I have been endlessly struck by what can be learned and how communities may be enriched by looking at the same issue from a variety of perspectives. One of my interests has been the history of the Latter-day Saints, specifically the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (which recently changed its name to the Community of Christ).

I wrote several historical articles in the 1990s seeking to come to grips with what seemed to me a fundamental crisis of identity that took place in the latter half of the twentieth century among the members and leaders of that religious institution as it shed its sectarian nature and moved more into the Protestant mainstream.

From the very beginning of the Reorganized Church in the 1850s, the institution and its membership defined themselves in relation to both radical Mormonism on one hand and mainstream American Protestantism on the other. Several years ago Clare D. Vlahos characterized this relationship as tightrope on which the Reorganized Church walked as it sought both “to be reasonable to gentiles and legitimate to Mormons” (Clare D. Vlahos, “Images of Orthodoxy: Self-Identity in Early Reorganization Apologetics,” Restoration Studies I, Maurice L. Draper and Clare D. Vlahos, editors (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 1980), 176).

In the latter half of the twentieth century the Reorganized Church abandoned its traditional goal of “legitimacy” to Mormons in favor of a greater reasonableness to other elements of Christianity. I believe this created a crisis of identity as the RLDS Church failed to define for itself a role that would enable it to enjoy future success as a separate institution. That problem remains, as the organization is seemingly declining every year in terms of active adherents and resources.

I described this situation in my article, “The RLDS Church and the Decade of Decision,” Sunstone 19 (September 1996): 45-55, quite some time ago. This process led that movement away from the traditional RLDS consensus in a relatively straightforward manner. A key quote from the article commented:

For many reasons the 1990s are shaping up to be a decade of decision for the Reorganized Church, and the method in which the church handles this process may well chart the theological direction the institution will go or even whether or not it will continue to be a separate movement in the twenty-first century. This decision-making process is required because of a post-1950 Reorganized Church theological and cultural reformation. In this period, Reorganization liberals emerged to demythologize church history, theology, and assorted traditions. Over time this brought about the dismantling of what had been a traditional Reorganized Church ideological consensus. That consensus had been built on the tensions between the desire to remain faithful to the stories, symbols, and events of early Mormonism, on the one hand, and the yearning for respectability among and hence openness to Protestants, on the other. These tensions were held in creative balance until the recent reformation. This had been largely the case because of the unique heritage of the RLDS as the people in middle, seeking to steer between the Scylla of excessively authoritarian, speculative Nauvoo Mormonism and the Charybdis of rigidly creedal, congregational Protestant sectarianism (p. 45).

Some individuals inside the Reorganized Church/Community of Christ viewed my analysis as unfair. I was even denounced by the president of the Reorganized Church, W. Grant McMurray. His central criticism was that I was essentially an outsider from the movement about which I wrote. Because of this I could not possibly have anything of value to say about the recent history of the Reorganized Church (W. Grant McMurray, “History and Mission in Tension: A View from Both Sides,” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, 20 (2000): 34-47).

I do not believe that what I said about the process of theological reformation during the latter half of the twentieth century was particularly controversial. What do you think? I can boil down my analysis using this quote from a related 1995 article on the church’s activities in the 1960s:

The movement of the church into foreign missions, its rise in income and economic position, the development of an organized bureaucracy, the increasing ecumenism, the concern with social issues beyond the church as never before, and a series of other changes arising during the decade all suggest a coming of age for the Reorganized Church. It progressed from a sect to a denomination with a vision broader than itself and it has rarely looked back. Whether the age drove the changes, prompting the church to react, or whether the church took the initiative and could have chosen to ignore what was taking place around it is a moot point. The Reorganization’s traditional openness to Protestant religious influences probably aided in its willingness to move toward greater ecumenism….In the 1960s the church began to abandon its traditional goal of “legitimacy” to Mormons in favor of a greater reasonableness to other elements of Christianity. That step was probably not conscious and undoubtedly those who began the process did not anticipate that it would extend as far, too far according to some, as it has. The turbulent era of the 1960s set the stage for the continuation of the shift from sect to denomination that has been so much a part of the Reorganization in subsequent years. For good or ill, the course marked in the 1960s has been followed into the 1990s. It was a critical decade in the maturation of the movement, a tumultuous, confrontational, bewildering and also exalting time in which the Reorganized Church fundamentally altered its structure and pattern of behavior (Roger D. Launius, “Coming of Age? The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the 1960s,” Dialogue 28 [Summer 1995]: 56-57).

What is fully my opinion in the article was the last part in which I described a process for returning to a distinctive place on the continuum between mainstream Protestantism and radical Utah Mormonism. My prescription was oriented toward reinterpreting three traditional Restoration distinctives—the Book of Mormon, the ideal of Zion, and belief in continuing revelation—for a new era. I should add that my thinking has moved far beyond this discussion in 1995.

In adding that prescription, the essay moved from historical analysis to policy advocacy. That was the major reason I published it in Sunstone, which is not a journal of historical scholarship but a magazine of Mormon religious thought. One may accept or reject any or all of my ideas, including any prescriptive comments, as they see fit.

I do not now, and never have claimed, that what I write is the last word on any subject. I was surprised to see a discussion of this subject on-line recently (http://voy.com/2963/13629.html), especially since it is such an old set of articles. But I am heartened by it. What these folks are doing is exactly what I hoped would take place. In so doing, it validates that the products of historical inquiry are relevant to the larger questions being considered by those who are not historical professionals. To see that others are considering my ideas, rather than ignoring them, is perhaps the highest compliment any historian might be paid. It is also rare, for at least in the Community of Christ historical study has been essentially ignored.

I want people to question what I have to say, but to amass as much information as possible and to transform that information into usable knowledge that is both rational and defensible to others with alternative positions. Rejecting out of hand a position without undertaking that exploration abdicates to others the individual’s responsibility to develop into the most whole human being possible.

Unfortunately, too many adherents to Mormonism—whether LDS or RLDS/Community of Christ—are willing to accept that all “truth” rests ultimately with the church and its leadership, and are unwilling to accept any position that does not reinforce conceptions taught there. This is a misguided and ultimately a dangerous conclusion that abdicates responsibility for one’s own beliefs. I believe this may be one of the most serious problems of human society. It is a mentality that fosters all manner of abuses as people go along with decisions without due consideration.

I would argue that varied perceptions of thepast are healthy and important attributes of the marketplace of ideas and the varieties of expression they offer leave the humanity richer. I have been endlessly struck by what can be learned and how our community can be enriched by looking at the same issue from a variety of perspectives.