The 4 types of LDS Mormons

[Alphus and Omegus]

I posted this as a reply but I figured perhaps it might be of interest as a thread.

While I appreciate Dr. Shades for drawing a distinction between Internet and Chapel Mormonisms, I think it is a bit of an oversimplification. In my opinion, there are four types of LDS Mormons:

1) Orthodox Mormons. They believe whatever the General Authorities say and prima facie readings of scriptures. Most of them don't really examine their beliefs at all and so don't realize the GAs have shifted their views over the decades (Most Meldrum supporters are in this group but often gravitate toward group #3.)

2) Modulated Mormons. They disagree with various current GA teachings (such as LGBT issues or Book of Mormon historicity), but still think Mormonism is true in some regard. It may not be the only way to God, but they see it as good enough for them, considering that they see other faiths as equally flawed. This seems to be the Terryl Givens approach. Many Mormon professors and educated people are in this group. Modulated Mormons just want to get along with everyone, except for with the Far-Right Mormons.

3) Far-Right Mormons. They want to go back to the fire-and-brimstone of Bruce McConkie, or even the Curse of Cain (DezNats, Bundys, QAnoners, Skousenites, etc.) They actively hate the current GAs but don't usually challenge them in church, for fear of excommunication. These are the people that polygamist Mormons recruit from, but also the Denver Snuffer types.

4) Neo-Orthodox Mormons. This is the group the mopologists are in. They believe the current Mormon truth claims (Nephites were real, the Book of Abraham is ancient, Smith's multiple visions don't disprove him, etc) but reject other fundamentalist claims such as evolution being fake, the global flood being real, and that no other people were in the Americas besides those from Jared and Lehi's groups.

Almost no one is in the Neo-Orthodox group because its views are entirely contradictory. Dan Peterson and his friends claim to believe in science and yet reject science when it conflicts with their beliefs. Neo-Orthodox Mormons hate Modulated Mormonism because it basically accepts the "non-overlapping magisteria" approach where science and religion are kept separate. The Neo-Orthodox tend to take the position that science is wrong if it contradicts current Mormon doctrine.

Modulated Mormonism is regarded as a "sell-out" viewpoint by the Neo-Orthodox, as numerous people in the Interpreter orbit have indicated. But Neo-Orthodox Mormonism is a "sell-out" position if you ask the Far-Right Mormons. They consider everyone else to be corrupt tools of Satan.

The vast majority of Mormons are Orthodox Mormons. They have no idea that the other 3 groups exist. Nor are they likely ever to learn of them.

Edit: I changed the second category name to "Modulated Mormons" to avoid political connotations that weren't intended.

[drumdude]

*Latter day saints

[Alphus and Omegus]

*Latter day saints

Technically no. The "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" is actually the Strangite denomination. The "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is the largest Mormon denomination.

It's actually more confusing to refer to Russ Nelson's church in the way that he prefers. Even his short name is confusing since there are multiple "Churches of Jesus Christ"

Church of Christ, Temple Lot
Church of Christ (the Fettingites)
Church of Jesus Christ (the Cutlerites)
The Church of Jesus Christ (the Bickertonites)
Church of Christ With the Elijah Message
Church of Jesus Christ in Madagascar (Obviously not affiliated with/Mormonism)
Church of Jesus Christ–Christian (a white nationalist group not affiliated with/Mormonism)
Restored Church of Jesus Christ
Holy Church of Jesus Christ
Church of Jesus Christ (Original Doctrine)

There are even more listed on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ

[Philo Sofee]

*Latter day saints

Technically no. The "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" is actually the Strangite denomination. The "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is the largest Mormon denomination.

It's actually more confusing to refer to Russ Nelson's church in the way that he prefers. Even his short name is confusing since there are multiple "Churches of Jesus Christ"

Church of Christ, Temple Lot
Church of Christ (the Fettingites)
Church of Jesus Christ (the Cutlerites)
The Church of Jesus Christ (the Bickertonites)
Church of Christ With the Elijah Message
Church of Jesus Christ in Madagascar (Obviously not affiliated with/Mormonism)
Church of Jesus Christ–Christian (a white nationalist group not affiliated with/Mormonism)
Restored Church of Jesus Christ
Holy Church of Jesus Christ
Church of Jesus Christ (Original Doctrine)

There are even more listed on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ

It's time to give Satan back his victory - silly Mormons.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

I don't really see much difference between the "Orthodox" and "Neo-Orthodox," other than I guess the "Neo" group likes to argue about where the fairy tale might have taken place?

