Jump to content
3DOP

My New Mormonism

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the thoughtful post Meerkat. There are several people that attend my ward who wear jeans and they aren’t looked down on by anyone. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

Hi Erik--

I think you presentation here is an over simplification.  Most of us have blind spots in our lives caused by culture and tradition versus doctrine.  For example, growing up in a Norwegan Lutheran home, I could never get used to the two annual lutefisk feeds at home, and the one at church.  Did that make me a bad Lutheran?  Maybe.  I always felt like I was on the outside looking in.  Actually, I was.  I didn't want to get near that salty, cod fish flavored jello, smothered in butter and pepper.

Your comments about jeans in Sacrament fall into the category of culture, maybe in some locations.  Alma 32 states the following: 2 "And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel—
            3 Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart.
            4 Now, as Alma was teaching and speaking unto the people upon the hill Onidah, there came a great multitude unto him, who were those of whom we have been speaking, of whom were poor in heart, because of their poverty as to the things of the world.
            5 And they came unto Alma; and the one who was the foremost among them said unto him: Behold, what shall these my brethren do, for they are despised of all men because of their poverty, yea, and more especially by our priests; for they have cast us out of our synagogues which we have labored abundantly to build with our own hands; and they have cast us out because of our exceeding poverty; and we have no place to worship our God; and behold, what shall we do?
            6 And now when Alma heard this, he turned him about, his face immediately towards him, and he beheld with great joy; for he beheld that their afflictions had truly humbled them, and that they were in a preparation to hear the word.
            7 Therefore he did say no more to the other multitude; but he stretched forth his hand, and cried unto those whom he beheld, who were truly penitent, and said unto them:
            8 I behold that ye are lowly in heart; and if so, blessed are ye."

People are not discouraged to attend because of their clothing.  People will often ask "What do people wear."  We tell them most people are in their Sunday clothes (Maybe some of your parishioners wear Sunday clothes,) but some wear jeans, etc.  Come as you are.  We do, after awhile, tend to gravitate toward clothing that is less casual over time out of feelings of reverence and respect.  That is true in our church, as in others (Maybe even yours Erik.)

It's interesting to me how you say the Mormons feel superior to others a view them condescendingly.  How do I say this kindly?  It seems almost laughable to hear that coming from you, my good friend.

The Mormons on this discussion board are constantly on the defense from criticisms by you "Superior knowledge and superior standards..." and your ilk.  It's on all the controversial topics.  Polygamy.  Joseph Smith sending men on missions to steal their wives (as Rory said above,) believing in a different Christ, etc.  Rarely is there an acknowledgement that both you and we love God and our fellow man, and there are issues of faith that unite us.  If I may be honest, it feels like pot shots and controversy are what drive you.  I don't believe the condescencion is coming from our side.  Do you?  If it comes up, we tell you what we believe and why we believe it.  Rather than accept that, as we accept you, you try to talk us out of our belief.  Why not say "I believe this, and here is why."  And when we say "I believe this, and here is why," why not accept our statement of faith as we do yours?  

I enjoy Mserere Nobis comments on this thread and his not wanting to get down in the weeds.  It's great to hear what he believes.  In all our discussions, I don't believe I have ever criticized your faith or history.  And we've had some pretty good conversations.  But this constant harangue on our historical controversies is tiring.  Judge people by their fruits and testimony whether or not they are Christian.  Then enjoy more time fellowshipping.  No offense intended, Erik.  I know we're all just having fun, right?

Meerkat

Much as I love you, Meerkat - you're vigorously pursuing a tangent & you've completely lost the main idea along the way (the one which 3DOP floated).  You can't read and respond to my post without giving due consideration to his and therein considering the context of my words.  Otherwise you do all our readers a disservice.  

The question is why do the LDS who leave their church tend to atheism/agnosticism, instead of Christianity?  Rory postulated it's because they retain knowledge (based on what they learned in Mormonism) of the "Great Apostasy."  I gently disagreed and put forward my own idea, ending with my Porsche 911 / Chevy Camaro analogy.  For better or worse...

