"Backlash against an obituary of its late prophet Thomas S. Monson reveals the existential doubts gnawing at the modern church."

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I always welcome & gladly take correction.  Per Kenngo's link, Air Force ROTC is in limbo at BYU with a highly experienced & decorated senior officer telling the press, "They won't let me teach - since I won't sign it."  Clearly the situation is untenable and equally clear the DoD has other priorities at the moment.  But better taxpayer funds go wasted and students be ill-served than a man be permitted to defile the institution by drinking coffee in his personal quarters.  Ah, religion--what a mess you can make. 

I'm going to suggest you, Scott, that none of this serves to undermine the previous points or in any way alters the substance of what's been said.  But if I were to have a re-do, I'd state that during Monson's time, AF ROTC has been placed in limbo at BYU.  My words were premature.  I regret the error.  

--Erik

________________________________

Hey now, hey now now
Sing this corrosion to me
Hey now, hey now now

--Sisters of Mercy, 1987

CFR that “the situation is untenable” or that “taxpayer funds” are going “wasted.”

As it is, the single Air Force ROTC offering in Utah County covers both BYU and Utah Valley University. What is undoubtedly happening is that the commander is spending his teaching time on the UVU campus and delegating others to fill the teaching slots at BYU. No harm, no foul, as far as I can tell, and no need to move the headquarters. That this is not a priority with DoD is an indication of how urgent or “untenable” the matter really is. 

The man’s term is up in two years, and the problem, if it be a problem, will go away with him. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Five Solas]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that “the situation is untenable” or that “taxpayer funds” are going “wasted.”

As it is, the single Air Force ROTC offering in Utah County covers both BYU and Utah Valley University. What is undoubtedly happening is that the commander is spending his teaching time on the UVU campus and delegating others to fill the teaching slots at BYU. No harm, no foul, as far as I can tell, and no need to move the headquarters. That this is not a priority with DoD is an indication of how urgent or “untenable” the matter really is. 

The man’s term is up in two years, and the problem, if it be a problem, will go away with him. 

In answer to your CFR, I leave it to our readers to judge the officer's words (Kenngo's  link) and decide themselves whether "they won't let me teach" reasonably supports my conclusion.  And given your last sentence, you appear to agree the situation is untenable - because you yourself expect a resolution.  I could answer your call for a reference - by referencing you.

;0)

I will say your seeming indifference ("if it be a problem") fits the larger trend I described occurring under the Monson administration.  LDS are losing respect & regard for American institutions, from the NYT to BSA to ROTC.  I believe this is a significant aspect of Monson's legacy.  And you are helping make my point, Scott.  But you don't see it, do you?

--Erik

___________________________________

If it be your will
That I speak no more
And my voice be still
As it was before
I will speak no more
I shall abide until
I am spoken for
If it be your will

--Leonard Cohen (1934 - 2016)

 

[kiwi57]

10 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I always welcome & gladly take correction.  Per Kenngo's link, Air Force ROTC is in limbo at BYU with a highly experienced & decorated senior officer telling the press, "They won't let me teach - since I won't sign it."  Clearly the situation is untenable and equally clear the DoD has other priorities at the moment.  But better taxpayer funds go wasted and students be ill-served than a man be permitted to defile the institution by drinking coffee in his personal quarters.  Ah, religion--what a mess you can make.

So what do you think BYU should do? Abandon its standards in order to accommodate a secular program?

10 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I'm going to suggest you, Scott, that none of this serves to undermine the previous points or in any way alters the substance of what's been said.  But if I were to have a re-do, I'd state that during Monson's time, AF ROTC has been placed in limbo at BYU.  My words were premature.  I regret the error.

But not enough to stop doubling down on blaming President Monson, right?

BTW, do you refer to the Pope as "Bergoglio?"

 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

In answer to your CFR, I leave it to our readers to judge the officer's words (Kenngo's  link) and decide themselves whether "they won't let me teach" reasonably supports my conclusion.

