Close Topic Options

Radical Mormonism - Page 2

Words. President Hinckley said that fundamentalism was not harmonious with the life of a Latter-day Saint. I thought about that. Clearly, we *do* believe in fundamentals - fundamental truths. And many label us as fundamental.

It is obvious, I think, that when we use the words fundamental/extreme/radical as bad things we are meaning an attitude or mindset more than the beliefs that that paradigm comprises. The terms can be used in such differing (and diametrically opposed) ways that there is no wonder at the confusion and contention that can be caused.

If we pursue a spirit of wisdom, and temperance, and appropriate solemnity, we can avoid the paths that Satan would take us down. I guess what I am saying is that the Spirit frees our hearts and minds of such things as we strive to do what is right *and* follow that Spirit.

All so-called radicalism is really a break from what is good, twisted as we focus too much upon it.

There is probably some form of radicalism in us all. We probably only think of the end results of continued radicalism, but it is not a new creature but merely an expansion of what so easily can get into us all...

Mormonism Radical

You aren't permitted to be radical in church, well at least if you don't want your status adjusted. Most like routine without any hiccups. Anytime you suggested something a bit different you are immediately pull aside and questioned.

Radical Mormonism Studies Doctrine Mormon

JB, I don't think there's any form of Radical Mormonism. I'd say there is no even remotely similar LDS group along the lines of radical Islam. Radical Islam is allowed to practice as part of Islam, and is not typically denounced by its church. On the other hand, people who stray from the teachings of the LDS church in any fashion resembling the degree of Islamic radicals are immediately excommunicated from the church. This is how it was in Old Testament and New Testament times. No one should be surprised that it's not any different. There's a difference between being forgiving versus allowing the church to be infiltrated with underhanded elements.

But the big difference is that the LDS church denounces these actions and does not affiliate with these groups. These groups are no more part of the LDS church than Protestants are part of the Catholic church. Any group that does not recognize President Monson as prophet, seer and revelator for the whole earth is at odds with the LDS church, and is not a member in good standing. They would not qualify for a temple recommend.

I'd be curious to hear from any of you regarding the so-called radical LDS groups you've spoken of, and tell us a) what types of things they do that go against the teachings of the gospel, and how their church participation is different from members in good standing. These would be good things to explore, and I think would shed some light on what we're really looking at here.

This is a curious appraisal, Isiah53. God Himself doesn't put up with radical ideas, so then why should His church? Either the church is true or it isn't. If it is, then there's no room in the gospel for people who refuse to follow its teachings and would trample on them. Everyone has their own agency. The church is always willing to welcome them with open arms if they want to sincerely strive to follow the precepts of the gospel. If you want to belong to a club, you can't set your own terms. If someone thinks the teachings of the church are not inspired from above, then they shouldn't be in the church in the first place trying to change it. Instead, they should be wherever they believe the truth to be. The gospel wasn't designed to function as a social club.

What would you suggest the church do to accommodate radical ideas?

Danite, can you offer an example?

If the teachings of the prophets are true, then why should the church wish to consider alternative approaches? Is this the same way we would approach the Ten Commandments when the Lord gave them to Moses? Would we raise our hand and ask Moses if the wording could be a little different? I'm not getting what point you're trying to make here.

Edited: Interstellar on 8th May, 2008 - 8:05pm

Page 2 Mormonism Radical

Intersteller, Well for one Islam is very different organizational structure. What you refer to as radical Islam" (which is wrong by the very definition of radicalism) would be a denomination of Islam, not a branch of a church per say. As far as Mormonism goes there are many denominations within Mormonism. To say that the LDS is the only form of Mormonism is assumptive on our part. So Are we talking about Mormonism as a whole or the specific LDS demonination?

On the contrary there are some groups that are in good standing with the church. I think that your assumption that all radicalism is against the church standards may be in question. Why cannot a radical Mormon not be a member in good standing? Why cannot a LDS member who is an anarchist being good standing? Or a feminist as another example? Why cannot a member who has radical ideas about how the book of Mormon was translated not be temple worthy? I know several radical LDS that are open about there ideas and are in good standing and faithful members.

Tell me how do you know that God does not put up with radical ideas? Was not abolition of Slavery a radical idea in the 1800's? Is not the united order a very radical idea? Was the idea of giving black priesthood a radical idea up until the 1970's? Was not the very gospel of Christ a radical idea today as it was 2000 years ago? I am always very weary of those who put limits on god's ability to embrace and accept when we struggle with the basic ideas of human value. Sure many of these ideas are not "radical today" but at one time they were. Who knows what radical ideas we reject today in God's name that our grandchildren will embrace in priesthood class? Truth is a funny thing. How can beings like us who are so finite and changing grasp absolute truths? How can an "unabsolute" race of people claim to understand the absoluteness of truth? Sure we may recognize truth but embracing and understanding its absolute meaning is beyond our experiences and understanding. Well at least mine. It is not god that is embracing new radical ideas but rather it is us that are catching up to them. So our approaches, knowledge, and understanding will and must change over time, even if it contradicts past prophets understandings and statements.