Yet the "Liberal" group isn't quite the same as what I would call "Quietly Nuanced." The Quietly Nuanced aren't necessarily liberals. They may or may not agree with the GAs on gay rights, or they might believe that Mormonism is God's "One True Church." Some of that group would strongly object to being characterized as "liberal."

But they aren't orthodox either. I would cluster this group around the idea that their faith doesn't rest on whether the Book of Mormon is a historical document left in the ground by an actual person named Moroni. They're comfortable accepting it as a divinely-inspired fable, which puts them firmly outside the orthodox groups, and they're certainly not far-right, but they might agree that homosexuality is a sort of "disability" or a sin. They might accept Joseph as a prophet, but also acknowledge that he did some bad things. They may respect the current prophet, but may or may not think that everything that dribbles out of his mouth comes straight from Jesus. They may or may not believe that women should hold the priesthood, or that they will someday, but that it hasn't been revealed yet. They're really not liberals.

I think this group draws a lot on the theological richness of Mormonism, but they don't dare speak up on Sundays, so they're not recognized as existing, or they're lumped in with the liberals or with the orthodox, despite not really fitting either.

They would still define themselves as staunch believers, and may not have doubts about whether "the church is true." But if they spoke up at church, they at least believe they would be ostracized, and they're probably right. I doubt it's any safer than it was 20 years ago to express such ideas in most wards.

[Free Ranger]

I'd include Humanistic Mormon, or a free-range Mormon (as I heard someone describe themselves). These are people who resonate with Mormonism as a philosophy but don't attend any church or subscribe to any institutional dogma. So after they have thought about it, they don't consider themselves Buddhist or Catholic or Jewish or merely Atheist, their philosophical identity is Mormon.

[Alphus and Omegus]

I'd include Humanistic Mormon, or a free-range Mormon (as I heard someone describe themselves). These are people who resonate with Mormonism as a philosophy but don't attend any church or subscribe to any institutional dogma. So after they have thought about it, they don't consider themselves Buddhist or Catholic or Jewish or merely Atheist, their philosophical identity is Mormon.

How is that different from what I described as Liberal Mormonism?

[Alphus and Omegus]

I don't really see much difference between the "Orthodox" and "Neo-Orthodox," other than I guess the "Neo" group likes to argue about where the fairy tale might have taken place?

That is the essential difference. The Neo-Orthodox want to pretend that they still believe in science, even though they also believe in unscientific things like ancient Jewish Indians. Ultimately, this neither-fish-nor-foul attitude is not really appealing to anyone. And it's why the younger generation of Mormon apologists is so different from the Boomer Neo-Orthodox crowd that founded mopologetics.

Yet the "Liberal" group isn't quite the same as what I would call "Quietly Nuanced." The Quietly Nuanced aren't necessarily liberals. They may or may not agree with the GAs on gay rights, or they might believe that Mormonism is God's "One True Church." Some of that group would strongly object to being characterized as "liberal."

But they aren't orthodox either. I would cluster this group around the idea that their faith doesn't rest on whether the Book of Mormon is a historical document left in the ground by an actual person named Moroni. They're comfortable accepting it as a divinely-inspired fable, which puts them firmly outside the orthodox groups, and they're certainly not far-right, but they might agree that homosexuality is a sort of "disability" or a sin. They might accept Joseph as a prophet, but also acknowledge that he did some bad things. They may respect the current prophet, but may or may not think that everything that dribbles out of his mouth comes straight from Jesus. They may or may not believe that women should hold the priesthood, or that they will someday, but that it hasn't been revealed yet. They're really not liberals.

I think this group draws a lot on the theological richness of Mormonism, but they don't dare speak up on Sundays, so they're not recognized as existing, or they're lumped in with the liberals or with the orthodox, despite not really fitting either.