First, we'll need to decide whether "they won't let me teach" reasonably describes the true situation. Since BYU is perfectly willing to let Hogan teach, but he won't sign the Honor Code, I respectfully suggest that "I won't agree to their conditions" would be more accurate.

Not quite so rhetorically serviceable, but more accurate.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

  And given your last sentence, you appear to agree the situation is untenable - because you yourself expect a resolution.  I could answer your call for a reference - by referencing you.

That's rather sarcastic, not to mention condescending. More to the point, it fails as a CFR. Unless you think "sub-optimal" always equals "untenable," the fact that something needs a resolution does not mean it is "untenable."

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

;0)

I will say your seeming indifference ("if it be a problem") fits the larger trend I described occurring under the Monson administration.  LDS are losing respect & regard for American institutions, from the NYT to BSA to ROTC.  I believe this is a significant aspect of Monson's legacy.  And you are helping make my point, Scott.  But you don't see it, do you?

The NYT is a business operation. Are EV's falling over themselves to agree with everything they write? Are you sure you're not elevating a liberal newspaper to an "American institution" in order to strengthen a weak argument?

The BSA is the organisation that chose to change their moral standards. What would any reasonable person expect the Church to do? Surrender just because they are?

The ROTC is the organisation that can't find a commander who is willing to abide by BYU's long-standing Honor Code provisions.

Now, given your demonstrated attitude towards the Church of Jesus Christ, it's not the least bit surprising that you would blame President Monson. But if Latter-day Saints are losing respect for those organisations, it's not because of anything President Monson did. It's because of what those organisations have done and are doing.

Does that "reasonably support" your conclusion?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, Five Solas said:

In answer to your CFR, I leave it to our readers to judge the officer's words (Kenngo's  link) and decide themselves whether "they won't let me teach" reasonably supports my conclusion.  And given your last sentence, you appear to agree the situation is untenable - because you yourself expect a resolution.  I could answer your call for a reference - by referencing you.

;0)

I will say your seeming indifference ("if it be a problem") fits the larger trend I described occurring under the Monson administration.  LDS are losing respect & regard for American institutions, from the NYT to BSA to ROTC.  I believe this is a significant aspect of Monson's legacy.  And you are helping make my point, Scott.  But you don't see it, do you?

--Erik

___________________________________

If it be your will
That I speak no more
And my voice be still
As it was before
I will speak no more
I shall abide until
I am spoken for
If it be your will

--Leonard Cohen (1934 - 2016)

 

 

16 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

First, we'll need to decide whether "they won't let me teach" reasonably describes the true situation. Since BYU is perfectly willing to let Hogan teach, but he won't sign the Honor Code, I respectfully suggest that "I won't agree to their conditions" would be more accurate.

Not quite so rhetorically serviceable, but more accurate.

That's rather sarcastic, not to mention condescending. More to the point, it fails as a CFR. Unless you think "sub-optimal" always equals "untenable," the fact that something needs a resolution does not mean it is "untenable."

The NYT is a business operation. Are EV's falling over themselves to agree with everything they write? Are you sure you're not elevating a liberal newspaper to an "American institution" in order to strengthen a weak argument?

The BSA is the organisation that chose to change their moral standards. What would any reasonable person expect the Church to do? Surrender just because they are?

The ROTC is the organisation that can't find a commander who is willing to abide by BYU's long-standing Honor Code provisions.

Now, given your demonstrated attitude towards the Church of Jesus Christ, it's not the least bit surprising that you would blame President Monson. But if Latter-day Saints are losing respect for those organisations, it's not because of anything President Monson did. It's because of what those organisations have done and are doing.

Does that "reasonably support" your conclusion?

 

Gotta say I’m puzzled by Five Sodas’s apparent adoration of the Boy Scouts as well as the liberal New York Times. I thought Evangelicals were largely conservative, and last I heard, some Ev organizations that sponsored Scout units were mad at the BSA for its capitulation over the gay issue and were withdrawing from it. Methinks Five Sodas is grasping at reeds to turn into weapons with which to flog the Church from which he apostatized and for which he apparently still feels some animus. 

