Mormonism as a stalled progressivism

[taekwondave]

Okay, i know I'm about to try to tackle something here that I have neither the vocabulary, nor the credibility to do effectively, but it's a thought I've been having and I'm gonna give it a try:

It seems to me that Mormonism was a progressive, fluid, forward moving strain of Christianity in the days of Joseph Smith. It seemed for a time to be the embodiment of his soul-searching mind. As a whole, it, like him, didn't seem to be afraid of taking doctrinal possibilities into full consideration, regardless of what long-held preconceptions such possibilities were squashed along the way.

I think that is what appeals to so many people today about the faith; that it goes one step farther down the logical path of certain biblical premises than other Christian churches; a step that many people in other churches have already made in the privacy of their own minds. The LDS church, at a time, it seems to me, was a haven for people who wished to hear a new idea and to consider its merits under the power of their own God-given capacity for doing so.

However, at Joseph's death, something seems to have stopped whatever the current doctrinal understandings were at that time dead in their tracks; freezing them, it seems, in time and space all the way until today.

It seems to me like Joseph was what they held on to before. He was a free-thinker and he was their leader, and as long as he was around they could think freely (consider the notion that was born in the mind of Lorenzo Snow that he ran past Joseph of "as man is, God once was..."), but once he died and he was no longer there to hold on to, they held on to his teachings instead. But if you ask me, had Joseph stuck around another 40 years, his teachings would have continued down certain logical paths, taken turns, done about-faces, etc, that without him were utterly impossible. I think Brigham Young and his diatribes about the authority of the President and his utter disrespect and condemnation of those who disagreed with him probably played a significant role in that too, but I can't say how much. Regardless, Joseph's death seems to mark the end of real forward thinking as it was once known in our church. I know many here will disagree with that and I'm willing to hear your arguments, but that's how it seems to me right now.

If only Brigham and his successors had focused on Joseph's METHOD of finding out truth, rather than Joseph's actual FINDINGS (his method resulting in never-ending considerations and "revelations", whereas his findings had an end) I think we'd see a very different church than the one we have today.

Instead we have a church that rarely ventures into the unknown, that encourages the unflinching acceptance of Joseph's notions as they were at the time of his death, and wrestles with the blatant contradictions that are the natural result of having stopped a stream of thought before it reached its logical destination. It used to be a vibrant, honest, and curious movement, but now is slow to respond to progressive notions of equality that were once its staple, and quick to condemn those who present such notions as prideful, disobedient or insincere.

I think a major part of our church's retention problems stem from this fact. People are lured in by this innate desire to learn something new and to never stop learning, and when they meet our missionaries they get this inkling that this is the kind of place where that can actually happen. They read of Joseph Smith, they are given a new book of scripture (easier to read than the Bible), they are entrusted with speaking directly to God in prayer and with hearing his still, small voice in response, they are introduced to a friendly crowd of people offering a new vocabulary and a new perspective on reality than they've ever heard before... and then it stops there. As they realize that just like in every other religion they've been a part of, this church is jealous of its teachings, and is unreceptive (and at times downright unforgiving) to any idea which seems to threaten them, they find themselves staying home on sundays, or worse, pouring through online forums in search of kindred spirits

I'm sorry to say that this simply isn't Joseph's church anymore. It's not a bad church. I still think it's one step ahead of the rest, but it needs something I think it lost long ago, and it would be really great if one day it was able to find it again.

I think that's all.

[Goatnapper'96]

I think I can agree with this line of thinking. The LDS Church was certainly revolutionary and very different initially. It was also clearly influenced by Joseph Smith's personality and JS was a real liberal. That type of revolutionary thought also introduced some batshit crazy concepts so there is some merit is conservativism. I think what stands in the way of the LDS Church from striking the perfect balance of keeping the good in what is old fashioned and striking for Zion with revolutionary stuff is that continuing in an already organized religious order is more appealing to conservative minded folks, so it is less likely that transformational thinkers will be given a shot to influence the organization as there are fewer to begin with and likely the leadership will be conservative and look for future leaders in their own image. Finally, believing the leader speaks to God keeps the LDS Church caught in the past. Things do change but very incrementally.

