RSS
Home
Is Mormon theology diverging into new directions?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
The 1844 succession crisis
For six months after the death of Joseph Smith, different factions fought for control of the LDS Church. Sidney Rigdon, Brigham Young, and James Strang, among others, claimed to be the rightful successor to the church. The church eventually split apart. Brigham Young happened to gain the most followers, and his faction became the modern LDS church.
A much less dramatic, but interesting, divergence seems to be happening today.
A recent episode of the Mormon Expression podcast interviewed Jason "Dr. Shades," the creator of MormonInformation.com. Specifically, they discussed his concept of "Internet Mormon" versus "Chapel Mormon" and how there seems to be a growing theological distinction between the average LDS member sitting in the pews, and Mormon apologists who are often found on the Internet defending their faith against critics.
After frequenting many discussion boards and participating in many debates over the years, it's easy to see this diverging trend, something Jason suggests is akin to the emergence of two different religions.
An interesting example of this occurred in the comments of an earlier article about Noah's Flood. When I mentioned the idea that some Mormons consider the flood to have been a small, local event, commenter Incognito said: "I am a 3rd generation Mormon and I have NEVER heard this...everyone knows it was a great flood."
I directed him to the FAIR article that offers some reasons for believing in a local flood, as well as a Mormon apologetic discussion board where Mormons were debating that very topic. Incognito responded with: "I have heavily studied LDS doctrine my whole life and this is just some stupid theory by overzealous prideful in knowledge Mormons who are off their rocker"
Chapel Mormons, Jason argues, are apt to be more fundamentalist and literal in their beliefs, a position supported by scripture and church leaders. Internet Mormons, on the other hand, are more likely to grant errors or biases in scripture and leaders in order to more easily accept modern science or to reject ethically questionable statements and behavior from church leaders.
For example, when Brigham Young said that black skin was a punishment from God and that those in an interracial marriage should be put to death, Mormons have a choice to make. He was either speaking as a prophet of God, or he was expressing racist views that were common at the time.
Chapel Mormons defend Young by saying that we do not always know why God commands the things that he does - we should simply have faith that it was the right thing at the time. And besides, who are we to question God's ways?
Internet Mormons instead describe Young as a man of his time, subject to all the same prejudices and problems of everyone else. This response makes sense, but it also turns Mormonism into just another religion led and managed by human beings. The argument that these are just men expressing their opinions does more to support the critics of the church than apologists seem to realize. Yes, of course they're just men expressing their opinion.
Another good example of this diverging theology is the acceptance of evolution. Although the LDS church has taken no real official position on it, evolution is taught at BYU and church leaders have voiced thoughts supporting either side. Yet a large majority of Mormons oppose the theory.
While some Internet Mormons make an academic case for how the theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with LDS theology, the more populous Chapel Mormons simply cite scripture to show that evolution is false:
I think that we can make some sense out of the advent of dinosaurs. First, we reiterate the word of God,
And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they were created and made according to my word (Moses 3:7).
So, according to God, Adam preceded the dinosaurs. Now, that is the truth!!! If science does not agree with that statement, it only reflects on the paucity of scientific information!
Joseph Smith was permitted a question and answer session with God, and Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 is part of that interview:
What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
Most read this as a clear statement that the Earth is about 7,000 years old, and Chapel Mormons tend to accept that as God's word. Internet Mormons try to harmonize the scientific reality of an ancient Earth with this verse by carefully interpreting the words "economy," "continuance," and "temporal." It turns out, if one reads it correctly, that God was only referring to the 7,000 years of this particular religious age.
Internet Mormons often suggest that the literal views of Chapel Mormons are the result of a lack of education and perhaps an inability to appreciate the use of symbolism and metaphor. Evidently, it takes scholars, linguists, and researchers to explain what God was trying to say.
Chapel Mormons, on the other hand, suggest that the liberal views of Internet Mormons are the result of a lack of faith, and they are leaning too heavily on the "word of man."
Both groups perceive that their interpretation of the religion is the most correct one and that the other is misguided. Internet Mormons believe that faith and reason should be balanced, while Chapel Mormons believe that we should "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
In addition to differences about evolution, Noah's flood, and how to interpret the words of a Prophet, Jason outlines a few other disagreements often found between Internet and Chapel Mormons. Are modern Native Americans the literal descendents of Lehi? Where is the Hill Cumorah? Can living Prophets override scripture with new revelation? Does General Conference and official Church publications count as gospel? Do the teachings of the Prophet apply to everyone, or are some people exempt?
Out of this conflict rises a third budding branch of the Mormon tree, the "New Order Mormons", those who have rejected some or most of LDS doctrine but remain active and participating members. They remain members for social or cultural reasons, or because they still believe the church can offer some spiritual guidance, even if it is not "The One True Church" with a monopoly on a "restored gospel."
It's unlikely that we'll see any new schisms from any of this. New Order Mormons want to stay with the mainstream church, and apologists want to defend it, not reject it in favor of something better. Chapel Mormonism will likely shift gradually to slowly accept some of these new views or simply abandon its old views altogether. We're already beginning to see this. Church lessons will drop references to historical events or future predictions and instead just focus on Christ, raising a good family, making moral choices. By avoiding anything that would ground Mormonism in the physical world, the church can continue to grow and be "true" without challenge.
It's only when anyone bothers to study beyond what is presented in Sunday School or General Conference that these conflicts begin to arise and require either an apologetic explanation or reveal that things may not be what they seemed.
Email Jonathan: slcfreethinking@gmail.com
Read Jonathan's other articles on science and religion
Related Articles:
Comments
