The Mormon Avengers, Part II The author of the piece, Stephanie Lauritzen, self identifies as a “Frankenmormon.” What does this connote? “I cherish the parts of my Mormon upbringing that taught me to stand up for my beliefs as I “try to be like Jesus.” Yet, these same teachings led me away from church activity, especially as the church intensified its opposition to LGBT rights and gender equality.” Thus begins the neo-Hellenization (or the political correcting) of the individual member as he absorbs, digests, and assimilates the beliefs, values, vogues, nostrums, and fashionable ideological causes célèbre and de jure of the mortal moment and allows them to gradually displace and replace the Spirit and the doctrines of the restoration. Within this standard NOM narrative, the process of exist from the Church is always painful and wrenching, but, one will notice, it is often, from within the NOM prism, not from Mormonism, but only from “orthodox” Mormonism: “One of the most painful experiences of my transition out of orthodox Mormonism involved discovering that someone I loved chose to define my existence based on how far I strayed from traditional Mormonism. This Mormon “knew” I couldn’t possibly be happy or good without the guidance of the one true church. I may love my daughter, but not enough to bless her with gospel teachings. This person openly wondered when my husband, who remained active in the church, would leave me for someone capable of raising an eternal Mormon family. When we had the same religious beliefs, this person admired my convictions and devotion to seeking answers, but without Mormonism, these characteristics represent nothing more than stubborn arrogance and a need for attention from strangers who read my blog or City Weekly columns.” The author, it would appear, has some difficulty in understanding her daughter’s anguish, from a “TBM” perspective, in seeing her mother disunite and alienate her family and its members from herself and the possibility of exaltation in the celestial kingdom as a family unit, potentially for eternity, while apparently expecting her daughter to take her apostasy with a stiff upper lip and a shrug of the shoulders. Interesting attitude, but let us continue: “It’s easy for traditional members to disregard the experiences of their non-believing or unorthodox peers; it’s a commonly held belief that people who leave the church have succumbed to the deceptions of the devil but still know, deep down, that the church is true.” How easy, I wonder, is it among many NOMs, to disregard the experiences and testimony of believing, orthodox peers? “Once someone has received a witness of the Spirit and accepted it, he leaves neutral ground,” Pace said in that 1989 talk. “One loses his testimony only by listening to the promptings of the evil one.” “But many Mormons, including some members of church leadership, acknowledge that sources other than Satan may prompt people to question or leave the church.” CFR, of course. Satan is there, always, when doubts appear, no matter from what original source. “And as new generations of Mormons use online communities and resources to investigate both the history and current policies of the church, they’re finding new ways to identify with the faith that shaped their early belief system.” “New ways to identify with” the restored Church of Jesus Christ? The restoration? The restored gospel itself? Who, or what, has authorized these “new ways” of knowing, living, and experiencing the gospel? How is the concept of testimony, or the witness of the Spirit, bound up with these new epistemic dynamics? Next, the profiles.
Posted on: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 00:08:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015