NOM

I think the church is trying to create a new type of Mormon, the New Order Apostate. Its sort of the opposite of a NOM. Not that this type of Mormon is new, but the church is newly trying to create as many of them as possible. The new narrative seems to be designed to create this type of member. Most apologists fall into this category.

My list of attributes of the NOA:

They have a higher than average understanding of historical issues and problems with the Book of Mormon
The retain a testimony of The fist vision, The Book of Mormon and Priesthood Keys, everything else is optional
They are happy to throw every prophet between the current one and JS under the bus (and throw old Joe under when needs be too)
They allow for and encourage nuance in belief and practice, but always with a slight nudge back into the fold
They will be able to keep a lot of the flock in the fold by being a middle ground that will talk about issues in a faithful way
They will be more open and accessible to the doubters
They can be open about their doubts because they still retain a core belief in JS, BoM and Keys.
They will still pay tithing, hold callings, wear polygamy pannies and go to church

I think this type of Mormon is more approachable and easier to talk to than the strict TBM, but there is still that edge in there. This is where I am thinking my sister is.

Richard Bushman falls into that category. He will admit to all the problems and still criticize those who decide to stop living by the standards. He lives comfortably in both worlds.

I actually like new-order apostates. (Great term, by the way.) The more of them are in a ward, the more hospitable the ward is for black sheep. Hell, the Great Chief NOA, yea even Richard Bushman, once did an AMA at r/exmormon, and it was great.

I was trending this way myself. In another, closely related timeline, I could have been one by now. But I'm glad things have gone the way they have in this timeline.

In short:

They embrace the cognitive dissonance by ignoring it and, often, replacing it with Faith.

"I know it's full of crap...but I believe so it's OK."

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:00 am Richard Bushman falls into that category. He will admit to all the problems and still criticize those who decide to stop living by the standards. He lives comfortably in both worlds.

Being on the payroll I’m sure helps him maintain that comfort.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:00 am Richard Bushman falls into that category.

Yes, I was thinking this as well.

Brent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:01 am They embrace the cognitive dissonance by ignoring it and, often, replacing it with Faith.

"I know it's full of crap...but I believe so it's OK."

This. The Mormon Matters podcast I posted a couple of weeks back had a bishop in this category. When I was in this camp though it put needles in my brain all the time, I am sad they have to live that way.

Reuben wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:42 am Hell, the Great Chief NOA, yea even Richard Bushman, once did an AMA at r/exmormon, and it was great.

whats an AMA?

Reuben wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:42 am I was trending this way myself. In another, closely related timeline, I could have been one by now. But I'm glad things have gone the way they have in this timeline.

As was I, I spent many early doubting years on FAIR Mormon and would use their talking points in discussions. The relief I felt when I finally embraced the truth though, was amazing, even spiritual.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:07 am

Reuben wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:42 am Hell, the Great Chief NOA, yea even Richard Bushman, once did an AMA at r/exmormon, and it was great.

whats an AMA?

Ask Me Anything. It was four years ago. Here it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... 00_pm_est/

Yeah, he showed up and said, "Hey, all you lovely apostates, I'm the church's most famous and well-respected historian. Ask me anything!" And then he answered questions with nothing but respect and compassion. Mad props.

I can't figure out why this description of a particular NOM variant is labeled as an apostate. Why should they receive a pejorative label? The description sounds more like a faithful variation on the NOM scale.

Brent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:01 am In short:

They embrace the cognitive dissonance by ignoring it and, often, replacing it with Faith.

"I know it's full of crap...but I believe so it's OK."

Here's how I think a lot of them do it: "I think the church's claims are rather unlikely. But so is every competing claim. Besides, it's what I am and the best I know, it's been good for me, and I have to choose something. I'll call that choice faith."

This is what I would have done, anyway, had my belief had a chance to drop naturally to low levels. It's pretty close to my wife's faith.

It occurred to me just yesterday that I still exercise faith like this. I think it's very unlikely that anyone will survive the end of the universe, but I still act as if doing good on our tiny blue marble actually matters. I think it's very unlikely that Jesus was divine, but I find a little something extra in what he was said to have taught that indicates real depth of understanding of humanity. (I find this in the Buddha's teachings, too, so it's not just Christian bias.) Do I experience cognitive dissonance over acting on such tiny belief? A little. I feel it pull me toward more belief, but I don't let it happen. I let it change me in other ways.

The difference, of course, is that I give myself a lot more latitude to choose what I have faith in. In the end, the church had been damning me according to Mormonism's favorite definition. And I wonder how much it would have continued to do so had I become a NOA.

moksha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:21 pm I can't figure out why this description of a particular NOM variant is labeled as an apostate. Why should they receive a pejorative label? The description sounds more like a faithful variation on the NOM scale.

Its not meant to be pejorative, maybe there is a better word for it? Its meant to represent that instead of acting like a Mormon but not believing, they act like a Mormon outsider but are still believing.

Reuben wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:13 pm https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... 00_pm_est/

Yeah, he showed up and said, "Hey, all you lovely apostates, I'm the church's most famous and well-respected historian. Ask me anything!" And then he answered questions with nothing but respect and compassion. Mad props.

Thanks for this! Although some of his responses were a little flat, (imho) one of his responses to the first vision made me head off and re-read the 1832 version of the first vision. I suppose I didn't quite get the deeper sentiment Bushman sees to have gotten from it.

The comments were interesting, there were a couple of back and forth debates about things. One interesting one was about the witnesses, what did they actually see and how? This is an issue with no smoking gun, you have Harris both saying he only saw with "spiritual eyes" then recanting that years later saying he saw them as he sees his own hand. I don't find the witnesses particularly compelling myself especially since a bunch of them also testified of Strange, but its not a huge win for either side of that debate.

