Reform Mormonism a Poll

“Evolution seems to make so much sense to me; but the creation story is beautiful and is so satisfying in many ways. Certainly there must be an explanation between the two.”

Disagree. Perhaps they are both true: one allegorically and the other literally. And perhaps the allegorical truth is the more important truth, eternally-speaking.

“I don’t understand why the Church excommunicates intellectuals. Do we all have to have the same exact opinions or view of history? We don’t have anything to be afraid of, do we?”
Disagree, agree, disagree = disagree.

I do understand why the Church excommunicates intellectuals. Apostasy or preaching against the Brethren.
And we do have much to be afraid of. Very afraid…(insert evil laughter here)

“God only gives the Priesthood to males.Knowing that women used to be allowed to give blessings in the Church but aren’t really allowed to now also seems strange.”
Agree, disagree.

It is true that God only gives the Priesthood to males (at this time…?) But knowing that some women (I have no idea how many) may have given blessings in the past (were they Priesthood blessings? I don’t know) isn’t strange. If they weren’t Priesthood blessings, women could still give them today. It’s called a prayer of faith, or praying in the name of Christ. Most don’t pray in the form of a laying-on-of-hands blessing, but that’s more likely cultural than anything. If they were Priesthood blessings in the past, the evolution of our understanding of who bears the Priesthood and how it is used would explain why women don’t give Priesthood blessings today.

In summary, I’m not a Reform Mormon.

I can understand not agreeing with the church 100% and wishing to reform it. But leaving the church and joining a Facebook group?

Seriously, that’s their solution to an imperfect church? A Facebook group?

I admit there’s a lot of things I would like to see the church improve on, but the idea that people would be better off leaving the church and joining a Facebook group is laughable.

Oh yeah, and the Community of Christ also believes this stuff, so why not just join them if you don’t like LDS teachings? Why create a new denomination?

If any of you can see an email address to reformmormonism please let me know. I would like to invite them to respond to some of your comments.

I’m curious how they can say: “We believe that whatever is waiting for us after this life does not include judgement or condemnation.” … and then immediately under it, say: “We believe in leading moral lives, and in building a healthy moral construct throughout our lives. We believe in being accountable for our decisions.”

How can you be “accountable for your decisions” without judgment or condemnation? How do you define “moral” lives and constructs without defining what counts as “immoral” lives and constructs at the same time? Isn’t defining “moral” and “immoral” in the first place inherently “judgmental”?

I don’t love the smug tone of the site either (or the smug looks on the faces of the couple above). Most lay members feel similarly to these things without forming a new religion, I mean Facebook group. To paint with such a broad brush seems unfair and strawman-esque. If you follow the logic here, the majority of Mormons (not just the vocal minority) are sort of idiotic, and never get bored by repetitive content and are bigoted and are anti-science. Yet, various members of the 12 decry those same things. I’m fine with picking and choosing our interpretations and which leaders we find most compelling. This just seems to ignore the voices within the church that already agree with these points, and IMO, there are many people they are overlooking or rather, looking down their nose at.

Starting a new religion stopped being cool the minute heresy stopped carrying the risk of being burned at the stake.

I’m with the Dalai Lama on this one: Unless the religion of your birth isn’t actually blocking the development of your faith, or you are led to a tradition that is clearly more ennobling to you than where you are, grow where you’re planted. While you are ultimately accountable to the truth as you are given to understand it, and must be true to your properly-informed conscience even if it conflicts with your received tradition, at the same time, there has to be at least something to help keep you from the too-easy temptation to create a god in your own image — a god who conveniently never disagrees with you. Otherwise, you end up making an idol of yourself.

KMB:

“We believe that whatever is waiting for us after this life does not include judgement or condemnation.”

I think a better question is why do they believe this? Is it because either rational thought, or coherent spiritual experience has led them to this conclusion, or is it just wishful thinking? My guess is that it is the latter, given that their quest for knowledge, as per their website, really has no epistemological basis – just what we can learn from experience. That works fine on an individual basis I think, but it doesn’t really give much oomph to an organization with an institutional belief structure. In other words, their message seems to be about advocating the individual by breaking down institutional barriers, but they have created an institution to do that. Doesn’t really make sense to me.

