In Mormonism the majority are fundamentalists, liberals are the minority. Does this difference make a difference in Danny’s journey vs. a GA’s son?

I think this would explain why someone like Danny, who veers out of his fundamentalist community is still able to be very religious in a positive way, and often when a Mormon becomes disaffected the path leads to bitterness/pain to an extent. It is very difficult for Mormons to find a community that supports both liberal thinking and respect and reverence for tradition.

Suddenly, we can see in the LDS world view some of the issues facing the Jewish youth.

Yet there is a lighter side. How does a killer baseball game first divide, then bring people together? How does LDS basketball have people wanting to kill each other on the court, only to be friends later on? I don’t think we do justice to the book if we ignore this issue, either.

In Mormonism if a person cannot fit into the Church there is really nowhere else to go. If they cannot accept the authority of the Church they can’t go find another Rabbi. There is no other place for them to study The Book of Mormon and the entire Doctrine and Covenants.

Are you sure? It seems to me that the Community of Christ (RLDS) is pretty much exactly like this. I think there is a stigma that is cast upon the CoC because of that one-true paradigm that Mormons have been raised in. There is the appearance that there is no legitimate “Liberal Mormonism”, but this is a young religion. It will just take time for people to see that they really do have alternatives.

I would say that Hasidism and the LDS Church are both fundamentalist. However, Hasidism is only a very small sect within Judaism, the majority of which is not fundamentalist. Outside of Hasidism the Rebbe would not have any particular authority. Judaism does not have an authoritarian structure like Mormonism. Rabbis are teachers. Their authority comes exclusively from their knowledge. Rabbis often don’t agree with each other. It is central to Judaism to debate and question. If a Jew does not agree with the Rabbi they can move on to another synagogue. This is not the case in Mormonism. There is no way to legitimately be an orthodox, conservative, or reform Mormon. Ultimately if one is to be considered a “good” Mormon there is one authority to look to, and a list of expectations that must be met. In this way Danny Saunders is in the same boat as an LDS person who no longer can believe in the standard LDS way. It is painful for him to think of how to be part of his people when he does not think like them. The difference is that while Danny’s neighbors and family might consider him an apostate, most Jews would not. In Mormonism if a person cannot fit into the Church there is really nowhere else to go. If they cannot accept the authority of the Church they can’t go find another Rabbi. There is no other place for them to study The Book of Mormon and the entire Doctrine and Covenants. There is no comparison between the different sects of Judaism and Mormonism.

I wonder if these differences come with age. Judaism has learned over thousands of years that survival necessitates having diversity. The LDS Church is still very young. It is holding together through conformity. So, what happens to a Danny Saunders in the LDS Church? What if they can’t answer the temple recommend questions believing literally enough? Where do they go?

Is the Bloggernacle affecting me too much?

Seriously, I think both have a relation. The Chosen and PBR both attempt to view real life situations from different perspectives. Hasidic Judaism seems very strange for Reuven, as he walks down the street with Danny. Only 5 blocks means walking into a new and different world, which is both fascinating and frightening.

So is PBR. Many of us have at least visited the Y, yet there are strange things that occur in Helaman Halls (or as a friend called it: Raising Hell Halls) that can only be truly appreciated after having been seen through the eyes of a few alumni with too much time on their hands. It is fascinating to imagine the things that can happen on the other side of campus, or on the Provo Temple grounds (see link above #57).

Think of the tensions shown at a BYU/UofU football game. Anything different than at Danny and Reuven’s baseball game? Don’t BYU alumni think UofU to be a bunch of apostates? Are there grudges held between the BYU French and Spanish majors? Engineers and Chess club players?

I can just imagine GST pushing both bunk and truth in one statement, and all of us readers crying, “Amen!” to it all!

BTW, does anyone know if the following incident will find its way into Police Beat #11?

http://deseretnews.com/article/0,5143,705264612,00.html

Did any of you see/feel parallels to your own LDS religious journeys within this book? If so….how?

I personally felt your list was rather parochial. Mormonism is increasing in places other than the Wasatch Front. Further, my own experiences growing up in Utah felt much more nuanced than the initial parallels you drew. In fact, I identified more with Reuven, though I probably grew up in a more “orthodox” home. Still, my “baseball team” seemed much more like Reuven’s.

In my experience, I could see (and have seen) LDS apologists (say…Bryce Hammond, Daniel Peterson or Lou Midgley) look upon certain Sunstone Mormons (let’s say Grant Palmer or the Toscanos) w/ the same level of contempt and scorn that Danny’s baseball team felt towards Reuven’s team (and vice versa).

In other words….to some orthodox LDS, many Sunstoners have historically been viewed as Apikorsim.

I think it’s pretty poor to say that LM, DCP and BH are “apologists” out for the blood of “sunstoners.” That’s a stretch. It could be argued the other way, the “sunstoners” could be shoe horned into a stereotypical Hasidism who have their own expectations, rules, etc. which are used to measure the so-called “apologists.”

So far I am enjoying the book, but the parallels you list seem very forced imo.