I also think that the appeal of the LDS Church likely goes beyond just the transformational aspect of its message. I think the emphasis on personal revelation and the concept that Joseph Smith said: "I have seen God and so can you" really gave the Church a rock upon which to build that is able to weather the boredom of conservativism and the instability of transformational changes. There have been many movements that were transformational but the LDS concept of individual/personal revelation enabled it to transition from batshit crazy beginnings to the institutionalized boredom of today.

It also should lead us all to give great thanks for two things: Fake mamba-jambas and the IPAD. Those are the three solutions to all things boring.

[oxcoug]

Fake mamba-jambas and the IPAD. Those are the three solutions to all things boring.

I've been meaning to ask Goat - given a choice between real mamba-jambas and fake mamba-jambas of the exact same size and perkiness would you actually prefer the fake?

Thanks in advance - this question has been suckling at me for some time.

[Goatnapper'96]

I've been meaning to ask Goat - given a choice between real mamba-jambas and fake mamba-jambas of the exact same size and perkiness would you actually prefer the fake?

Thanks in advance - this question has been suckling at me for some time.

In all honesty as a devout mormon boy who never licked the frosting until the canned peaches were legally and lawfully fit for consumption, I have what one might call a real limited sample size.

To me it is just the doctrinal highlight that breast augmentations somewhat give us a glimpse of the ressurection. Where mankind has more power given to him to pick up where the Almighty left off. It is trully a spiritual pursuit!

[SloanHater]

You seem to be blaming the Church for your own ignorance.

[DrumNFeather]

I've been meaning to ask Goat - given a choice between real mamba-jambas and fake mamba-jambas of the exact same size and perkiness would you actually prefer the fake?

Thanks in advance - this question has been suckling at me for some time.

This is a trick question...if he can touch 'em, they're real. (credit to the Man Show).

[Moliere]

Good thoughts Dave.

[The Rambam]

The men in my stake who are being called into bishoprics and put on the high counsel are good managers, good employees, good fathers, good men. They are steady and true--go to the Temple regularly and pay a full tithe each month. They are boring speakers and don't delve deeply into church history. They will never miss a church meeting, even when traveling, and listen to all five sessions of general conference every 6 months. They still read the scriptures every day for at least a half an hour. They do their home teaching. They follow the manual when they teach, the Handbook of Instructions is also scripture to them. They use their vacation time to leave their family and go to scout camp. They are careful to never offend anyone.

This is who the church wants/needs to keep the ship moving forward. These men are going to make sure the ship is tight. They are the core backbone of the church and absolutely vital to its health and success. I don't begrudge them their goodness or the church it's wisdom in promoting them.

But there is little place for for the bold leader, the scholar, or the minister who leaves the 99 to find and fellowship the one. Joseph Smith would not have abided the tightly correlated church of today--he was too inspired to be tied to so many policies. This is the age of the senior middle manager in the church--Christofferson, Cook and Anderson are the model. Good men--so steady and good as to be great. But inspiring leaders they are not. Hinckley was penultimate in the mold, forged by the architect Clark.

The age of tempestuous leaders is over--love them or hate them, Joseph, Brigham, and even Ezra Taft Benson were all leaders who inspired and challenged and pushed an agenda. Today we are managed from 60 west south temple and, at least in the my stake, managed locally too. By good men. Who are not leaders. But who love us and love the Lord. I would call the same types to manage the church were I in charge and had the goal of correlation.

[tooblue]

Okay, i know I'm about to try to tackle something here that I have neither the vocabulary, nor the credibility to do effectively, but it's a thought I've been having and I'm gonna give it a try:

It seems to me that Mormonism was a progressive, fluid, forward moving strain of Christianity in the days of Joseph Smith. It seemed for a time to be the embodiment of his soul-searching mind. As a whole, it, like him, didn't seem to be afraid of taking doctrinal possibilities into full consideration, regardless of what long-held preconceptions such possibilities were squashed along the way.

I think that is what appeals to so many people today about the faith; that it goes one step farther down the logical path of certain biblical premises than other Christian churches; a step that many people in other churches have already made in the privacy of their own minds. The LDS church, at a time, it seems to me, was a haven for people who wished to hear a new idea and to consider its merits under the power of their own God-given capacity for doing so.

