ourselves, to simply wish the other “Godspeed, in your search for truth and spirituality…and to take care on your own path of life?”
If memory serves – even Joseph Smith taught this great principle of respecting all men in how they chose to believe. I believe this counsel applies EVEN WITHIN THE LDS FAITH.”
While I honestly did all I could to make my words and observations kind, open and friendly – this acquaintance certainly did not receive them that way. Rather than embracing each other as human beings of a common ancestry, maybe even brothers, just traveling this course of life according to somewhat different maps – he did choose to “figuratively flip me off” and emotionally banish me as a heretic to the orthodoxy. Kind of sad….isn’t it?
Thanks much to all of you for having this discussion. I so wish that a similar dialog could be had “in the open”; within the greater church at large.
God Bless all of you.
Good evening, Zach: Given your comments and insightful questions, you might enjoy reading “Illustrations of Masonry” by William Morgan. I know I did. It was very helpful to me as I wanted to discover (as much as possible) the origins of the LDS Temple Ceremony; and the covenants and promises contained therein. My research has helped me to balance (in a much more healthy way) the importance of ordinances as compared to following Christ’s example. Have a good evening.
Actually, I think I understood churchistrue from his first post and I totally agree with his objective in allowing believers to have varying degrees of nuance in their beliefs and yet remain “believers”. I also get what Andrew is saying wrt to *wink wink* among the John Dehlin/exmo crowd. If a believer wants to view John, et al., as wolves circling and separating the sheep so he can lead them to the slaughter, I’m not convinced that analogy is completely off base. But I think the defense for that is just what churchistrue is saying — we need to accept people with less literal beliefs as integral and full members of the church. If we don’t acknowledge that (and I think churchistrue is trying to claim the label “neo-Apologist” the same way early Mormons claimed the term “Mormon”), then we’re going to lose people whose black-and-white thinking leads them to not be a 20. (By the way, I think one could be an 18 on the BOM, a 10 on temple ordinances, a 2 on polygamy, and a 15 on priesthood authority — the numbers don’t have to align on different topics). By accepting the term “neo-Apologist” for Givens and Bushman, people who are actually further up the scale than some, it opens room for those further down. I say this as a guy who probably averages 14 or 15 across a wide variety of topics and feels perfectly comfortable.
While I understand that these labels are being used as referential terms, I’m less interested in arguing about which labels apply to gradients of Mormon belief than I am in discussing how room could be made for such variation in the lived experience of Mormonism. It seems like an intractable problem since we’ve been talking about Iron Rod vs. Liahona Mormons for decades now.
I really appreciate Mary Anne’s comments. especially touching on the danger in labeling believers into separate degrees. I can see the human propensity to divide and separate ourselves and our views of others based on the label. When the goal , for me at least, isn’t division but greater inclusion. Givens and Bushman’s approach is then brilliant. By claiming no label other than mormon, they force the label itself to change to include them.
So the question from me then, is how do i do this on a local level? Can I do it even? I haven’t met with success so far. I wonder if having a certain amount of institutional respect and power aren’t needed.
Churchistrue, nuance exists, but it’s problematic to try to measure someone’s literal/metaphorical or whatever nuance and categorize them based on those measures. Like Martin said, someone’s nuance “score” will vary (sometimes drastically) on different topics. I agree that we need to better show belief options to people. I don’t like how many people Mormonism is losing any more than you. It’s thrusting baggage-laden labels on people that I dislike. You want to identify as a neo-apologist? More power to you, but you better define what exactly you mean by that.
I’m fine saying types of beliefs on certain topics are more literal vs metaphorical. I’m fine saying that certain apologists tend to favor pastoral arguments versus debating historical facts. But, as the Kofford apologetics book shows, even self-described apologists are not easy to pigeonhole into neat categories.
ReTx, I firmly believe institutional respect and power are necessary right now to influence change. That’s why Bushman as a respected historian and emeritus patriarch has such a powerful voice. And Fluhman with his role as director of the Maxwell Institute. And Matt Grow as a church historian. These men have the professional capacity to speak authoritatively on historical issues, and they have enough institutional respect to be seen as “safe.” These are the types of people Ballard is trying to send kids to for answers. I don’t like the outsourcing aspect – I wish the leaders could speak more comfortably with knowledge on these matters – but these are the people we need right now to flesh out the simplistic narrative the church has pushed the last few decades.