So rather than start rabbit-trailing all over the place, how about you give us your direct answer to the question we were discussing:  Why do you think many or most LDS who leave their church end up atheistic or agnostic?

--Erik 

PS.  And if you really have criticisms of my "faith or history"--please give them.  Silence in the face of error is not a virtue, and never has been.  Don't doubt I'd do the same for you.

:0)

_____________________________________

If you want a taste of madness
You'll have to wait in line
You'll probably see someone you know
On Heartattack and Vine

--Tom Waits, 1980

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Much as I love you, Meerkat - you're vigorously pursuing a tangent & you've completely lost the main idea along the way (the one which 3DOP floated).  You can't read and respond to my post without giving due consideration to his and therein considering the context of my words.  Otherwise you do all our readers a disservice.  

The question is why do the LDS who leave their church tend to atheism/agnosticism, instead of Christianity?  Rory postulated it's because they retain knowledge (based on what they learned in Mormonism) of the "Great Apostasy."  I gently disagreed and put forward my own idea, ending with my Porsche 911 / Chevy Camaro analogy.  For better or worse...

So rather than start rabbit-trailing all over the place, how about you give us your direct answer to the question we were discussing:  Why do you think many or most LDS who leave their church end up atheistic or agnostic?

--Erik 

PS.  And if you really have criticisms of my "faith or history"--please give them.  Silence in the face of error is not a virtue, and never has been.  Don't doubt I'd do the same for you.

:0)

_____________________________________

If you want a taste of madness
You'll have to wait in line
You'll probably see someone you know
On Heartattack and Vine

--Tom Waits, 1980

That's easy.

They know that all religions are preposterous on their face unless one has a testimony.  Gold plates?  Bah!  Bread becomes flesh? Bah!  Somebody died 2000 years ago and now my sins are gone?  Bah!  Some old legends were written by God's finger?  Bah!  There is some invisible Being in the sky who is good and lets bad happen? Bah!   Invisible beings?  Bah!

And yes it is unusual to go from Mormonism which stresses "burning in the bosom" over history (An invisible Jewish culture in ancient America? Bah!  Bring on the aliens!) but indeed you have done that.  

ALL religion requires a "burning bosom" to make it work because it is based on faith and what is in the heart instead of "facts" and those who leave suddenly realize they no longer have the burning bosom

All that's left is "Bah!"

Moroni 10:4-5 and Alma 32 and others, teach that the only way to know religion is true is to follow what God tells you in your heart-and teach that explicitly- unlike other religions! If you accept that, you are Mormon, if not you are nothing. Bah!  That is why it took me so long to find a Pragmatic Church that teaches that mysticism or Fideism is the basis for all religion and freely acknowledges that even to the point of writing their own scriptures.

As has been pointed out, it is VERY unusual for someone like Erik to give up on the testimony while then going into an even more LITERALISTIC church based on Biblical "evidence" while not apparently being bothered that historical facts cannot justify mystical beliefs.

(Sorry Erik ...  but you asked !? ) B:) 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/24/2018 at 8:36 PM, Five Solas said:

Much as I love you, Meerkat - you're vigorously pursuing a tangent & you've completely lost the main idea along the way (the one which 3DOP floated).  You can't read and respond to my post without giving due consideration to his and therein considering the context of my words.  Otherwise you do all our readers a disservice.  

The question is why do the LDS who leave their church tend to atheism/agnosticism, instead of Christianity?  Rory postulated it's because they retain knowledge (based on what they learned in Mormonism) of the "Great Apostasy."  I gently disagreed and put forward my own idea, ending with my Porsche 911 / Chevy Camaro analogy.  For better or worse...

So rather than start rabbit-trailing all over the place, how about you give us your direct answer to the question we were discussing:  Why do you think many or most LDS who leave their church end up atheistic or agnostic?

--Erik 

PS.  And if you really have criticisms of my "faith or history"--please give them.  Silence in the face of error is not a virtue, and never has been.  Don't doubt I'd do the same for you.