However, at Joseph's death, something seems to have stopped whatever the current doctrinal understandings were at that time dead in their tracks; freezing them, it seems, in time and space all the way until today.

It seems to me like Joseph was what they held on to before. He was a free-thinker and he was their leader, and as long as he was around they could think freely (consider the notion that was born in the mind of Lorenzo Snow that he ran past Joseph of "as man is, God once was..."), but once he died and he was no longer there to hold on to, they held on to his teachings instead. But if you ask me, had Joseph stuck around another 40 years, his teachings would have continued down certain logical paths, taken turns, done about-faces, etc, that without him were utterly impossible. I think Brigham Young and his diatribes about the authority of the President and his utter disrespect and condemnation of those who disagreed with him probably played a significant role in that too, but I can't say how much. Regardless, Joseph's death seems to mark the end of real forward thinking as it was once known in our church. I know many here will disagree with that and I'm willing to hear your arguments, but that's how it seems to me right now.

If only Brigham and his successors had focused on Joseph's METHOD of finding out truth, rather than Joseph's actual FINDINGS (his method resulting in never-ending considerations and "revelations", whereas his findings had an end) I think we'd see a very different church than the one we have today.

Instead we have a church that rarely ventures into the unknown, that encourages the unflinching acceptance of Joseph's notions as they were at the time of his death, and wrestles with the blatant contradictions that are the natural result of having stopped a stream of thought before it reached its logical destination. It used to be a vibrant, honest, and curious movement, but now is slow to respond to progressive notions of equality that were once its staple, and quick to condemn those who present such notions as prideful, disobedient or insincere.

I think a major part of our church's retention problems stem from this fact. People are lured in by this innate desire to learn something new and to never stop learning, and when they meet our missionaries they get this inkling that this is the kind of place where that can actually happen. They read of Joseph Smith, they are given a new book of scripture (easier to read than the Bible), they are entrusted with speaking directly to God in prayer and with hearing his still, small voice in response, they are introduced to a friendly crowd of people offering a new vocabulary and a new perspective on reality than they've ever heard before... and then it stops there. As they realize that just like in every other religion they've been a part of, this church is jealous of its teachings, and is unreceptive (and at times downright unforgiving) to any idea which seems to threaten them, they find themselves staying home on sundays, or worse, pouring through online forums in search of kindred spirits

I'm sorry to say that this simply isn't Joseph's church anymore. It's not a bad church. I still think it's one step ahead of the rest, but it needs something I think it lost long ago, and it would be really great if one day it was able to find it again.

I think that's all.

Ah, the romanticism of the early LDS church ... "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains" —Rouseau

No, it isn't Joseph's church anymore, but, of course, it never was his church to begin with. It is no man or woman's church, yet that seems to be it's biggest problem ... man and woman, and the chains they bring with them.

[tooblue]

The men in my stake who are being called into bishoprics and put on the high counsel are good managers, good employees, good fathers, good men. They are steady and true--go to the Temple regularly and pay a full tithe each month. They are boring speakers and don't delve deeply into church history. They will never miss a church meeting, even when traveling, and listen to all five sessions of general conference every 6 months. They still read the scriptures every day for at least a half an hour. They do their home teaching. They follow the manual when they teach, the Handbook of Instructions is also scripture to them. They use their vacation time to leave their family and go to scout camp. They are careful to never offend anyone.

This is who the church wants/needs to keep the ship moving forward. These men are going to make sure the ship is tight. They are the core backbone of the church and absolutely vital to its health and success. I don't begrudge them their goodness or the church it's wisdom in promoting them.

But there is little place for for the bold leader, the scholar, or the minister who leaves the 99 to find and fellowship the one. Joseph Smith would not have abided the tightly correlated church of today--he was too inspired to be tied to so many policies. This is the age of the senior middle manager in the church--Christofferson, Cook and Anderson are the model. Good men--so steady and good as to be great. But inspiring leaders they are not. Hinckley was penultimate in the mold, forged by the architect Clark.

