158 replies to this topic

[cinepro]

KevinG, on 14 May 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

My test for an anti-Mormon would be the question "what would you change to make Mormonism acceptable?"  If they cannot conceive of a situation where Mormonism would be acceptable then they are opposed to Mormonism in general and therefore "Anti-Mormon".

So are you anti-Catholic?  Or anti-Muslim?  Or anti-Amish?  Or can you conceive of situations where each of those could change to be acceptable to you?

[KevinG]

cinepro, on 14 May 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

So are you anti-Catholic?  Or anti-Muslim?  Or anti-Amish?  Or can you conceive of situations where each of those could change to be acceptable to you?

They are all acceptable to me and I do not criticize any of them.  I have been complementary of the Catholic and Amish faith on this board.  I have complemented Muslims on this board while being critical of those who use Islam as an excuse for murder.  I don't even critique my former faith of Methodism.  I am an admirer of many religions but not an adherent.

To be an adherent to any of them they would have to be what I believe to be fully authorized churches of God on the earth.  While they have truth they do not have the fullness of the Gospel as I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does.

Edited by KevinG, 14 May 2012 - 11:28 AM.

[KevinG]

mercyngrace, on 14 May 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

The internet has changed that.

Only for those interested in looking up the local gossip and news.  Honestly my reaction to the latest inner circle intelligentsia spats is "oh they are still at it back in happy valley?"  And i only have that reaction because I heard about a few of them while at BYU two decades ago.

[mercyngrace]

KevinG, on 14 May 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Only for those interested in looking up the local gossip and news.  Honestly my reaction to the latest inner circle intelligentsia spats is "oh they are still at it back in happy valley?"  And i only have that reaction because I heard about a few of them while at BYU two decades ago.

I think it's true that people don't necessarily care about the goings on but I disagree that they don't know.

I found this place in one of its previous incarnations while looking for scholarship on an issue that came up in conjunction with the gospel doctrine lesson I was preparing.

My brother encountered attacks and defenses of the church online when I mentioned a talk by Boyd K. Packer that I thought was exceptional but unavailable at LDS.org  Google introduced him to the fact that some homosexual and ex-Mormons really hate Elder Packer. He remains active, believing LDS, but his induction into internet Mormonism began there.

If you think people don't just bump into this stuff, you are mistaken.  And the more google knows your online behavior the more it tailors ads and searches to your tastes. So the more time you spend studying the gospel online, the more apt you are to turn up these kinds of results. At least that has been my experience.

[KevinG]

mercyngrace, on 14 May 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

I think it's true that people don't necessarily care about the goings on but I disagree that they don't know.

I found this place in one of its previous incarnations while looking for scholarship on an issue that came up in conjunction with the gospel doctrine lesson I was preparing.

My brother encountered attacks and defenses of the church online when I mentioned a talk by Boyd K. Packer that I thought was exceptional but unavailable at LDS.org  Google introduced him to the fact that some homosexual and ex-Mormons really hate Elder Packer. He remains active, believing LDS, but his induction into internet Mormonism began there.

If you think people don't just bump into this stuff, you are mistaken.  And the more google knows your online behavior the more it tailors ads and searches to your tastes. So the more time you spend studying the gospel online, the more apt you are to turn up these kinds of results. At least that has been my experience.

Among those looking for information on the Mormons online you are correct - they bump into this stuff.   This is a small sub-set of the general LDS population.  I am often amazed at what the average member I talk to is not aware of outside of major news outlets and the e-mail/facebook chain.

[mercyngrace]

KevinG, on 14 May 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Among those looking for information on the Mormons online you are correct - they bump into this stuff.   This is a small sub-set of the general LDS population.  I am often amazed at what the average member I talk to is not aware of outside of major news outlets and the e-mail/facebook chain.

I think this is increasingly common. Did you read the story I posted on Cal's thread about FAIR? The one about our (then) 13 year old home teacher?

My kids go online for information about the church/the gospel the way I turned to McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.

If this weren't the new shift of the tides, the church wouldn't have launched "I'm a Mormon" online. We wouldn't have been invited specifically to join the conversation about faith online. And we wouldn't be receiving counsel about how to best represent and discuss our faith online.

IMO, it would be exceptionally naive to think these things weren't reaching an increasingly wide audience, even if they don't get discussed in "polite" LDS society (i.e. church functions, home teaching visits, or social interactions with ward members whose levels of knowledge and interest are unknown).

edit.... even in Jawjah

Edited by mercyngrace, 14 May 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[why me]

mercyngrace, on 14 May 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

My brother encountered attacks and defenses of the church online when I mentioned a talk by Boyd K. Packer that I thought was exceptional but unavailable at LDS.org  Google introduced him to the fact that some homosexual and ex-Mormons really hate Elder Packer. He remains active, believing LDS, but his induction into internet Mormonism began there.