Edited to add: Here’s a piece from Christianity Today back in 2013 about the backlash from conservative Protestant groups over the BSA action.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/july-august/should-churches-stop-sponsoring-boy-scout-troops.html

You know that mocking screen names is a violation of board rules. 

[Five Solas]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

...

But if Latter-day Saints are losing respect for those organisations, it's not because of anything President Monson did. It's because of what those organisations have done and are doing.

Does that "reasonably support" your conclusion?

 

If it's happening, then its because they deserve it.  But if it's not happening, then... 

How about you get off the fence, kiwi?  Do you think the aforementioned American institutions are getting what they deserve from LDS, or do you think something else?  And if they are getting what they deserve, well, why on earth wouldn't you want such justice to be understood as part of Monson's legacy?  

You're trying to have it both ways.  Forgive my bluntness, but the result of that is nonsense. 

--Erik 

[Five Solas]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Gotta say I’m puzzled by Five Sodas’s apparent adoration of the Boy Scouts as well as the liberal New York Times. I thought Evangelicals were largely conservative, and last I heard, some Ev organizations that sponsored Scout units were mad at the BSA for its capitulation over the gay issue and were withdrawing from it. Methinks Five Sodas is grasping at reeds to turn into weapons with which to flog the Church from which he apostatized and for which he apparently still feels some animus. 

Edited to add: Here’s a piece from Christianity Today back in 2013 about the backlash from conservative Protestant groups over the BSA action.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/july-august/should-churches-stop-sponsoring-boy-scout-troops.html

Five Sodas - really Scott?  You've done it three times now, so I'm pretty sure it ain't an accident and/or attributable to the spell-checker. 

Your readers deserve better than this. 

--Erik

PS.  Instead of "grasping at reeds" you should have said "grasping at straws."  Now that would have been kinda funny.  Straws to drink all those sodas, get it?

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Five Sodas - really Scott?  You've done it three times now, so I'm pretty sure it ain't an accident and/or attributable to the spell-checker. 

Your readers deserve better than this. 

--Erik

PS.  Instead of "grasping at reeds" you should have said "grasping at straws."  Now that would have been kinda funny.  Straws to drink all those sodas, get it?

Of course it’s deliberate. Look at it as a bit of harmless teasing over your use of sectarian dogma as a screen name on a Mormon message board, apparently as a device to brazenly tweak members of a faith from which you have unabashedly apostatized. 

Harmless teasing? It is a violation of board rules and grounds for thread banning.

[kiwi57]

5 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

If it's happening, then its because they deserve it.  But if it's not happening, then... 

How about you get off the fence, kiwi?  Do you think the aforementioned American institutions are getting what they deserve from LDS, or do you think something else?  And if they are getting what they deserve, well, why on earth wouldn't you want such justice to be understood as part of Monson's legacy?

Again: do you refer to the Pope as "Bergoglio?" Enquiring minds want to know!

5 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

You're trying to have it both ways.  Forgive my bluntness, but the result of that is nonsense. 

--Erik 

I'm happy to forgive your bluntness. It's a whole lot less offensive than back-handed insinuations.

I don't live in the US, so frankly I don't care a whole lot about your darling "American institutions." I do notice, however, that you are trying to dictate the terms of the discussion (as usual) and refusing to address questions put to you (as even more usual.)

So do you, as an EV Protestant, regard the NYT as the last word on every subject, that is above criticism of any kind? Yes or no?

And do you, as an EV Protestant, expect your church to follow the BSA wherever it leads? Yes or no?

And do you, as an EV Protestant, expect your church (if it runs any schools) to allow the ROTC to dictate the terms upon which it will operate in those schools? Yes or no?

This is in the interest of operating on a level playing field. If you don't want that, then no further explanation is necessary.