– “Are you saying that you find it hard to believe that you can be good unless their is some sort of judgement in place or that its hard to be good without knowing their is a reward or a punishment.”

You don’t need the fear of a judgment in the afterlife to be “good” (however that’s defined), but what does “accountable for your decisions” mean, then? Accountable to whom, and how?

It’s perfectly fine to believe there is no “final judgment” in the afterlife, but if there is no difference in the afterlife regardless of what you choose, then how are you “accountable” for your actions? Good, evil, it makes no difference what you choose then, doesn’t it?

– “Simple, we’re accountable in this life. Not everyone leads a moral life because they fear some penalty (or seek some reward) in the next life! In fact, I daresay most people (including most Mormons) live moral lives because they “love God” or just feel it’s the right thing to do.”

How (and to whom) are we “accountable” in this life, according to this definition? “Accountability” refers to accepting the results of one’s own actions and decisions. There’s two ways to look at it:

Natural accountability, where the results are inherent in the action itself — gaining weight if you eat too much and don’t exercise, for example, or going broke due to gambling or drug habits.

Outside accountability, where society decides on “correct” and “incorrect” actions, and either rewards “correct” behavior, or imposes punishments on “incorrect” behavior, even in cases where the offender personally believes their actions or decisions were not “incorrect” at all.

Natural accountability is…natural. It makes no sense for a church to take a position that “mankind should (or shouldn’t) be [naturally] accountable for our actions” if the results and consequences are inherent in the choice. They’ll happen regardless of whether we “support” them or not.

But if you reject ‘outside accountability’ in the afterlife — the idea that God will reward “good” people and punish “bad” according to His own definition of good and bad — how can you be “accountable” in *this* life without someone doing exactly the same thing: deciding general standards of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and punishing/rewarding people appropriately? If it’s bad that God “judges” based on behavior, isn’t it worse to have other humans “judge” based on behavior? But without someone “judging” right and wrong, how are you accountable for anything in this life?

I’m sticking to my original question: how can you have “accountability” without “judgement” and “condemnation”? I submit you can’t. No “judgement” in this life or the next means no accountability, period.

#17 Thomas said: I’m with the Dalai Lama on this one: Unless the religion of your birth isn’t actually blocking the development of your faith, or you are led to a tradition that is clearly more ennobling to you than where you are, grow where you’re planted.

Well said, Thomas. I like that a lot.

My guess is that if I were to reform, there might be some things I like…but then some things that their organization (if you can call it that) would really bother me and not sit right with me. It is run by people. It will have its flaws too.

I think I’ll keep trying to grow where I’m planted rather than pull up my roots and start over with no clear compelling reason I would grow faster there.

KMB: I’ll take a quick stab. I’m no expert on accountability, but I think that when atheists, agnostics, existentialists, universalists, etc. talk about accountability, they mean personal accountability. In other words, you are responsible to yourself for acting in a way that brings you peace of conscience, and you take responsibility for your actions when they do not meet your personal ideals. Whether your own interpretation of ethics is inborn or acculturated is immaterial in this context, and it will certainly result in one person’s ethics conflicting with another person’s. The point is that for these people, there isn’t a universal moral imperative.

In a societal context, where organizations and governments impose moral obligations (don’t kill, don’t steal, etc.) upon individuals that are part of those groups, I believe many people who ascribe to the philosophies listed above would consider it a point of accountability to own up to any disobedience to civil law, and to accept the consequences of their actions. What these people, and what I believe the Reform Mormons reject, is framing accountability in terms of divine law with eternal rewards or punishments. At no point do I think they are advocating hedonism or anarchy.

jmb275 & SteveS:

I think I failed to articulate my objections adequately. Simply put, I’m not interested in another contrived philosophy, particularly one that openly admits to being such, ie, a system of personal growth and discovery. What I meant by cherry-picking the doctrines is, if you more or less reject the well (I know they accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet, but all bets are off as to the truth) from which beliefs are drawn, then it doesn’t serve any purpose to then choose to believe the doctrines that make you feel good about yourself. On what basis do they accecpt the pre-existence, for example, if not revelation? If they have no generally accepted procedure for establishing absolute truth, then what good does establishing speculative belief serve? I am not saying that I believe that the Mormon Church is true – in fact I don’t, but I don’t feel the need to create a list beliefs for which I have no reason to accept beyond wishful thinking. According to that standard I believe in Superman – and even better I’m him! Why not, right?