The age of tempestuous leaders is over--love them or hate them, Joseph, Brigham, and even Ezra Taft Benson were all leaders who inspired and challenged and pushed an agenda. Today we are managed from 60 west south temple and, at least in the my stake, managed locally too. By good men. Who are not leaders. But who love us and love the Lord. I would call the same types to manage the church were I in charge and had the goal of correlation.

That doesn't describe my Stake. Most of our leaders are terrible managers but, they are powerful leaders and eloquent speakers. My Stake President is one of the most humble individuals I have ever encountered. Our current bishop is a gem of a man who spends every spare moment seeking the one, leaving his Ward leadership to focus on the 99 as he should do.

[taekwondave]

You seem to be blaming the Church for your own ignorance.

Oh?

[SloanHater]

...

If only Brigham and his successors had focused on Joseph's METHOD of finding out truth, rather than Joseph's actual FINDINGS (his method resulting in never-ending considerations and "revelations", whereas his findings had an end) I think we'd see a very different church than the one we have today.

...

This statement alone shows your ignorance on the topic of Brigham Young.

... and then it stops there. As they realize that just like in every other religion they've been a part of, this church is jealous of its teachings, and is unreceptive (and at times downright unforgiving) to any idea which seems to threaten them, they find themselves staying home on sundays, or worse, pouring through online forums in search of kindred spirits

Again, this a reflection of you and not the Church. What stops you from having engaging conversation on gospel doctrine or theology at church? What stops you from pursuing greater knowledge on your own and sharing it with others?

You're the new age Mormon who likes to bitch about the Church not meeting your needs while you do jack-shit about it.

[jay santos]

I would call the same types to manage the church were I in charge and had the goal of correlation.

Who would you call if you were in charge, and you didn't have correlation as the goal? Let's just assume for discussion sake you had a crazy goal like "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of men" through a threefold mission of proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the saints, and redeeming the dead.

[SeattleUte]

The men in my stake who are being called into bishoprics and put on the high counsel are good managers, good employees, good fathers, good men. They are steady and true--go to the Temple regularly and pay a full tithe each month. They are boring speakers and don't delve deeply into church history. They will never miss a church meeting, even when traveling, and listen to all five sessions of general conference every 6 months. They still read the scriptures every day for at least a half an hour. They do their home teaching. They follow the manual when they teach, the Handbook of Instructions is also scripture to them. They use their vacation time to leave their family and go to scout camp. They are careful to never offend anyone.

This is who the church wants/needs to keep the ship moving forward. These men are going to make sure the ship is tight. They are the core backbone of the church and absolutely vital to its health and success. I don't begrudge them their goodness or the church it's wisdom in promoting them.

But there is little place for for the bold leader, the scholar, or the minister who leaves the 99 to find and fellowship the one. Joseph Smith would not have abided the tightly correlated church of today--he was too inspired to be tied to so many policies. This is the age of the senior middle manager in the church--Christofferson, Cook and Anderson are the model. Good men--so steady and good as to be great. But inspiring leaders they are not. Hinckley was penultimate in the mold, forged by the architect Clark.

The age of tempestuous leaders is over--love them or hate them, Joseph, Brigham, and even Ezra Taft Benson were all leaders who inspired and challenged and pushed an agenda. Today we are managed from 60 west south temple and, at least in the my stake, managed locally too. By good men. Who are not leaders. But who love us and love the Lord. I would call the same types to manage the church were I in charge and had the goal of correlation.

Good articulate post. Of course, this always happens.

[taekwondave]

This statement alone shows your ignorance on the topic of Brigham Young.

I've spent years studying the teachings of Brigham Young. He's always been one of my favorites. But I think it's pretty clear that he had an ego problem that tended to suppress the creativity of the rest of the church.

Again, this a reflection of you and not the Church. What stops you from having engaging conversation on gospel doctrine or theology at church? What stops you from pursuing greater knowledge on your own and sharing it with others?

You're the new age Mormon who likes to bitch about the Church not meeting your needs while you do jack-shit about it.

Actually I'm the new age Mormon who likes to bitch about the church not meeting millions of people's needs. I think my post makes that pretty clear. You sound upset. Can I get you a cupcake or something?