“During an annual university conference at BYU in August 1991, Elder Bruce Hafen stated:
I know that some BYU students and other members of the Church are too trusting, too reliant on authority figures, and they expect the Holy Ghost to do their thinking for them. We must rouse them from their dogmatic slumbers, teaching them to love the Lord with all their heart, might, mind, and strength. They need education that liberates them from ignorance and superstition, developing the tough-minded independence on which self-reliant people and democratic societies utterly depend….
We move them from dogmatism through healthy skepticism toward a balanced maturity that can tolerate ambiguity without losing the capacity for deep commitment. By example as well as precept, we teach how to ask good—even searching—questions, how to trust, how to know of ourselves. This university’s vitality is a continuing witness for the proposition that within the broad gospel framework, robust faith and healthy skepticism are not mutually exclusive….”
Weighing in on the Mary Ann / churchistrue labeling debate here: Why is labeling within the Church so scary? We do this with other things, right? There are single Mormons, married Mormons, Republican Mormons, Democrat Mormons, black Mormons, and white Mormons. Labels do imply distinction (which is necessary for diversity), but not necessarily division. We can be perfectly unified while being called different things, and while actually being different things.
“Why is labeling in the church so scary?” In this context, it can be scary because many of us who are lower on the ABCXYZ scale (depending on the topic) are often treated or thought of as “less than” by those who are higher, and those who tend toward orthodoxy tend to be the ones that end up in positions of leadership. Those of us who can’t enthusiastically declare “I know this church is true!” are often seen as having less faith, and sometimes we’re even viewed as threatening. So we often are careful as to how, when and where we express our views that stray from the traditional.
And it doesn’t help that many of the hyper-orthodox equate their own views with official church positions even when that isn’t always the case. I’m thinking particularly of recently when I was preparing a Gospel Doctrine lesson on the Creation — and as someone who knows the class well I couldn’t come up with a way to present an evolutionary paradigm without causing contention in the class. So I didn’t even try, instead focusing on the teaching that what God created was good — something that both traditionalists and those low on the ABCXYZ scale can agree on. Sometimes I think I missed an opportunity to expand the class’s thinking, but maybe all I missed was an opportunity to divide the class. I honestly don’t know.
There’s something of a chicken-and-egg situation going on here. Low-on-the-ABCXYZ-scale perspectives are never going to be seen as legitimate unless those of us who hold those views (especially those of us who go to the temple, send kids on missions, etc.) express them, but we’re unlikely to express them because we don’t want to be seen as less than faithful.
So, I don’t find my own belief about the BoM on your scale. Where would you place this?
The book didn’t come from Joseph Smith. But much of it is not an accurate ancient record. The text contains too many items that came through centuries of Catholic and Protestant theological development. Parts of the plot are either impossible or highly unlikely. There is good evidence that the English text was produced in the 1600s or 1700s, and not just Skousen’s critical text work. There are theological issues that are from that era, not ancient. But I believe Joseph had gold plates. I believe that Moroni appeared to him (and three others). I believe Joseph was seeing text and dictating it, but that it didn’t come from his brain. The doctrine in the BoM, however, is pretty Protestant, to the degree that Joseph wasted little time in replacing some of it and making other element irrelevant with his theological expansion. I find it odd that Joseph seemingly ignored the BoM in his preaching and ecclesiastical developments. The original Church fo Christ (1830) was patterned after the BoM church, but Joseph left that behind rather quickly with his priesthood expansions.
Franklin, you raise a number of interesting questions and perspectives.
Gadflown — labels are short cuts we use for thinking and for identifying. Some identities have denotations and connotations. The ones that cause trouble are those that are connected to things that cause rejection or hostility.
There has been an effort by some outsiders to label “neo-apologist” as meaning “a liar who hypocritically does not believe but likes the LDS Church as a welcome social club that rewards them and so encourages others to belong to the club.” That is the contamination that has touched the term. “Second wave apologist” might be a better term, or “informed believer” as most of those who the label is applied to:
a) Believe.
b) Do not see themselves as apologists.
c) Do believe that there is a larger or more informed perspective.