:0)

_____________________________________

If you want a taste of madness
You'll have to wait in line
You'll probably see someone you know
On Heartattack and Vine

--Tom Waits, 1980

Hi Erik--

If I mistook your context, I will try to find it in this and tomorrow's response.  I still think you're a great guy, at the same time agreeing with Mark that you and Rory are mistaken in your perception of things.  I didn't take your response to Rory as a defense of a converted Mormon's position. 

This is how the conversation has come across so far to me.  You said I lost Rory’s main idea?  Rory also seems like a nice enough guy who enjoys stirring the pot.  Rory’s concern about Mormon apostates turning to atheism came late in the discussion, as did his statement "I'm delighted that you have escaped Mormonism."  I should probably take that as a kindly, well meaning sentiment from someone who knows literally nothing about my faith, and why I believe it and goes to great lengths to remain in darkness, rather than reason together on the subject.  

This was my take on Rory’s main idea:  He, addressing Mark, said “I still hope we could reach some point of agreement.”  He continued: “…I lit a candle after Mass.. and prayed… that maybe I could have some wisdom to explain why I MUST PROFOUNDLY OBJECT TO YOUR APPARENT BELIEFS.”  Then he launched into internet criticisms, accusing the Church and even recent Apostles of being racist.  Were there racial policies, and even racial remarks made by some early leaders after Joseph Smith?  Yes, there are remarks that could be interpreted that way.  But I reject that the Church culture and most individuals were racist and leaders were racist.  Many (I would say most of us in the pre-1978 years,) were anxiously waiting for the revelation to come, (including prophets) that had been promised, that all worthy males would be able to hold the Priesthood.  For those of us who did not realize it was established by tradition rather than revelation, it seemed no more unreasonable than Jesus bringing the Priesthood to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles.  I have two dear black friends (one of whom passed away two weeks ago,) who joined the Church knowing they couldn’t have the Priesthood yet.  But they had received a personal revelation from God that the Book of Mormon was true, and they waited on God.  Shortly after the revelation came, a black member was called to be Bishop in Tacoma First Ward.  Regardless of your bias, you are misinformed about what we, and black converts, believe.  It was not a matter of prejudice to the membership.  We believed it was the Lord’s priesthood and he could give it to whomever he wanted.  There is “no clear insight into the origins of this practice.”  We now know it was an error.  That’s what happens sometimes when God is dealing with mortal beings to accomplish His work.

Rory went on to share the sensational accusation that Joseph Smith sent men on missions so he could bed their wives, and issues of Book of Mormon historicity.  He, and you, apparently have no idea how offensive such accusations are when there is another way to view what went on back then.  Mark gave you the Church’s statement, and the fact that those marriages were defended by at least one of the polygamous wives.  There is also no DNA evidence that any of those marriages resulted in children, which leads to the question of consummation, and whether the marriages were for eternity only, etc.  And, as Mark said, those alleged scandals have no bearing on whether the Book of Mormon is true or this is the Lord’s restored Church.  I don’t believe Joseph was a fallen prophet.  But even if he was, that would be similar to King David and his son Solomon, who both committed adultery, with Solomon chasing after other gods.  Did the act of those prophets halt the progress of the Lord’s plan?  Of course not.  Looking at the generations of Jesus in Matthew 1, he traces his lineage back through King David’s throne (verse 6) and beyond.  Yet, Jesus was sent through David’s lineage, and the Gospel prospered despite the failings of those mortal prophets.

Hard as this is for you to comprehend, you are misinformed.  We who are converted accept it on faith.  Notwithstanding your protestations, they remind me of Giddonah interviewing Korihor in Alma 30, asking “Why do ye teach this people that there shall be no Christ, to interrupt their rejoicings?”  Now, I know that both of you believe in Christ, but your thread and the way you discuss this betray a deep prejudice and bias against the faith that causes us much rejoicing.  You are either refusing to consider what we are saying, are pounding away to cause contention, or you are viewing our responses as you would a parable, that "seeing, (you) may not see, and not perceive; and hearing (you) may hear, and not understand; lest at any time (you) should be converted..." rather than sincerely seek understanding.  Rory’s words are harsh and unnecessary to make his point.  And yours, rather than investigate other possible reasons for people leaving the Church, you state in your own reasons for leaving that the Church teaches LDS superiority, and condescension on other religions.  Again, there may be some of that in our Church, as well as the Catholic and other churches.  But they are mistakes of individuals, and not what the Church teaches, as I illustrated with the scripture I shared with you from Alma 32. 

