kinda makes you wonder….

once again i outdid myself…

I think that “implication” is laughable. Fundamentalist share the same history up through the administration of Joseph F. Smith. At that point, we were seperated for not changing our covenants, ordinances, and doctrine. We also trace our priesthood lineage back to Christ, through the prophet Joseph Smith. Our testimony of the Book of Mormon is just as strong as any member of the corporate church. The early leaders of our church were considered Mormon, such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor, and we hold to the very same gospel they taught. Are we to believe that because some “Mormons” refused to reject the fulness of the gospel that they can no longer be called “Mormon”? Not to mention, the mainstream LDS church has distanced itself from the term ‘Mormon’. This is from the Newsroom at LDS.org, “While the term “Mormon Church” has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.”

We, the fundamentalist, don’t discourage it’s use. Gordon B. Hinckley may say that there’s no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist”, but yet……here I am!

As near as I can determine, Church policy officially declines to approve of terms like “Mormon fundamentalist”. Church officials occasionally speak out to correct media articles which employ such terms. I think the implication is that any kind of apostate schism is not a “branch” from the true Church, and deserves no kind of recognition simply by association or through any other source.

Nonetheless, I would be very careful to tarnish all Mormons who vote for Ron Paul (or even espouse similar ideology as you have suggested) with the NFLDS brush.”

Well said. Being I live in Southern Utah and drive by ranches in Paragonah with these sheet signs, I am paiting with a rather broad brush, but its broad to my provincial area.

So, unless I’m missing something, the NFLDS seem to be more partial to the non-professional opinions of the Cleon Skousens and Glenn Becks, to say nothing of the decidedly non-professional views of the long-dead Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and John Taylor.

This says it best: “…it would cement in the minds of a Neo-fundamentalist the divinity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints even if it isn’t directed by any divine dialectic. It would vindicate a few of these aforementioned prophecies, and reestablish segments of the LDS church that ensconces the political and economic. Intellectualism would give way to mysticism and theocracy as it did in the old days, thus neo-fundamentalism.”

Matt,

I have pointed in a post above to “prophets” being intellectuals. I think there are many professors and professionals who have and are warning us similar to how Jeremiah and Isaiah warned Israel. These modern professionals dont have “visions” but do use objective theories and probabilities that support their words.

I did a presentation on Avian Flu for one of my medical classes and was rather shocked as to how often and frequently flu pandemics have hit society. From a purely statistical medical standpoint, we are overdue for a flu pandemic.

Similar fears are posed over Global Warming etc. We must not live in fear but should live in preparedness and sustainability as you have rightly said. But the question of whether society is sustainable is another one entirely.

It’s not that I don’t think natural calamities or human-created destruction (war, disease, financial collapse) are not a threat to the earth or our civilization, it just makes me nervous when such threats are packaged with past or future prophetic revelation, “signs of the times,” and the very vague/metaphoric writing in books (i.e. the bible, etc.). It just feels so slippery, so open to interpretation, and so easy to manipulate to one’s advantage.

If Harry Potter, or the writings of Virgil or Homer, were reverenced the same way Christians reverence the Bible, or Scientologists reverence the Sci-Fi novels of L. Ron Hubbard, or NFLDS reverence the remarks of John Taylor, I have no doubt one could ferret out enough spine-tingling connections to events past, present, and future to convince one of his convictions, or to justify who knows what. For example, I’m worried some of this could be self-fulfilling.

So I’m all for preparedness and awareness of all that threatens the earth and our civilization, but must we connect it to the ambiguous utterances of men who lived hundreds, if not thousands of years ago, or the apocalyptic dreams and visions of men who live today? These writings/sayings/visions can literally mean anything you want them to mean. With the stakes as high as they are, I’m in favor of keeping our feet planted firmly on the ground where the literal and the rational reign.

As for fringe Mormon groups and looking to the future, I find the Mormon Transhumanists much more intriguing:

http://transfigurism.org/community/

An an anarchosyndicalist I can relate to some things you have proposed but I would hardly adopt all that you have labeled a neofundamentalist Mormon with as my “ideological tenants.”