If various "American institutions" choose to part ways with the Church of Jesus Christ on questions of morality, then any loss of respect (which so far has yet to be demonstrated) is not about inflicting "justice" on them "because they deserve it," but the rather natural consequence of that parting of the ways. But your eagerness to fix the blame for that parting upon the institution that didn't move seems rather less than rational.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course it’s deliberate. Look at it as a bit of harmless teasing over your use of sectarian dogma as a screen name on a Mormon message board, apparently as a device to brazenly tweak members of a faith from which you have unabashedly apostatized. 

You're misusing that term.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

You're misusing that term.

Hmm. Let's see.

sectarian: denoting or concerning a sect or sects.

sect: a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.

dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

From Theopedia:
 

Quote

 

Five Solas. The Five Solas are five Latin phrases (or slogans) that emerged from the Protestant Reformation intended to summarize the Reformers' basic theological principles in contrast to certain teachings of the Roman Catholic Church of the day.

 

 

 

(Emphasis mine.)

Misusing the term? Nope. Don't think so.

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hmm. Let's see.

sectarian: denoting or concerning a sect or sects.

dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

From Theopedia:
 

(Emphasis mine.)

Misusing the term? Nope. Don't think so.

 

Sectarian is a term I see Mormons use a lot, probably because Joseph Smith and his contemporaries used it a lot to refer to other churches. The meaning here is a church or sect that views itself as being superior to other sects. A common way this manifests is that a sect will say that only those who are members of the sect will return to live with God.

This may or may not have been an applicable term to use in the early 19th century, but the fact is, most Christian denominations are no longer sectarian. Ironically, Mormonism is sectarian while most other Christian denominations are not.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sectarian is a term I see Mormons use a lot, probably because Joseph Smith and his contemporaries used it a lot to refer to other churches. The meaning here is a church or sect that views itself as being superior to other sects. A common way this manifests is that a sect will say that only those who are members of the sect will return to live with God.

This may or may not have been an applicable term to use in the early 19th century, but the fact is, most Christian denominations are no longer sectarian. Ironically, Mormonism is sectarian while most other Christian denominations are not.

 

 

The term sect has traditionally and historically referred to the various faith groups and theologies within Christianity, of which there are many. Protestantism obviously differs from Catholicism in important respects and thus could reasonably be regarded as sectarian. I think it's safe to say that the "five solas" dogma is not embraced by either the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox churches which, together, comprise the bulk of Christianity (Catholics alone account for 50 percent of Christians worldwide).

I've documented my use of the term with normative definitions from online sources. I thus think you are the one with the quirky definition, and I therefore don't see much point in arguing with you about it. You may have the last word if you want it, but I'm confident in my position, and I stand by it.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The term sect has traditionally and historically referred to the various faith groups and theologies within Christianity, of which there are many. Protestantism obviously differs from Catholicism in important respects and thus could reasonably be regarded as sectarian.

I've documented my use of the term with normative definitions from online sources. I thus think you are the one with the quirky definition, and I therefore don't see much point in arguing with you about it. You may have the last word if you want it, but I'm confident in my position, and I stand by it.

This is why you're continuing to misuse the term - you don't seem to understand what it actually means.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is why you're continuing to misuse the term - you don't seem to understand what it actually means.

If everyone is out of step except Gray, it's quite possible Gray is the one who is out of step.

 

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If everyone is out of step except Gray, it's quite possible Gray is the one who is out of step.

 

You're also misusing the terms "everyone" and "last word".

[Hestia]

Be respectful of other posters.  This includes not changing their names.  This is not 'teasing' and will result in thread bannings in the future.

Banned behaviors:  Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons)

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Sectarian is a term I see Mormons use a lot, probably because Joseph Smith and his contemporaries used it a lot to refer to other churches. The meaning here is a church or sect that views itself as being superior to other sects. A common way this manifests is that a sect will say that only those who are members of the sect will return to live with God.