When I use the word "liberal," I mean it in the original philosophical sense, that is educated and open-minded. Certainly, many of the people who are Liberal Mormons would not identify as "liberal" in the American political sense. It is true, however, that there is a politically progressive tradition that is developing in Mormonism that is based on this belief-set.

Perhaps "Nuanced Mormon" is a better descriptor. Or how about "Modulated Mormons?"

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

I don't really see much difference between the "Orthodox" and "Neo-Orthodox," other than I guess the "Neo" group likes to argue about where the fairy tale might have taken place?

That is the essential difference. The Neo-Orthodox want to pretend that they still believe in science, even though they also believe in unscientific things like ancient Jewish Indians. Ultimately, this neither-fish-nor-foul attitude is not really appealing to anyone. And it's why the younger generation of Mormon apologists is so different from the Boomer Neo-Orthodox crowd that founded mopologetics.

It's really interesting you mention this, because just the other day I was catching up with my mom. She was telling me about a family that I grew up with in our ward. At the time, they had six kids, so my siblings and I pretty much each had a friend or two among them. I was in high school when they moved away to Idaho and wound up having 11 kids total before the mother's uterus fell out before Heavenly Father stopped giving them Spirit Children to incarnate.

I think we would agree they are solidly in the "Orthodox" category: Whatever the prophet said was above question and to be followed with immediate exactness. But theologically-speaking, they had almost nothing going on. Absolute unquestioning obedience to the Brethren was their religion in a totally unexamined way.

So, fast-forward a few decades....some members of our family have kept in touch with some members of their family....and my TBM mother was stunned to learn that, not only does the Eleventy Family not believe in vaccines (we already knew that), but they're flirting with your "Far-Right" category. They aren't Snufferites. They aren't Dez-Nat. They don't believe in the curse of Cain.

This family has now come to believe that the current GAs and the prophet are in apostasy over the Covid vaccine. They're even flirting with the idea that Russell M. Nelson is going to be unseated very soon, at which point the righteous will be gathered up by the TRUE prophet in order to physically restore Israel by....moving en masse to Kansas City....

I would put my mom into the "Orthodox" category, and she had no idea that this kind of thing even existed within Mormonism. She thinks the Eleventy Family have lost their damn minds.

However, my point in all this is that the Eleventy Family also completely believe that science is on their side. They don't discount science; they claim to value it, but then believe all kinds of wildly unscientific conclusions that they arrived at by wildly unscientific reasoning.

Mormons are almost FORCED to embrace science (at least ostensibly), because the empirical claims of Mormonism press the issue. If there really were Lamanites, and the last surviving one really did record their history and bury it---as every orthodox Mormon believes---then that's an empirical claim. They HAVE to claim that they value science, or else it's an admission that the bedrock story of Mormonism is a myth, and that is unacceptable.

Yet the Eleventy Family never engaged in apologetics as far as I know. If the Holy Ghost didn't give you a witness, then no amount of tapirs and limited geography was going to help. You just needed to pray harder and more sincerely or you just weren't being honest with yourself. They LOVE free inquiry and free agency! So long as everybody winds up drawing the same conclusions from it.

They're not Orthodox. They're not Neo-Orthodox. They're not Far-Right. It's a Venn diagram and they're all three!

When I use the word "liberal," I mean it in the original philosophical sense, that is educated and open-minded. Certainly, many of the people who are Liberal Mormons would not identify as "liberal" in the American political sense. It is true, however, that there is a politically progressive tradition that is developing in Mormonism that is based on this belief-set.

Perhaps "Nuanced Mormon" is a better descriptor. Or how about "Modulated Mormons?"

I didn't think you meant the "Liberal" group is politically liberal---at least not necessarily. They probably lean left politically. If they aren't outright supportive of gay rights, they at least think revelation is going to tell us how gays can righteously fulfill their sexuality. Jim Bennett would be a good example of a Liberal Mormon, but he certainly comes from solid Republican stock.

