I am sometimes amazed by the simple hell Mormons give each other.
In recent years, a number of Mormon intellectuals have been spreading the meme that what matters in the church is not correct belief (orthodoxy) but correct practice (orthopraxy). In other words… they believe that it doesn’t really matter if you believe in the principles and doctrines that the leaders of the church teach. So long as you conform to the practices that the church can easily measure, such as paying tithes, obeying the dietary restrictions of the Word of Wisdom, attending church meetings, and holding regular family night, then you are a good, faithful Mormon and beyond reproach, even if you spend your time on the internet, and elsewhere, trying to convince others to adopt unorthodox beliefs that are clearly contrary to church teachings and leaders.
Let’s call this “Orthopraxy” meme what it is: Pharisaism. Those who practice Mormonism after this fashion are modern Mormon Pharisees.
Ah, the anti-intellectualism. I remember it well.
Mormons set a high bar for themselves. It takes a lot of constant effort over your whole life just to be considered basically ‘active’. Except that for this guy, it’s not only enough to identify with the Church, or just to do Mormon things. You also have to believe the right things. In Orwellian terms, you have to be “goodthinkful”. And to do otherwise is to open yourself up to criticism from the über-righteous.
I don’t identify with New Order Mormons, either. [Carson N corrects me on what NOMS are about — see below.] Okay, so you’ve noticed that there’s a lot of shift in “when a prophet is being a prophet”, or that the Book of Mormon has major factual issues. Maybe you want to believe that the Church is true, but you’ve noticed that it teaches wrong things. The right answer is not to erect complicated apologetic structures just so you can hang on to your precious belief by your fingernails. (Especially when people take it upon themselves to come and stomp on your fingers.) So-called ‘liberal Mormons’ may be engaging in convenient rationalisations to support their belief (and what Mormon doesn’t?), but at least they’ve noticed that Mormon doctrine has holes in it, and they’re trying to figure out an nuanced explanation around the conflict. This guy seems to think that Mormon doctrine is straight-forward, which suggests that he’s not really paying attention.
I do agree with him on one score: don’t be a hypocrite. If you know your belief system doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t jibe with reality, get out of it quick. If you’re in it, be in it! But then, it is a bit tricky to believe in Mormon orthodoxy when no one is able to tell you exactly what Mormon orthodoxy really is from year to year. Doctrines are subject to ad hoc modification or disavowal (define ‘Lamanite’ anyone?), and only later will someone say, “That? Oh, we quietly stopped talking about that decades ago!”
So how about this, orthodox Mormons — define orthodox Mormon belief, and then get back to us. Until then, stop giving other people a hard time over beliefs you haven’t got evidence for. Imaginary conflicts like this one remind me why I’m glad I left.
Bonus thought: If you want everyone in your church to be super-believing, then make it possible for less-believing people to leave without all the social consequences, like divorce and character assassination. You can’t have it both ways.
UPDATE: It seems I’m not talking about NOMs, though the linked author sure sounds like it. I’m probably describing ‘liberal Mormons’. Carson N points out that NOMs are not by and large apologists. Which was confirmed to me by reading the NOM Forum. They’re just as cynical and disbelieving as any RfM poster, except that they’re Trapped by the Mormons. Which I find unbelievably depressing. I hope Carson’s right that many NOMs use The Third Way as a transitional state, and that as soon as possible.
However, my eye-opening NOM experience makes me want to reiterate my Bonus Thought above: Let my people go. It should be okay to leave a religion without professional or social repercussions. It would only make the members who are left more committed, which ‘Brother Tiny Stones’ would no doubt like. Sorry to any NOMs who felt maligned.
One more thing: I don’t think the word ‘cult’ is a useful label, but if I had to describe the essence of cultiness, I’d say two things:
1. People in a cult aren’t forthcoming about their doctrines to those that aren’t initiated.
2. A cult won’t let you leave.
By these two guidelines, the Mormon Church starts looking a lot cultier the more NOM stories I hear.
11 February 2011 at 8:55 am
Is that post still up? He's blocked most comments and I wouldn't be surprised if he's already taken the whole mess down. A real profile in courage, that guy.
11 February 2011 at 3:13 pm
Well, his entire blogging project is basically "It's not self-righteous of me to think I'm better than liberal Mormons, because I am better than liberal Mormons," so it's not surprising that he would twist the concept of Pharisaism to fit them rather than himself. Classic case of "beams and motes" in the eyes and all that.
12 February 2011 at 5:47 pm
Wait a second. New Order Mormons aren't even remotely apologetic. I have no idea why you would think NOMs are like that. You're not the first person to have that misunderstanding, and I don't know where it comes from.
12 February 2011 at 11:31 pm
I don't mean 'apologetic' in the sense of 'creating arguments for the consumption of others' (although that author does seem to think that's what NOMs are doing on the Net).
I mean: trying to come up with explanations for inconsistencies, even just on a personal level. Surely NOMs do that, don't they?
13 February 2011 at 12:30 am
I once described the difference here.