Boyd K. Packer is perhaps the most hated GA on the web among exmormons. Not surpising that much negativity came up about him from critic boards. I think that people who begin to search about mormonism come across all sorts of information. And this is a problem when people who are investigating the church come across such information by making a honest search of mormonism.

[Robert F. Smith]

Bob Crockett, on 14 May 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Well, you know Sis. Anderson and I only know her by her writings and panel discussions.  She seems to revel in her excommunicant status as some sort of way to get additional traction in her writings, but I admit that such is most subjective.  Had she gone quietly, it would have been improper to discuss her, but she is a public figure because of her post-excommunication positions.

True enough, Bob,
But she is a Fielding you know (a couple of them have been presidents of the LDS Church).  They seldom go quietly.

Edited by Robert F. Smith, 14 May 2012 - 11:25 PM.

[Robert F. Smith]

mrmandias, on 14 May 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

England,
I was a student of England's at one point, and found out that he was pretty darn intolerant of dissenting views in his students (of views that dissented from his own, that is, especially in a more conservative or 'orthodox' direction).  Thanks for this additional information on the man's experiences, it helps me understand and overlook a little more.

I often thought of Gene as a man of great spiritual power.  He and Elder McConkie clearly had more in common than McConkie realized, as you note in seeing him as quite conservative or orthodox.

On the other hand, there is the true story of the blessing of the Chevrolet at http://www.eugeneeng...g-the-chevrolet .

[Robert F. Smith]

cinepro, on 11 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

"Open and decentralized"?  Are you kidding me?  It may be that there are some aspects of the Church that are "open" and "decentralized", but to the degree that this is the case, I suspect it is only because Church leaders feel they have no other choice due to the size of the Church.

Ultimately, is there any aspect of the Church that is not directly accountable to Salt Lake City?  Is there any latitude given in teaching or administering the Church that is independent of the Church Office Building?  Sure, local leaders may have some degree of latitude in picking carpet samples for the foyer or organizing youth dances, but beyond that, there are policies and manuals that are supposed to be followed.

But, to the degree that Jesus is leading the Church through his prophets and apostles, this isn't a bad thing.  Why would I want to have openness or decentralization when Jesus is at the center, and the more "closed" I get the closer I get to him?

cinepro,
See now Matthew Bowman,  "Priest to profit: How the Mormon church teaches priesthood holders to lead," Washington Post, May 13/14, 2012, online at http://www.washingto...rc=nl_headlines .  An excellent example of LDS decentralization.

[KevinG]

mercyngrace, on 14 May 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

I think this is increasingly common. Did you read the story I posted on Cal's thread about FAIR? The one about our (then) 13 year old home teacher?

My kids go online for information about the church/the gospel the way I turned to McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.

If this weren't the new shift of the tides, the church wouldn't have launched "I'm a Mormon" online. We wouldn't have been invited specifically to join the conversation about faith online. And we wouldn't be receiving counsel about how to best represent and discuss our faith online.

IMO, it would be exceptionally naive to think these things weren't reaching an increasingly wide audience, even if they don't get discussed in "polite" LDS society (i.e. church functions, home teaching visits, or social interactions with ward members whose levels of knowledge and interest are unknown).

edit.... even in Jawjah

The spread of this kind of insider gossip and debate is known in the mission field.  It is often greeted with rolling of eyes and the bolstering of our opinion of "Utah Mormons" as needing to get out more.  Seriously.

I know a smattering of people who "left because of historical or social issues" and every single one of them had other more serious struggles with faith.

[mercyngrace]

KevinG, on 16 May 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

The spread of this kind of insider gossip and debate is known in the mission field.  It is often greeted with rolling of eyes and the bolstering of our opinion of "Utah Mormons" as needing to get out more.  Seriously.

I know a smattering of people who "left because of historical or social issues" and every single one of them had other more serious struggles with faith.

Kevin,
I live in "the mission field" fairly close to you actually. And have only lived in Utah when I was at BYU and the MTC.

Our area experienced a small exodus in the last few years over historical issues - a certain book about polygamy, in fact, was circulated throughout the stake. Maybe Cal remember's me mentioning it to her - I've forgotten the name already and never did read the book. Perhaps our experiences have just been vastly different but in mine distance from Utah is less and less of a factor in exposure to even the minutiae of LDS culture.

By the way, my people are from Georgia (two of my children were born there!) My dad grew up in Atlanta back when it was a small town, as he likes to say.