These arguments with apologists seem like trying to nail jello to the wall.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:55 pm

moksha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:21 pm I can't figure out why this description of a particular NOM variant is labeled as an apostate. Why should they receive a pejorative label? The description sounds more like a faithful variation on the NOM scale.

Its not meant to be pejorative, maybe there is a better word for it? Its meant to represent that instead of acting like a Mormon but not believing, they act like a Mormon outsider but are still believing.

I believe, good sir, that those are known as “Jack Mormons”

IT_Veteran wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:58 pm those are known as “Jack Mormons”

I guess I have always seen Jack Mormons as something different, these people in spite of claiming to not believe 100% of the doctrine or agreeing 100% with every prophet, are still 100% faithful. They still pay tithing, don't drink coffee, hold temple recommends etc. Like Bushman.

Jack Mormon, to me, always meant someone who had a weaker testimony and was a little rebellious with things like coffee and rated R movies. They didn't really care about the church enough to do the history. Jack Mormons couldn't quite be the 110% kind of Mormon, but more out of apathy than anything else.

The less pejorative term is just Progressive Mormon

slavereeno wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:48 am The less pejorative term is just Progressive Mormon

These kinds of characters, like Bushman and the Givenses, are very valuable to the church as sort of insider-outsiders with whom people on both sides can find some common ground. Their benefit to the church seems to be that faithful members can point to them and say "see, he/she knows all of that stuff and still believes! If you really knew as much as them you would believe too." But if those members understood what it is that those folks actually believe, and how they frame that belief internally, they might be shocked. The thing is, even though these individuals have high visibility in the church you can probably count all them on your fingers. They are the rarest kind of Mormon and the church coddles and nurtures them to keep them right there in that sweet spot. The danger, and the more likely scenario in my opinion, is that such a mixture of faith and knowledge will produce a problem child like Dan Peterson.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:25 am These kinds of characters, like Bushman and the Givenses, are very valuable to the church as sort of insider-outsiders with whom people on both sides can find some common ground. Their benefit to the church seems to be that faithful members can point to them and say "see, he/she knows all of that stuff and still believes! If you really knew as much as them you would believe too." But if those members understood what it is that those folks actually believe, and how they frame that belief internally, they might be shocked. The thing is, even though these individuals have high visibility in the church you can probably count all them on your fingers. They are the rarest kind of Mormon and the church coddles and nurtures them to keep them right there in that sweet spot. The danger, and the more likely scenario in my opinion, is that such a mixture of faith and knowledge will produce a problem child like Dan Peterson.

When my wife and I first started having more heated discussions about church stuff a while back, she immediately bought the 'crucible of faith' book by Givens and I believe Planted by Mason.

She fell back on the "They know all of the stuff you're telling me and they still choose to stay because they find truth in what is important and realize that the early leaders made errors because of the intense situation they were in."

Those types of apologists are worth their weight in golden plates to the church - they give members who are doubting someone who has a sense of authority to tell them 'It's totally fair that you have doubts and questions, but here is why they don't matter.'

It might not work on *everyone* but it surely works on a lot of them. And as you've seen from a few comments Bushman has made (and then been forced to clarify), his belief is not what he wants the church to believe it is.

jfro18 wrote:

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:25 am These kinds of characters, like Bushman and the Givenses, are very valuable to the church as sort of insider-outsiders with whom people on both sides can find some common ground. Their benefit to the church seems to be that faithful members can point to them and say "see, he/she knows all of that stuff and still believes! If you really knew as much as them you would believe too." But if those members understood what it is that those folks actually believe, and how they frame that belief internally, they might be shocked. The thing is, even though these individuals have high visibility in the church you can probably count all them on your fingers. They are the rarest kind of Mormon and the church coddles and nurtures them to keep them right there in that sweet spot. The danger, and the more likely scenario in my opinion, is that such a mixture of faith and knowledge will produce a problem child like Dan Peterson.

When my wife and I first started having more heated discussions about church stuff a while back, she immediately bought the 'crucible of faith' book by Givens and I believe Planted by Mason.

She fell back on the "They know all of the stuff you're telling me and they still choose to stay because they find truth in what is important and realize that the early leaders made errors because of the intense situation they were in."

Those types of apologists are worth their weight in golden plates to the church - they give members who are doubting someone who has a sense of authority to tell them 'It's totally fair that you have doubts and questions, but here is why they don't matter.'

It might not work on *everyone* but it surely works on a lot of them. And as you've seen from a few comments Bushman has made (and then been forced to clarify), his belief is not what he wants the church to believe it is.

Wow are you sure we don't share the same wife? This is mormonism we are involved in after all. My wife has the same book collection.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:55 am Wow are you sure we don't share the same wife? This is mormonism we are involved in after all. My wife has the same book collection.

-I needed that this morning

jfro18 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:39 am She fell back on the "They know all of the stuff you're telling me and they still choose to stay because they find truth in what is important and realize that the early leaders made errors because of the intense situation they were in."

Those types of apologists are worth their weight in golden plates to the church - they give members who are doubting someone who has a sense of authority to tell them 'It's totally fair that you have doubts and questions, but here is why they don't matter.'

The weirdest thing about this to me is that those types of apologists seem to be the most understanding of people who stop believing or leave. But their authority via knowledge gets used to browbeat people who go down the "wrong" path.

Maybe we need some Givens, Bushman and Mason quotes along those lines. They might occasionally help.

jfro18 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:39 am Those types of apologists are worth their weight in golden plates to the church - they give members who are doubting someone who has a sense of authority to tell them 'It's totally fair that you have doubts and questions, but here is why they don't matter.'

+5000

This.