Nonetheless, I would be very careful to tarnish all Mormons who vote for Ron Paul (or even espouse similar ideology as you have suggested) with the NFLDS brush.

In any case what appears to be some sort of mental disorder to one is religion to another.

“It’s really interesting to me, as a liberal, that there seems to be more suspicion among LDS about liberals and Democrats than there is about this sort of far-right wing ideology…??

The suspician is based upon liberals being closet espousers of a one-world government–be neo-conservative Wilsonians are even more desipsed. The political elements of neo-fundamentalism are fairly confederate and self-governing, almost anarchic. FLDS also see post 1968 political ideology as an increasing schism meant to tear people apart and creat a modern civil war–divide and conquer–to the bankers, financiers, and collectivists–all power brokers more than ideologues anyway.

A good indicater to see if someone is NFLD in your LDS sphere of influence–is he or she voting for Ron Paul?

WOW…your post is amazing!! I can definitely see that my political and faith position have partially alligned to your “neo-fundamentalist” view of Mormonism though I would hardly define myself as a pure neo-fundamentalist according to your definition.

I once heard Naomi Klein speak and she said, “The future will either be like ‘The Jetsons’ or like ‘Children of Men’. She seemed to suggest that it would be like ‘Children of Men’. I do not attempt to predict the future of eschatology as your Neofundamentalists do and shy away somewhat from using scripture.(Though I think the idea of the Constitution of America hanging by a thread is a truism in our day…see my coming essay in The Mormon Worker) and would not consider myself a pure “conspiracy theorist” though I believe in a conspiratorial powerful elite as demonstrated by my future essay in The Mormon Worker on the White House Coup d’etat by Fascist bankers and J.P. Morgan of 1933.. However, I align myself with the likes of Naomi Klein, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Rudolph Rocker. Pragmatic moralists!

Though I cant stand Glenn Beck I enjoy Benson and see Skousen’s Naked Capitalist as being fairly accurate…though I think the elites of power are driven by greed more then a desire for secrets. But I think only an ignoramous would deny, after studying the information, that there HAS NOT been a revolution of the super rich over the last 50 years!

As I can partially empathize with what you have talked about I will attempt to pose some answers to your question.This was my story.

I think the internet is an invaluable source for this “new millenialist” group of Mormons. I think these “New Order Mormons” are starting to learn the “truth”…and thus become disillusioned with the orthodox historical narrative of the church..yet they decide to remain. With mysekf..I have not only become disillusioned with the historical narrative of the church but also with the morality and efficacy of world government to care for its populous. I am not proud of certain aspects of church history and definitely not proud of my state or any state…I have specific vitriol for the hoarding elites of the Anglo-American economic aristocracy who are pushing turbo-capitalism!

When we cross this paradigm of “Mormon truth seekers” with the paradigm of a growing proportion of the cerebrally-stimulated internet users and perspicacious young moralists (who have also been disillusioned with their government through the Iraq War and have enquired as to why we went to war in the first place) we get a select group of people within the church who seek HONESTY…whilst maintaining their hopefullness in Christ.

So in answer to your question I think it differs due to:
-The internet
-Increased Knowledge of actual church history
-Increased knowledge of political history

What are prophets anyways? In my mind they are enlightened intellectuals. Just as Jeremiah warned of the destruction of a self-certain and wicked people, and was right…we are also listening to the honest warning of intellectuals and political/economic insiders…who will also be right whether it takes a hundred years or so…

Do you see yourself as a neo-fundamentalist?

I actually grew up in the ward Mr. Skousen lived in. As a kid, though, I had no idea this guy was the author of “The Naked Communist” and “The Naked Capitalist,” or the author of crackpot LDS theology (the “thousand years” series). He was always just the older guy who said “Amen” to every talk and prayer really loudly and bore his testimony monthly.

It’s really interesting to me, as a liberal, that there seems to be more suspicion among LDS about liberals and Democrats than there is about this sort of far-right wing ideology…