Mormonism Radical

I took it to mean that it was about the main LDS church. If we're using that, then the main LDS church does not recognize any other church professing to follow Joseph's Smith's restoration as having authority, but instead denounces their authority and practices, while still recognizing them as Christians. Regardless of how Islam is delineated, the main Islamic faith does not denounce radical Islam, so that's where I see the disconnect in this analogy.

Then I suppose we'd be at a difference of opinion on what constitutes being radical. If they recognize the general authorities as being called of God and follow their instructions, and they recognize the four standard works as the word of God and follow their instructions, then I would say they're not radical. If, instead, they don't recognize these things as coming from God, then they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

I don't think the church teaches that anarchists are unworthy or unrighteous. That doesn't seem to be very radical.

Iti depends on how it's manifested in their actions. It could be all right, or it might go against what the church teaches. If they follow what the church teaches, then they're not radical. If they don't follow what the church teaches, then they're not a member in good standing.

I don't think having such theories makes someone a radical.

How is this manifested in their actions? What is it that they actually do that's radical?

You yourself said that the church didn't put up with radical ideas. Do you think the church and God are not working in conjunction? If you believe the church is true, then by default you would believe the same of God that you believe of the church which exercises His authority.

It seems what we're talking about here is Islamic radicals who have virtually no resemblance to the teachings of their faith, in comparison to supposed LDS radicals that drink Pepsi and watch R-rated movies. I don't see the correlation.

I don't think wanting to abolish slavery would have gotten someone excommunicated from the church.

Politically, yes. But the church doesn't take political stances in the first place.

I don't understand this question. Wanting to go against the instructions of the prophet prior to the revelation would have been radical, but the idea itself of blacks holding the priesthood isn't radical.

But how does this apply to whether certain things are radical in the realm of LDS doctrine?

So it sounds like you're saying that modern LDS prophets are out of step with God's will, because they're stricter than God is. Please explain.

Our task is to follow the current teachings of the living prophets. Our task is not to try to stay a step ahead and interpret doctrine to suit our whims, and decide that we don't need to heed the prophet's counsel because we know better than he does. This is what's known as rationalization.

If women years from now hold the priesthood, that will be appropriate when it happens. But it's not appropriate now. That's the difference.

That's why we must rely on the words of the prophets instead of coming up with our own brand of doctrine.

I can agree with this, although I don't think it refutes what I've already said. The ideas are still radical before they're put into practice if they go against what the church currently advocates. Righteousness is not retroactive. You can't have an abortion now and then if twenty years from now abortions are said to no longer be sinful, this doesn't mean you don't have to repent of what you did back when it was considered a sin.

But we have to remember that true prophets don't contradict one another. That would mean that God is contradicting Himself. Instead, they revise previous laws according to the needs of that time. Jesus did not contradict Moses. He fulfilled the Law of Moses and added unto it. Also, some laws are never revised, but are set in stone, so to speak.

Radical Mormonism

Our task is to understand NOT to trust in the arm of the flesh. I am always concerned when members put Church leaders (Prophets included) into an almost pedestal where they can never be wrong. But this topic is properly discussed in the thread The Prophet said so, is that enough? within the LDS Mature board.

Going back to the topic at hand, I don't think there are radical groups within the LDS Church but few acts done by individuals in the past could have been interpreted as such.

Radical Mormonism - Page 2

LDS_forever, thanks for the follow-up. I'm wondering why you would equate prophetic inspiration with the arm of the flesh. We've been told that the prophets will never lead us astray in a doctrinal sense. Since the prophet speaks the word of God doctrinally when speaking on behalf of the church, what the prophet says doctrinally is what God wants him to say. When you refer to a prophet being "wrong", can you give me an example of when a modern prophet gave an incorrect interpretation on a matter of doctrine? What areas are you suggesting they could be wrong in?

Radical Mormonism Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 2

This Topic is about 'Radical Mormonism' as is defined in the First Post in this Thread. I believe a link has already been provided if you want to go into what the Prophets say. We are hitting tangents but not defining what 'Radical Mormonism' can be considered to be. However I will give some headway, by giving a BASIC example of where the Thread should be pointing. If a man decides that he is going to tell his family that no one should enter the house unless they have a clean heart and hands then makes a rule that they literally mush wash their hands and show their recommend at the doorway then that can be radical.