Prophets in New Mormonism

[_Sanctorian]

New Mormonism can never exist. Once you eliminate the authoritarian clout of the leadership, nothing in Mormonism stands. By eliminating the illusion of the leadership speaking for and on behalf of God, what motivates a typical Mormon to participate any further? in my opinion, very little.

To me, New Mormonism is nothing more than a made up ideal for those that can't quite cut the cord. Once enough friends and family leave and it becomes socially acceptable, those that participate in New Mormonism will finally leave as well. For the time being, they lack the ability to leave for social reason. Hence the creation of New Mormonism.

[_Maksutov]

It appears to me that there's already an experiment in New Mormonism called the Community of Christ. How is that going?

[_Kishkumen]

It appears to me that there's already an experiment in New Mormonism called the Community of Christ. How is that going?

I'll take issue with that. The Community of Christ is a fine tradition. No doubt about that. But it is pretty clear to me that it is just missing certain crucial pieces of Mormonism. I can understand Mormons that don't believe the Book of Mormon is ancient, but I can't buy Mormons who bracket Mormon scripture as canon. I also don't quite get the acceptance of the Triune Deity. Also, the transformation of the temple into a place of public reflection doesn't quite mesh with my understanding of Mormonism either.

Now, I can accept that other people see that as a perfectly legitimate form of Mormonism. I respect their tradition, but since they don't even really want to use the term Mormon....

[_Maksutov]

It appears to me that there's already an experiment in New Mormonism called the Community of Christ. How is that going?

I'll take issue with that. The Community of Christ is a fine tradition. No doubt about that. But it is pretty clear to me that it is just missing certain crucial pieces of Mormonism. I can understand Mormons that don't believe the Book of Mormon is ancient, but I can't buy Mormons who bracket Mormon scripture as canon. I also don't quite get the acceptance of the Triune Deity. Also, the transformation of the temple into a place of public reflection doesn't quite mesh with my understanding of Mormonism either.

Now, I can accept that other people see that as a perfectly legitimate form of Mormonism. I respect their tradition, but since they don't even really want to use the term Mormon....

They've certainly taken a big step towards some form of vanilla Protestantism and they seem to be in serious decline despite many tweaks of prax and dox. The various little offshoots attempted by Nemelka and our own Bharat and Nightlion don't seem to be bearing much fruit. The FLDS are probably not the best direction either. Sorry, Reverend, I've got nothin'. Maybe New Mormonism must occupy the cyber, er, spiritual, realm.

[_Kishkumen]

They've certainly taken a big step towards some form of vanilla Protestantism and they seem to be in serious decline despite many tweaks of prax and dox. The various little offshoots attempted by Nemelka and our own Bharat and Nightlion don't seem to be bearing much fruit. The FLDS are probably not the best direction either. Sorry, Reverend, I've got nothin'. Maybe New Mormonism must occupy the cyber, er, spiritual, realm.

My answer to this problem would, although it is probably yet another impractical dead end, nevertheless be this: recognize that Mormonism is a form of Hermetic-Freemasonic Christianity. It would be better to recognize Mormonism's roots and not view Mormonism itself as such a sui generis thing in order to mysticize it unnecessarily. Perhaps it would do some good to acknowledge where it comes from and seek understanding within that tradition instead of railing against or swooning over (depending on one's attitude) something that is ultimately misunderstood and orphaned from its own roots.

[_Johannes]

Kish, in order not to derail this thread with a debate about Hermeticism, I've started a new thread based on your post:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=43830

[_churchistrue]

Another post in this series. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/tad-ca ... storicity/

I review Tad Callister's devotional address at BYU this week where he kind of threw down the gauntlet on Book of Mormon historicity.

[_churchistrue]

Another blog post of mine today. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/teachi ... h-history/

A couple interesting ideas:

1. we're in the middle of watching the church try to change how history is taught. Oliver's Rod is an interesting case study in how it's doing that.
2. the implication of "study it out" on Book of Mormon translation