Where you're distinguishing between "Orthodox" and "Neo-Orthodox" based on their (claimed) interest in science, I would distinguish "Liberal" from "Quietly Nuanced" in that the Quietly Nuanced may be straight-up political conservatives (anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, pro-gun, etc.). Yet they also have no problem reinterpreting the most basic tenets of orthodox Mormonism, like the First Vision, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, church exclusivity claims, prophetic leadership, even the sealing keys. Yet they define themselves as devout LDS, and they mine the Mormon traditions for every bit of theological gold they can find.

I would put my sister in this category. She's not quite so politically conservative, but she's not in the Bennett/Givens mold either. She's reinterpreted standard doctrines by using her brain and her understanding of personal revelation, and she doesn't see any contradiction in doing that.

I think the Liberal group does see a contradiction there. So eventually they wind up saying something publicly, and then it's just a matter of time. How long can Richard Bushman claim to be a literalist believer, when he's said publicly that the literal paradigm is false and unsustainable?

We could even add some more categories for the inactive, such as:

Cultural Mormon: Inactive, but you'd hardly know it. They're still deeply tied to the Mormon community, and their behavior may still be mostly temple-worthy. They still say "fetch" and blush at R-rated movies. They might still be believers and were forced out involuntarily (Lavina Anderson, Michael Quinn). If they're not believers anymore, they're still quick to defend the church and appreciate wholesome family values. Don't call this group on Monday evenings; they're probably tied up.

Heritage Mormon: I'd put myself, and my children, into this category. Non-active, non-believing, and only loosely tied to the Mormon community, but still linked to it by blood or upbringing and thus inevitably shaped by the culture. Includes inactive members of record (Jack Mormons), as well as close relatives who have never been members. Unsustainable for more than one or two generations, because the church allows for no means of expressing this identity. Secular kids with Jewish parents say: "I'm Jewish." My kids say: "My mom was raised Mormon."

PIMO: Active, but non-believing, "Physically In, Mentally Out." If "Far-Right" is the scariest group, PIMOs are the saddest group. I suspect there are a lot of them, too. Whether it's to keep their family together, or because they just don't know how to make the break, they're continuing to participate, but they don't really want to and are often living a sort of double life. Maybe this also includes people who find some social benefit in continued membership, but, unlike the Quietly Nuanced, PIMOs know the whole thing is a crock of crap.

Exmo: Still linked to the church by their (often unequivocal) rejection of its doctrine. Not every member who goes inactive is Exmo. Moving into this group is often a painful transition. The Orthodox are just one faith crisis away from Exmo. Distinguished from Cultural in that they decidedly DO NOT believe any of it, even symbolically. They may or may not think the church has some admirable qualities, or they may or may not think the church is a dangerous cult that needs to be exposed (or both). Exmo social groups and organizations still have a uniquely Mormon flavor, and they often still have a high degree of interest in church news. Distinguished from Heritage Mormons in that Exmos often used to be devout believers, and are therefore more influenced by and invested in their Mormon identity.


That was fun! Thanks for starting this thread! Again, I don't claim to "be correct" about this. I'm just tossing out ideas.

[Free Ranger]

I'd include Humanistic Mormon, or a free-range Mormon (as I heard someone describe themselves). These are people who resonate with Mormonism as a philosophy but don't attend any church or subscribe to any institutional dogma. So after they have thought about it, they don't consider themselves Buddhist or Catholic or Jewish or merely Atheist, their philosophical identity is Mormon.

How is that different from what I described as Liberal Mormonism?

I guess because you wrote:

"2) Liberal Mormons. They disagree with various current GA teachings (such as LGBT issues or Book of Mormon historicity), but still think Mormonism is true in some regard. It may not be the only way to God, but they see it as good enough for them, considering that they see other faiths as equally flawed. This seems to be the Terryl Givens approach. Many Mormon professors and educated people are in this group. Liberal Mormons just want to get along with everyone, except for with the Far-Right Mormons."

You seemed to couch the Liberal Mormon as both theologically and politically "liberal." By saying Terryl Givens follows this approach, you left out humanistic Mormons because Givens is more of a believer in the supernatural. I don't consider myself a liberal/progressive anymore, but I do have some liberal political views. I guess I found the term "Liberal" problematic. A fourth category of Humanistic Mormon or Free-Range Mormon, I thought clarified things by leaving out political Liberals and those like Givens.