Comments on: Mormonism, a global counter-church? (Part I)

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:28:59 +0000

By: MinJae Lee

MinJae Lee — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:17:59 +0000

#4: Orthopraxy? The only meaning of that word that I know relates to medicine (using mechanical appliances to correct deformities). Is it misspelled or is there another meaning of which I am not aware?

By: Tatiana

Tatiana — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:05:22 +0000

6: gamma = gamut (typo).

By: Wm Jas

Wm Jas — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:16:21 +0000

Gamma?

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:21:34 +0000

#4: “Through the 19th and into the 20th century, the Church was generally concentrated in the Inter-mountain…”.
But a big amount of non-Americans (?). Mostly English and Scandinavian (?).

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:49:14 +0000

I think the amount of diversity is dynamic. Through the 19th and into the 20th century, the Church was generally concentrated in the Inter-mountain West. Attendance in Sacrament Meeting and Priesthood Quorum meetings were generally low (~15%). While some eschewed alcohol and tobacco, others did not. Great debates over doctrine were evident in the governing quorums and on the ground. I have a number of relatives that didn’t go to Church and had various levels of orthopraxy. Yet they were all Mormon to the core.

Today, the cohesive culture that maintained Mormon identity is largely eroded, outside of a small minority within certain geographic regions. Diversity is also eroded.

This observation – that diversity in Mormonism was at its peak when the Church was the least “Global” makes me wonder whether it is an appropriate measure of globality generally.

By: Mike S

Mike S — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:44:23 +0000

One big point is tolerance of discussion and varied point-of-views. It seems that the more “fundamentalist” a religion is, whether Islamic, Jewish, Christian, etc., the less toleration there is for someone who thinks outside the “herd mentality”.

The LDS faith seems very fundamentalist in this aspect. While lip service has been paid to to encouraging the members to “confirm” the truth of what the leaders say, especially in the early century of the church, it seems that this is very much discouraged now as not “following the prophet”. This attitude is encouraged from the highest levels.

As a perfect example, witness President Hinckley’s thoughts on earrings and tattoos. While he never came out and defined this as a “God said” proclamation vs his own personal feelings on this, by the next conference, Elder Bednar gave a story about a woman who broke off her engagement to a man she apparently loved over an earring. There was no real forum for discussion, but this was presented as akin to apostasy and “not following the Prophet”.

There is a natural need for a forum for discussion of various aspects of any religion or belief system. Because any “non-manual” discussion is effectively suppressed in an actual church setting, the rise of the “Internet” Mormon movement is a way to safely discuss these aspects.

There is a great slowing of growth of the church, particularly in Europe and the US. The growth numbers as a percentage of existing members has shrunk (numbers available if anyone cares). This is my personal opinion and obviously anecdotal, but I attribute this largely to this disconnect between the “Sunday School” sanitized version of the LDS belief system presented and the more widely available information easily found on the internet.

The frustrating thing to me is that the essence of the gospel is beautiful. We all want to approach God and Christ and have the same goals. We all want to be good people. But as an institution, the Church is turning off people who have a tremendous amount to offer for the sake of blind orthodoxy.

But maybe this attitude makes me the same “apostate” referenced to in Elder Bednar’s talk…

By: CEF

CEF — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:21:22 +0000

Perhaps we should include another class of Mormons now and how they may differ from “Chapel” Mormons. Of course I am referring to “Internet” Mormons. :) But all kidding aside, there really is a difference, at least in my opinion.

By: Sharon LDS in Tennessee

Sharon LDS in Tennessee — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:20:22 +0000

And I would add, assuring a complication of course, an additional question to the “mix” of questions….both as a blanket answer of sorts AND a new one in and of itself:
What about the “inner” church (?) which is comprised of the “higher” spiritually advanced & centered (already baptised/endowed/and qualified members of the LDS) church? This comments points to the first qustion of PERSONAL ADHERENCE, second one of VARIED FORMS, IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION GENERATION to RELIGIOUS ADHERENCE as well !!!
Love to All ~!