Personally I am not a fan of creating an epistomology that is really just a statement of what it is not. It’s not creating something new. And while the PR of the Mormon Church fails to appeal to me on another level (the Stepford-like naivete), these smug 20 somethings really say it all. Equally unappealing, but in a whole different way!

Well said, Hawkgrrrl.

For me, I’d rather join the Jedi church before the reform mormon church.
http://www.jedi-church.com/

It also teaches you can believe whatever faith you believe, and you can read from whatever scriptures you want…but you get to go through training and BECOME A JEDI! How cool is that!

I mean, the Jedi church has testimonials like this:
Gail Porter: – “The Jedi Church is So Fun”

How can you argue with that?

18 — We all pick, but that doesn’t mean we all cherry-pick. And the standards we use for picking are not all the same, and say a lot about us. Do we pick things because we want them to be true? Because we really believe them to be true? Because they are easy and comfortable? Because they are hard and challenging? Because experience has taught us that they work? Because they let us do what we want to do? Because they tell us not to do what we are drawn to do?

I will accept that we are all Cafeteria Mormons. But I will not accept that it makes no difference if we fill our plates from the dessert table, or from the greasy-cheesy table, or if we make healthier and more balanced choices. Choosing the Easy always isn’t something I’m going to respect as much as Choosing the Right, even when it’s challenging.

Ok, It’s a joke right. South Parks guys again? Seems like they took standard Mormon Doctrine and just created an opposing view to almost everything.

James,

“But we must never forget that whether we are Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, or Orthodox, we are all an essential part of K’lal Yisrael-the worldwide community of Jewry.”

Reform Jews may feel this way, but they same cannot be said of all sects of Judaism.

Also, I am in agreement that totally orthodox, all-believing, unequivocating LDS members are the exception, not the rule.

To further Jeff’s point: “totally orthodox, all-believing, unequivocating LDS members are the exception, not the rule,” basing an entire creed (or whatever you call it) as a refutation of the same is the definition of a straw-man argument.

Skeptic – I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to excommunicate me. I can’t imagine how anyone who has watched both series could not prefer the Ron Moore version. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Ron Moore’s version is true, or at least a heckuva lot better.

With the exception of paid preachers, they resemble the teaching of Nehor in the Book of Mormon.

James,
Thanks for the blog entry on Reform Mormonism. The reason I prefer Reform Mormonism to Unitarianism is that I accept the basic theology/cosmology that Joseph Smith laid out in his King Follett Doctrine. Joseph envisoned a new religious paradigm–what we Reform Mormons call “The Mormon Paradigm” which is clearlyt at odds with tradiitonal monothiesm. The Mormon Paradigm rejects creationism, is predicated on the conept that the elements are etrenal and uncreated, that there is no such thing as immaterial matter; it embarces polytheism; envisions each individual as an UN-created entity who is not dependent on a God for existence, but who must learn to become a God him or herself. Also Reform Mormonism embrace a concept of God that Jospeh Smith embraced at the end of his life but which the LDS Church and other Mormon denominations have rejected or explained away: that a God is a LIMITED being–limited with regard to time and space in the same way as any thing else which exists. Reform Mormons envision Gods as human beings who are exalted through acquiring knowledge, cultivating virtue, etc.–and Reform Mormon meditate on such a vision of Deity not as a source of supernatural help or divine salvation–not as objects of worship–but as inspiration for pursuing a course of eternal progression, learning and betterment.

A few things to point out to your readers who have posted comments here:

Reform Mormonism is NOT a church. We are individuals who embrace the Mormon Paradigm of Eternal Progress, and who socialize through Masonic-like Endowment ordinaces–in much the same way that Joseph Smith founded Endowment Quorums and Annointing Quorum in Nauvoo which were separate form the church. (Most modern LDS have no idea that some membebs of these Endowment Quorums were not even members of the church.)