It is kind of like how some people dislike the label of “anti-Mormon.” Even if they make their livelihood from attacking the Church and its members.
So, that is the problem with labels — especially ones used to divide.
I get the OP’s thought that he wants a label for people who don’t believe literally that the garden of eden was formed under a crystal dish with water above and below and rain that fell only when windows were opened in the heavens (the original text’s actually framing and meaning). He also wants one that is not insulting (e.g. Educated Believer would insult those who still hold to primitive text interpretations. The same sort of problem comes with Mature Believer or using Fowler’s Stages of Belief). So he is looking for a term that identifies one who is part of the community of the saints but who is not locked into a rigid mindset.
Which, of course, even the most rigid literalist is not (even the most literal typed don’t hold to the literal meaning of the text any more). Rigid literalists mostly hold to a modified literalism that is a created construct. And are generally black and white thinkers (or what I would call idealist thinkers).
Which makes this discussion worth having.
I am a lifelong member who no longer believes but who is still active, mostly in support of my husband. I have a weekly music calling. Because I have “lost my testimony” I no longer feel I should have a voice in church. I am less angry and irritated and can attend with equanimity when I think of myself as a volunteer in somebody else’s church, doing a service for my husband. I am accepting of this position. But 10-20 years ago, I would surely have welcomed church as a place to have conversations about the issues, rather than a place to be shot down as an apostate.
Labels aren’t scary; they’re unnecessarily divisive. There’s a difference between a label and an attribute. A “single Mormon” does not mean the same thing as a “Mormon who is single”. The former creates a label, placing person/group in a marginal part of the group. The latter describes an attribute of the person/group being described, but the core is “Mormon”.
I sent my business taxes off last night. Without labels, I wouldn’t have known how to drive to the post office, how to identify the post office from other buildings, and the envelope I put in the bin would never get to the IRS. We use labels in all walks of life for everything. But we’re afraid to label an Apologist a traditional style or a new-neo-progressive whatever.
Karla, I think what you’re doing is beautiful, and a great example of nuanced thinking. It reminds me of purpose and principle, and the necessity of being true to one’s self.
I’m not saying labels can’t be useful. I’m just saying the specific label “neoapologist” is generally either confused and not particularly helpful OR that it has a lot of clarifying connotations that are usually offensive and destructive. When someone tries to lasso as many people in that label as they want, they generally reveal which of these the label is to them.
Nuance certainly exists. But talking about “nuanced” as a label is either offensive or meaningless — you either collapse the nuance of orthodox believers, or you have to acknowledge that virtually all believers and nonbelievers are nuanced in some way, so nuance doesn’t actually distinguish them. (That is, to say “Nuance doesn’t exist. ABCXYZ doesn’t exist. Only literal Orthodoxy and total disbelief. ” as being what your opponents believe means that you think the alternative principle is that, you have literal Orthodoxy as an un-nuanced position, total disbelief as an un-nuanced position, and then a sea of nuance in between that doesn’t reflect either of those.) But this position makes nuance virtually meaningless, because literal orthodoxy and nonbelief are just caricatures at the extreme ends.
Nuance seems meaningful when someone like John Dehlin uses, but it’s because it’s clear to me, for example, that to the extent John Dehlin promulgates the term, it has connotations that narrow it. It’s, “I can’t really make sense of why these people even bother with the church, because they seem like nonbelievers like me.”
Your use is trying to ameliorate the term. “They are nonbelievers like me, but I want to celebrate this and encourage more of it.”
But when this connotation is so clear, it’s no wonder that folks like the Givens will shy away from it. Because they aren’t, in fact, nonbelievers like you or John Dehlin. And they also don’t want “orthodoxy” to be defined in distinction to nuance.
“when this connotation is so clear, it’s no wonder that folks like the Givens will shy away from it. Because they aren’t, in fact, nonbelievers like you or John Dehlin. And they also don’t want “orthodoxy” to be defined in distinction to nuance”
Excellently said!
