DiscussMormonism.com

THE WIDER VIEW

What if one were to present Mormonism, not as a sales pitch designed to make converts, but as a way of explaining life? What if one were to also let go of all that literalness, that forced historicity, that makes so many zealous Mormons sound like fanatics and broken records?

What if one were to present Mormonism, not as a series of truths one had to affirm in order to get a star on the forehead but as a series of answers to life's burning questions, as applicable to non-Mormons as to Mormons themselves?

So much of what we tell each other, let alone our neighbors, is dogma. It's the stuff you could never know in this life. It's the stuff that would only be useful on the other side. Does it really matter, for example, whether there's one God or three? Does it matter whether there was a war in Heaven? Does it matter which angel came to announce the birth of Jesus?

There's an alternative to feeding people trivia and then expecting them to gobble it up and join the Church. It's the idea that Mormonism explains life better - not that it's truer, not that it's connected to the only proper priesthood, not that it's the only means by which Joe Lunchbox can receive exaltation. Mormonism, in short, sheds light on what's going on and what to do about it.

WHY IT MATTERS

If the Gospel is a guide to living - regardless of whether one is LDS or not - it becomes attractive on its own. It ceases to be a sales pitch designed to get someone into the waters of baptism and becomes an object of study for itself.

People join the Church because they see in it something they want to add to their lives, not some burden they feel they are obligated to bear because they've been convinced of its historicity.

People join the Church because they see in it something they want to add to their lives, not some burden they feel they are obligated to bear because they've been convinced of its historicity.

What if one were to present Mormonism, not as a sales pitch designed to make converts, but as a way of explaining life? What if one were to also let go of all that literalness, that forced historicity, that makes so many zealous Mormons sound like fanatics and broken records?

It's the idea that Mormonism explains life better - not that it's truer, not that it's connected to the only proper priesthood, not that it's the only means by which Joe Lunchbox can receive exaltation.

I have to disagree Roger. Any Church that was founded on the basis of change can always institute more change. Furthermore, members are always free to have their own take on things and one of those takes may eschew historicity and concentrate on Mormonism "as a series of answers to life's questions".

Roger Morrison wrote:Hi Mok, you say:

I have to disagree Roger. Any Church that was founded on the basis of change can always institute more change. Furthermore, members are always free to have their own take on things and one of those takes may eschew historicity and concentrate on Mormonism "as a series of answers to life's questions".

Yes, but :-) "...more change..." is an expected in any organization. Is there a Church not founded on "...change..."? Is 'change' not integral to life and living? And yes, "...members are always free to have their own take..." However, one might ask, and I do, "how free"? In my experience Mormon member freedom is bounded by very tight and restrictive parameters that tend more to privilege than right. Justified by Mormon theology, and culture of course.

The-way-it-is doesn't necessarily mean it is the correct way, when considered from another perspective, or as the OP suggests with a "Wider View". Actually I like his "What if" game. IF LDSism could rid itself of its rituals, edicts, conditions, uniform, necessaries to be considered 'worthy'... It would appeal to another more open, free-minded person. It might then serve humanity better than it now does in its (slow moving) trappings. That inhibit its acceptance simply as answers to every day life challenges. In that, it does not do a very good job, simply by its dictatorial structure. As I see it. Warm regards, Roger

Roger,

You make important points. It seems to me that you are really recognizing the roles of heredity and environment. No one has the same in either. As a result change appears to be certain. While people may not be free “to have their own take,” they do have a unique combination of heredity and environment which produce change.

So while “change” is inevitable, it is “slow moving” in many cases. Those who break with traditions in a dramatic way change more rapidly than those who adhere to traditions in the main and only tinker around the edges with “change.” (Bold added by RM)

JAK

On a practical level, it doesn't matter whether the LDS Church is true or not. Mormons can't prove that their testimony-laying "burning of the bosom" is the Holy Ghost or just a mantra they've repeated so many times they just think it's true. On the other hand, those who bash the Church are at a loss to explain how it has managed to remain afloat, and how so many of its members live such decent lives - especially when they're just "dupes to a cult."