Reform Mormons are NOT Latter-day Saints. The followers of Joseph Smith were originally called Mormons or Mormonites; it was Sydney Rigdon who convinced Joseph and the Mormons in Kirtland to begin calling themselves “Latter Day Saints.”

Many Reform Mormons come from Mormon dneominations OTHER than the LDS Church. For instance some come from the RLDS Church (Community of Christ), some come from the Stangite LDS Church. A surprising number have no previous connection with any Mormon denomination; they have come across Joseph Smith and Mormonism through their personal studies of comparative religions or through the study of American history; they were astounded and inspired by the later teachings of Joseph Smith, and were in truth converted to central concepts of his Nauvoo-era theology, but upon investigating the LDS Church or other Mormon denominations were disappointed to find that Joseph’s most unique doctrines have either been watered dow or rejected. In Reform Mormonism they have found what they are looking for.

From among other things, Reform Mormonism also grew out of the “New Mormon History” movement. In the late 1990′s, Mike Richan (the founder of the movement) of Seattle rediscovered a love of Mormonism when he began reading the many works by various “New Mormon History” historians. Mike had been raised in a devout Utah LDS home, had served a mission to the Palmyra, NY area in the early 1980′s, but had–upon returning hom from his mission–left the LDS Church, renouncing his LDS Church membership. Mke experienced the entire cycle of resentment, anger, depression, and finally relief that so many experience when they either are excommunicated or leave the LDS Church of their own freewill and choice after years of devotion. Years passed, and Mike was perfectly happy having left his Mormon past behind him. Then he began reading the works of “New Mormon History” historians, and he discovered a religious and cultural legacy that is far more colorful, dynamic,profound, contadictory,confusing and exhiliierating than the watered-down Sunday Shcool fable that the LDS Church puts forth. Eventually Mike re-embraced Mormonism–but not the LDS Church.

I will assume that some who have posted here known only the version of the Mormon story that the LDS Church offers. They probably can’t concieve of one being a Mormon apart from being LDS. In short, they are like the devout old-school Catholic who truly believes that no Protestant can be a Christian; that to be Catholic is to be Christian, and that to be Christian means to be Catholic.

The truth about WORLD WIDE Mormonism is so much broader than the claims of the LDS Church. There are dozens upon dozen of Mormon denominations–many of who never accepted Brigahm Young’s claims, or the theology that he, Heber C. Kimball and Orson Pratt created in the late 1840′s and early 1850′s to justify things such as plural marriage, Patriarchal rule, theocracy, the doctine that our spirits were sexually begotten by a Heavenly Father and literally born to a Heavenly Mother, etc. SO MANY doctrines and church policies that most LDS assume originated with Joseph Smith, were in fact created years (even decades or a century) after his untimely death. Not only does the modern LDS Church bear little resemblence to the Mormonism of Joseph Smith’s day–but the LDS Church of Brigham Young’s day also bore little resemblence to the Mormonism of Joseph Smith’s day.
Most LDS don’t even know that according to US law the RLDS Church (the Community of Christ) is recognized as the original church organized according to the laws of New York State by Joseph Smith,Oliver Cowdery and others in 1830. This is why the LDS Church doesn’t own the such important Mormon history sites as the Kirtland Temple, the Temple Lot in Independence, the Joseph Smith Nauvoo home, the Joseph Smith Red Brick Store in Nauvoo (the only place Joseph Smith ever performed the Endowment ceremonies), or the Joseph Smith cememtary in Nauvoo.

Someone wrote above that we Reform Mormons had left the LDS Church and merely created a Facebook page. In fact, Reform Mormonism is a legally recognized religious denomination founded according to the laws of Washington state. Reform Mormons use numerous internet social networks, and sponsor several blogs and websites.

Rob,

I find your story similar to most apostates, they can leave the church, but they can’t leave it alone.

Carson:

Just an observation.

You’re welcome, Steve.