Call for references, please. Where do you source this alleged meaning?

3 hours ago, Gray said:

This may or may not have been an applicable term to use in the early 19th century, but the fact is, most Christian denominations are no longer sectarian. Ironically, Mormonism is sectarian while most other Christian denominations are not.

Thank you for your opinion.

[theplains]

On 12/01/2018 at 5:11 PM, cinepro said:

Now the petition against the NYT is itself being analyzed for how it makes LDS look to the outside world...

Mormonism’s Crisis of Faith

To Mormons, the breakneck speed with which the church has grown from just six members at its founding in 1830 to
more than 15 million in 2017 represents Daniel’s prophecy fulfilled.

Mormonism’s exponential growth has been a comfort and a testament to millions of Mormons for decades. The gospel
must be true. How else could this religion have expanded so rapidly? 

In fact, church growth has cooled to its slowest pace since 1937. Mormon supremacy is no longer the foregone conclusion
that it was when I was a young believer.

Rate of growth has nothing to do with whether a religion is true or false. But I can understand the reason for the slowing
growth ... the LDS Church has a lot more competition from JW and SDA. 

Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/13/2018 at 10:40 PM, Five Solas said:

........................  Have you ever bought a Sunday edition of the NYT and read the "Arts & Leisure" section?  Or "Travel & Vacations?"  Or the real estate section?  Have you not heard about the 1 percent?  Sorry to break it to all you haters out there--but it ain't exactly Mother Jones.  

As a student of political science at BYU, the NYT international edition was required reading, and everyone had a subscription.  Very thorough and measured coverage.  Maybe not as good as the Times of London, but excellent nonetheless.  I don't really expect the NYT or other papers to understand or report fairly on Mormons.  That's just a bridge too far.  Not that it matters.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/29/2018 at 10:26 AM, Gray said:

Sectarian is a term I see Mormons use a lot, probably because Joseph Smith and his contemporaries used it a lot to refer to other churches. The meaning here is a church or sect that views itself as being superior to other sects. A common way this manifests is that a sect will say that only those who are members of the sect will return to live with God.

This may or may not have been an applicable term to use in the early 19th century, but the fact is, most Christian denominations are no longer sectarian. Ironically, Mormonism is sectarian while most other Christian denominations are not.

"Sectarian" is most often used as a term of opprobrium.  However, I do not see that it applies to either mainstream Christianity, or the LDS Church -- which is quite universalist in its theological purview.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"Sectarian" is most often used as a term of opprobrium.  However, I do not see that it applies to either mainstream Christianity, or the LDS Church -- which is quite universalist in its theological purview.

Well, yes and no. I consider Mormonism to be a very gently sectarian religion. On the one hand, to live with God you must be baptized under LDS authority, in this life or the next. On the other hand, no one is condemned to hell for being in the "wrong" sect. Having a form of sectarianism, but denying the narrow-mindedness thereof.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, yes and no. I consider Mormonism to be a very gently sectarian religion. On the one hand, to live with God you must be baptized under LDS authority, in this life or the next. On the other hand, no one is condemned to hell for being in the "wrong" sect. Having a form of sectarianism, but denying the narrow-mindedness thereof.

I guess the "catch" is that the LDS are just as exclusive as the Roman Catholics in their claim to authority, while being intent on gathering in everyone who has ever been born.  The LDS Church seems quite exclusive and demanding, but it is only a temporal structure which disappears after its work is done, leaving only the eternal nature of the priesthood of God running the universe, and everyone is eligible to participate in that -- regardless of which religion or non-religion they believed in and practiced in their time on Earth.  Very clever of God to have arranged it this way, since He wants to bring back the maximum possible at the end.

Then too, the LDS Church has simply gotten too big and has become too mainstream to be considered "sectarian."  Getting rid of polygamy and racial restrictions on priesthood are part of that.  If I'm not mistaken, the LDS Church is now larger than the Methodist Church.