[KevinG]

Obviously our experiences differ.  But the vast majority of Saints don't lose their faith over the latest Mormon feminist conference or gain faith from the latest FAIR publication.  To most Saints this stuff is fringe.

I like to keep myself informed and oppose the nasty plots of those who seek to destroy the faith of the Saints.  I wonder what your reaction was to the book that was causing an exodus of Saints from the authorized Gospel of Jesus Christ other than avoiding conflict?

[mercyngrace]

KevinG, on 16 May 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

Obviously our experiences differ.  But the vast majority of Saints don't lose their faith over the latest Mormon feminist conference or gain faith from the latest FAIR publication.  To most Saints this stuff is fringe.

I totally agree. The vast majority simply stop coming to church or are never fully integrated into the church.

[

Quote

I like to keep myself informed and oppose the nasty plots of those who seek to destroy the faith of the Saints.  I wonder what your reaction was to the book that was causing an exodus of Saints from the authorized Gospel of Jesus Christ other than avoiding conflict?

You don't have to wonder, Kevin, just ask

I didn't read the book, It had been discussed here on the board ad nauseum and I already knew what folks here considered the most troubling bits.  Finding out after the book had done it's damage and having no personal relationship with the members who left, there was little I could do, however I did forward the review of the book which I think was published by the Maxwell Institute to the person who informed me of the whole mess and encouraged her to send it to those whose testimonies had been shaken so at the very least they could see a rebuttal of some of the issues.

Well, that and praying for those who'd left.

Edited by mercyngrace, 16 May 2012 - 02:46 PM.

[Antoni]

calmoriah, on 14 May 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

It actually doesn't.....and you may not mean this as the rest of your comments seem to indicate a more limited view, but I am just pointing this out for clarification.  Don't mean to come across as harsh as I likely did originally.

Rejection of God and/or the BoM identifying someone as "anti" would make all the atheists in the world "anti-mormon" even if they never heard of the LDS Church and would make all investigators who never believed the BoM is what it claims to be "antis".

An anti-mormon is someone who opposes the Church and opposition is not just rejection, but an active behaviour working against something.

I am not saying one way or the other what John Dehlin is, just pointing out that rejection in and of itself is not "anti" behaviour.  If "anti-mormon" is to remain a meaningful word with the power to properly identify, we need to be careful to use it correctly.

fair point.

perhaps "undermining" rather than "anti" is better?

[B-rad00]

John,

I am a faithful, believing member of the church and I greatly appreciate your podcasts. It is the best place to get discussions on difficult church topics where multiple perspectives are presented and respected. I feel that you do a great job at leading the discussions as unbiasedly as possible.

I've found the FAIR-type apologetics to be contentious, judgmental, and arrogant. I find some of the FAIR writings to be more offensive to the image of the church and to the faith of its members than anything on mormonstories. This is because of its tone and one-sided arguments (for example, how about the FAIR gem written about Joseph Smith's polyandry?)

[tyler90az]

I added John Dehlin or his Mormon Stories on facebook. At the time I thought it was a great thing. That only lasted a few hours till I seen a post he made. Then I realized his control over Mormon Stories and its 'members' was no different then The Church. There was some type of argument on facebook and he had to ban people. The lessoned I learn is there has to be some type of control in any organization. You may not want to ex communicate(churches case) or kick (john dehlins) case, however, it jus has to happen... It just reinforced what I learned at Occupy Protests. We would always try to get a consesus on things. Yea, ummmm, that is never going to happen, were all humans.

The point I am trying to make is what John Dehiln 'preaches' against he does. Why does he do it? It is neccessary for any large group.

With that said I still support Mormon Stories.

Edited by tyler90az, 23 November 2012 - 07:13 PM.

[calmoriah]

B-rad00, on 23 November 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

This is because of its tone.....

FAIR is committed to dealing with tone issues where possible (we are not going to rewrite presentations by nonFAIR members obviously) in its materials.  It would be very helpful if you could point to where you think the tone needs to be improved.

[Erin15]

kolipoki09, on 08 May 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

I just wish there'd be more participation among active, faithful members of the Church. Perhaps they don't feel welcome (and after reading the comments section after several podcasts, it isn't hard to understand why)

It occurs to me that the faithful active members have very little to gain from such participation.  Anti's and Ex's are normally the hardest hearts out there, and it can become a really wasteful use of your time to engage them.  Remember in the Book Of Mormon, only one of the Amalekites ever came back.  Often it is better to spend that time working with those with ears to hear and eyes to see.  Naturally, one should follow the guidance of the spirit in such matters, but I have often found myself prompted when talking to an anti to simply say nothing and walk away.

Edited by Erin15, 25 November 2012 - 01:06 PM.