Dear KEN S.:

I’m not sure what you mean about my not “leaving the church alone”…since that is exactly what I HAVE done.
If membership in the LDS Church brings meaning to one’s life; if it gives them sounds spiritual, moral or intellectual guidance; if they honestly believe its claims, then they should by all means embrace it.
I DO disagree with many of the LDS Church’s claims, its theology and its version of Mormon history. I don’t attack the Church for these things; I simply ignore it.
Understand that the “Reform” in Reform Mormonism does not mean that we are attempting to reform the LDS Church (or the RLDS, FLDS or any other LDS church, sect or group.)
Rather we embrace a different (reformed) approach to Mormonism generally. We embrace the unfinished reformation of Mormonism that Joseph Smith began in Nauvoo during the last few years of his life–a reformation that included new doctrines (many explained in the King Follet discourse), new Masonic-like ordinances (Endowments, Sealings and Adoptions), more positive and liberal attitudes regarding human sexuality (evidenced in Joseph’s private letter to Nancy Rigdon, in which he gave his reasons for proposing that she become one of his plural wives; also evidenced in Parley P.Pratt’s classic missionary tract, “Intelligence & Affection”) and his Four Fundamental Grand Principles of Mormonism (principles that are virtually unknown to LDS Mormons). As part of Joseph’s unfinished reformation he even went so far as to try and step down as Prophet and President of the church because, as he said, he no longer had any desire to be known as a prophet.

If any of the above is new to you, I suggest you read an excellent essay on this little known chapter in Mormon history by linking on to the following:

http://www.reformmormonism.org/lib/index.htm

I must admit, KEN, that I had to laugh to myself when you called me an “apostate.” Espcially since the LDS Church itself does not give me that label. I resigned my membership from the LDS Church years ago–without a trial, without excommunication and with no condemnation from the Church or its leadership. In fact, the official letter from the LDS Church wished me well, and stated that if I ever wanted to be rebaptized into the LDS Church, I need only contact a local bishop.

Over the years I’ve notived something about people who have spentt years in rather strict religious communities (of which the LDS Church is certainly one–and in writing this, I do NOT fault the LDS Church for being strict)–people who have never question that community’s beliefs, dogma or norms–people who have never been a vital part of any other religious community.
That something is this: when someone converts to their particular community, they tend to assume that the convert has had no deep or profound experience of God prior to conversion. Likewise they assume that anyone leaving their particular religious community is turning their back on God–actively rebelling against God, goodness and virtue.
They have a difficult time wrapping their minds around the reality that many people having had a deep and abiding relationship with Deity independent of their particular religious community, or any other religious community.

In the face of this short-sightedness on the part of so many, I take comfort in the teachings of the American Prophet, Joseph Smith: while one segment of the human race is denouncing another as sinful, fallen and apostate, God Himself looks upon all of us with the love and tender regard of a parent.

Knowing my own heart and my own relationship to my Heavenly Parents, to be called an apostate by you or anyone else is rather like being told by a biological brother or sister that I have alienated myself from our biological parents–when all the while I have an open, honest, profoundly close relationship with those parents.

Ken are you trolling?

“Almost every critic I have meet [sic]”

You’ve decided that Rob is a “critic”, have you? He was invited here to give his perspective on the topic of the post, which is Reform Mormonism. You are also a critic, and you and people like you have predictably attempted to discredit anybody who was a member in the past and who now disagrees with your religion with a pathetic cry of “you can’t just leave it alone, can you?”

I don’t think I can ever get people like you to understand this but here it is: people who have left the church after living in it for their entire lives sometimes have opinions about the church afterwards (shocking!). Sometimes they express their thoughts about the church, especially when they are respectfully invited to. It’s simply ridiculous that a guy can spend his entire life, literally decades, growing up in the church and then after he decides to leave it, the very second he opens his mouth to talk about the organization that shaped his entire life and worldview from the beginning he is met by a smug repetition of that moronic “they can’t leave it alone” phrase.

Ken S

I am an active member of the LDS Church. Your comments are appalling to me. If the Celestial Kingdom is solely going to be filled with people who have the same attitude towards other religious people as you do, then I don’t want to be there. But, at the end of the day, I think you’re going to be surprised.

I answered the poll questions as best I could, but some are simply rhetorical questions displaying ignorance of the issues, sort of like politicians debating rather than students trying to understand. Most questions need to be rewritten to avoid being leading.