A few years ago hawkgirl had a post on personality types. https://wheatandtares.org/2009/05/23/bloggernacle-personality-survey/
major groups were obedience, and love, there were intelectuals, and a forth. You can move between the groups with experience.
I found this very helpfull. I think this is more helpfull than the different levels of belief.
It it less likely to be a judgement to be a loving person, because it is based on positive qualities, thanwhat we are discussing which seems to be based on what we no longer believe.
It would be good if leadership saw as positive, and said so, different understandings of how to use the church to live the Gospel.
Until they do obedience members will not accept that any understanding other than theirs is a good mormon.
Discussing Belief in terms of Myers-Briggs is super interesting (Hawkgirl, you should do an update!) because it changes the innate dialogue from one that sets boundaries on who is acceptable enough to one about the various shapes of faith that are possible.
Andrew S. I’m not a non-believer. This goes to the heart of my issue with you in this argument. Metaphorical or non-traditional belief is not disbelief. You call me and John Dehlin together in our non-belief and separate from the Givens due to their belief. My belief is much, much closer to the Neo Apologists (Given, Bushman, Mason, Miller, Fluhman, Hardy, Peck, Brown) than it is to John Dehlin. Though I’m willing to explain explicitly what my beliefs are and they seem pretty extreme, I actually think there are some in that list that are lower than me on the ABCXYZ scale. The Givens are probably the highest on the list, so let’s not get too hung up on them specifically. There is variability within that group, but they can be grouped together and measured to be significantly different in their ABCXYZ level than the mainstream Church. Why they don’t want to acknowledge that, TBM’s not want to acknowledge it, and even some Exmo’s not want to acknowledge that is the thrust of my questions and exploration here.
Andrew S. Further, I just don’t get your aversion for classification on ABCXYZ. In reality, everything we label or categorize people on is based on a spectrum with two extreme positions on either side. In politics, if you have a 100 people ranging from 70 to 95 on the liberal scale and another 100 ranging from 10-35, none are holding the extreme positions, but can we not classify the two groups as “liberal” and “conservative” in a way that’s meaningful in identifying some key differences between the groups which leads to analysis of why they hold those positions, what the difference means, etc?
I don’t know if this will add anything to the discussion, because I don’t know how to define “nuance” or any of that. The thing that I see in this discussion is our propensity towards “no true Scotsman” type rhetoric. I recall that Elder Oaks’s talk from the last GC was criticized by many for this. He prefaced many of his assertions with “Latter-day saints believe…”, which, to some, implied that anyone who disagreed with him must not be a true or a good latter-day saint.
The point where this really hit me was in the evolution class at BYU as we talked about BYU’s evolution packet — when I first realized that good Latter-day Saints (such as James E. Talmage and Joseph Fielding Smith) could be on both sides of the evolution/no death before the fall debate and still be considered good Latter-day Saints. I think that is what I see in churchistrue’s discussion, whatever words we want to use to describe it, is the ability to acknowledge that good latter-day saints believe a lot of different things. Of course, the challenge eventually becomes “what are the essential things to believe to be considered a good latter-day saint.” IMO, I think this list will be much shorter than our rhetoric usually implies.
Labels work well when the definition is agreed upon. If you want to know what a particular zip code refers to, you can immediately look it up and see the geographic boundaries. The definition is clear.
So, you say we have a spectrum in the Mormon church. The reality is that we have many spectrums:
Belief Spectrum – literal versus metaphorical versus unbelief on various issues.
Belonging Spectrum – how closely a person feels connected to the Mormon community (1) at large or (2) in their ward.
Behavior Spectrum – how closely a person adheres to various practices – home teaching, church meetings, Word of Wisdom, scriptures, prayer, ordinances, etc.
Mormonism is much greater than just intellectual beliefs. What I would argue is that the group you want to call “neo-apologists” care just as much about preserving someone’s place on the belonging spectrum as they do on a belief spectrum. Mason’s Planted book illustrates that. Even in that book, a recommendation was made for some that the church can be good without being true (meaning, the belonging and behavior elements can outweigh any belief issues). For a lot of these guys, it’s about the competing priorities of belief/belonging/behavior, not specific literal/metaphorical beliefs.