Basically, from what I've observed on the NOM forum, a NOM is someone who doesn't believe in the truth claims of the church, yet continues to attend for reasons other than belief. Sometimes it's because they are trapped by their family situation. Sometimes it's because they like going to church for community reasons. Many still believe in God, and others are atheists. At the most extreme you might have a person who just enjoys the symbolism, but still doesn't accept the exclusive truth claims. On average, a NOM is someone who believes in the church about as much as you do, but for whatever reason is still attached to the church in some way, whether attending or through a TBM spouse.
I guess the vision of NOM is to create some space for people who can't fully leave and can't fully stay. For many people it is just an intermediate step before they become comfortable enough to leave it altogether.
I like the community at NOM a lot, but I could never be a true NOM because 1) I'm not trapped by my spouse because fortunately she doesn't believe anymore either, and 2) I, like you, think that religion in general, and especially this religion, is bullshit, and definitely not for me regardless of the community benefits.
If NOMs were the kind of people who came up with dishonest explanations for inconsistencies, starting with the conclusion and working backwards like apologists do, I would not respect them as I do now.
13 February 2011 at 4:53 am
I also participate on the NOM boards and what Carson says is accurate.
13 February 2011 at 8:24 am
Drat! Who am I talking about, then?
13 February 2011 at 2:02 pm
I understood Brother Tiny Stones to be referring to the Bushmans, Omans, Haglunds, and other assorted bloggernacle permas and luminaries. The kinds of folks who post nuancimonies at Mormon Scholars Testify and refer to their Mormon belief as "scandalous" and "edgy" with straight faces. As many resignation letters as we see posted to the various exmo boards, ain't it something how few defections there are among the professional 'nacler crowd? Can anyone name one during the past five years?
14 February 2011 at 7:55 am
I like Nabokov's term for this particular crime: gnostical turpitude. LOL.
14 February 2011 at 12:11 pm
Great, now I feel moved to dial back my previous comment.
At the end of the day, I don't want to be guilty of the same antics that J*Max is bringing with his post, i.e., shaking the Bloggernacle/'Liberal Mormon' tree in the hopes of bagging a few loose nuts.
Or maybe I'm just responding to BiV's recent post:
"My electronic friends have become my ward … Through online interactions I am now able to satisfy my compulsion to question Mormon doctrine … One of my fellow Mormons in my home ward becomes quite incensed at my social practices. She says that it is a detriment to my local ward and to myself that all of my social needs are being met online."
In other words, I probably need to get a handle on my penchant for calling folks out by name, because we all have our own reasons for participating in the online discussion. Nobody owes me — or J*Max — a position paper on their current beliefs.
14 February 2011 at 12:49 pm
Okay, but if someone puts their position out there, it's fair to comment. What if we couldn't have opinions on other people's opinions? The web would grind to a halt!
14 February 2011 at 2:25 pm
Of course. And J*Max and the Bloggernacle share the same penchant for reaching for the bannination stick to fend off contrary opinions … an observation that's old news in these parts. At the end of the day, these folks aren't looking for a "web" they're looking for a "club" (in the clique-not-cudgel sense of the word). And to that extent, they deserve each other.
I think I'm gonna leave 'em to it. I've lost interest in reconnoitering behind the artificial lines they've drawn.
We're here and we are the web in a way they'll never be. And if they want to engage with what's really happening on the ground with Mormon kids, they're always welcome.
Here's the latest: What happened when I came out to my mom. So sad.
And of course, they won't be making an appearance anytime soon over at r/exmormon or MSP to commiserate or otherwise make their views known. As far as they're concerned, that kid is now our concern.
No worries, we'll welcome him. And we'll keep building our own open communities and platforms and leave the door open for that day when certain Bloggernacle All*Stars finally find the stones to broadcast what they really think.
And yeah, so far, I've brought nothing that adds to your original comments re Dr. J*Max:
"If you want everyone in your church to be super-believing, then make it possible for less-believing people to leave without all the social consequences …"
Except maybe this: If you run a Bloggernacle blog and you're complicit in this strategy of banning contrary opinions, you're also guilty of bringing down "social consequences" on dissenting voices, just like your unwashed rank-and-file chapel Mormon co-religionists.
So, if you consider yourself a grade above knuckle-draggers like Dr. J*Max, how about allowing "less-believing people" to participate?
If you're not up for that, where's the daylight between what you're up to and what Dr. J is prescribing? At the end of the day, it's all part and parcel of the same boneheaded cliquishness that's gonna ultimately doom your online projects to irrelevance. /end rant
But like I said, I'm done. Thanks for the fish. And if you didn't catch the link the first time around, suck.on.this, 'naclers.
14 February 2011 at 5:25 pm
Leaving
16 February 2011 at 2:55 am
This is why I should stick to commenting at MSP. Whenever the bourbon starts writing my posts for me, I can always sneak back later and put myself in moderation.
16 February 2011 at 3:20 am
You're not allowed to be more belligerent than I am. Fortunately, this is difficult.