I question everything - from Joseph and Brigham to Moses and Jesus. In the end, I can't prove or disprove much, except that the truth is a lot more complicated than the propaganda. All I can say is that the LDS Church teaches a lot of good things, which are embraced by a good portion of its membership, that by and large, Mormons are a nice group of people (not counting the ones who need to up their meds) and that, in terms of functionality, the Mormon Church is a good neighbor. The world is a better place with Mormons in it.

Even as a fraud, I find Joseph Smith to have been way ahead of his time and "prophetic" in ways that appeal to me. I actually find it exciting to imagine that he was a fraud and that he was using Christianity to develop a tradition that combines aspects of the Unitarian Universalists with the utopian movements of his day.

What would you do if you wanted to change the world but the only language and framework open to you was Christianity? What would you do if you wanted to get beyond the fractious debates? What if you sensed that secularism was destined to corrode the heart and soul of Christianity by calling into question its claims, its authenticity and its relevance to the modern day?

Joseph Smith created a tradition where:

--God talks to us in our day;
--Scripture isn't limited to the Bible;
--Any man can become a "deacon," a "teacher," a "priest" or an "elder."
--The clergy is replaced by a lay ministry;
--Babies are clean and holy, to be blessed and loved;
--People are told they are children of God with limitless potential;
--Marriage and family are forever;
--Nobody goes to Hell because the Gospel is preached to all, even those in the grave, and baptism is performed for all, including those in the grave;
--People live healthier and freer from addiction;
--People live quiet, happy little lives, free from the fear of death.
--People focus on building up their families and communities;
--Elderly men are honored as "high priests."
--The collected learning and experience of the community is channeled into a church run by its most successful people for the betterment of the community.

Roger Morrison wrote:Hi JAK, you said:

Roger,

You make important points. It seems to me that you are really recognizing the roles of heredity and environment. No one has the same in either. As a result change appears to be certain. While people may not be free “to have their own take,” they do have a unique combination of heredity and environment which produce change.

So while “change” is inevitable, it is “slow moving” in many cases. Those who break with traditions in a dramatic way change more rapidly than those who adhere to traditions in the main and only tinker around the edges with “change.” (Bold added by RM)

JAK

Nice to have you recognize that. The 'bolded' in fact is the crux of my book, "Copulating Luck In Our (Sort Of) Christian World". In essence we are products of factors over which we have absolutely no say. Conceived in lust/love wealth/poverty by fools/geniuses, bodily shaped--including IQ/EQ--by a genetic chain that might be 'sound', full of 'weak-links', or more probable a combination of both.

We hit-the-floor totally helpless and dependent on those who cut-the-cord and clean us up. YIKES!! To that point: LUCK! From that point: LUCK! YIKES!!

Obviously some of us are luckier, on both counts, than are others. Certainly, choices do become available as we mature. Some will make good ones. Others not so. Some will seek independence. Others will submit. Leaders. Followers. Creatives. Workers. Drones. ???? Whatever, to a GREAT degree dependent on the luck of the LOVE they experience after their personal beginning butt-slap.

This understanding leads me to two conclusions:

1. There but for the luck-of-the-draw (grace of "God") go I. This should lead to compassion rather than condemnation, generally speaking. Begs the questions: where are those found, and by whom are they administered?

2. "One size, of anything, doesn't fit all." In our attempts to conform, ourselves & others to culture, edicts, trends, advice, we too often destroy natural ("God" given) talents and traits that are losses to our community/Universe. CHANGE is too often too unsettling to the established fearful and timid. Who it must be remembered are themselves 'products' of their luck. Requiring patience, understanding and encouagement. Evolution of humanity is a very slow process. However, it is ongoing. To be expedited or discouraged by none other than humanity itself.

As the original poster suggests, I think (?) a "Wider View" would/will serve us better than the narrow, restrictive, constrictive norms that generally tend to reign us in?? Warm regards, Roger

I am so gullible: I actually went to amazon to search for the book - LOL.