I will try to respond to Rory’s question about apostate Mormons turning to atheism tomorrow.  That is my epistle for today.  I hope you enjoyed it, and aren’t offended.  Like Mark, I don’t expect you to accept my position, or even read it, actually.  But I thought I’d give you my best shot on the chance you would at least gain an insight about my actual view of things.  Tomorrow I do have some thoughts on apostates turning to atheism that are very different from your take.  Keep smiling, Erik and Rory!  I hope you have a nice evening!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

"Rory also seems like a nice enough guy who enjoys stirring the pot. "

I wouldn't describe Rory this way.  I believe he just wants to understand what and how others believe, who is somewhat frustrated right now by what he sees as a loss or degrading of faith over time in multiple faiths (he can correct me if I am wrong, of course, me and Rory go way back, but even so I don't assume I always get what his point is).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Rory also seems like a nice enough guy who enjoys stirring the pot. "

I wouldn't describe Rory this way.  I believe he just wants to understand what and how others believe, who is somewhat frustrated right now by what he sees as a loss or degrading of faith over time in multiple faiths (he can correct me if I am wrong, of course, me and Rory go way back, but even so I don't assume I always get what his point is).

Fair enough.   I changed my signature to read "When we open our mouths, our brains are on parade" for just such a critique. :blink:     Rory actually strikes me as a sensitive person who cares for people and doesn't want to hurt anybody's feelings.  I'm sure he is sincere when he says "I'm delighted you have escaped Mormonism" to Erik.   I"m actually a little surprised that he would pursue a discussion that looks a lot like "Saving people from Mormonism" when he is aware that similar tactics could be used describing his faith, without taking into account the overwhelming amount of good that is done by Catholic missions, hospitals and charities.  The scandals are from a relatively small number out of the 1.2 Billion members of the Catholic Church.  Yet it is the scandals that people focus on.  We should be linking arms because both of our organizations are among the most effective in the world bringing Christian relief to the poor and infirm.

Edited by Meerkat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/21/2018 at 9:08 AM, mfbukowski said:

Stuff like this splits the church and encourages prideful thinking that some are better or smarter or better educated than others when we are all just worms trying to become like Christ.

There are no "average Mormons" or "above average Mormons" to see themselves as "NEW".   It is divisive.

There are only folks working within a framework of orthoproaxis and temple recommend questions blundering through life and figuring out things as they go.  We are all creating our own worlds here and most of them work just fine for their occupants.  Some of us are afflicted with the philosophy gene and others are not, some follow the gene and others are sensible enough to ignore it and get on with life on good old common sense, which to me is a kind of gut-level pragmatism.

I love an old guy who will scratch his chin and say "Well, sometimes it's true and sometimes it ain't" and get on with fixing the car.  THAT is what we all should be.  This scrambling about and arguing about words is not exactly what Christ did.   In the old days it was called "sophistry".  Folks had better things to do.  Wave the hand at the nonsense, and get the laundry done.  "It's just talk".

Those are the true Wittgensteinians.

Being like us is kind of like how addictions run in families. ;)

I don't see it as anything to be proud of.  :)

 

I appreciate this line of thinking. I sometimes think I should retire my blog and my idea of wanting to publicize "New Mormonism" ideas. I truly appreciate and respect you and others who I think probably think just like me, but downplay it and focus on where we all agree. And as you may know, I operate anonymously online, and so in my private life when I interact at church with real members, I do exactly that--I assimilate. 

But here's my logic of why I think it's important to be vocal, to clearly define what I'm doing that's different, and to bring attention to it. Not because I think I'm smarter or this is a better way to go. Or even that "New Mormonism" concepts are important such that all members should understand them. 

But I see people leaving the Church because they don't know these ideas exist. They don't know it's possible. They think if someone can demonstrate the BOM is a 19th century work, their only option is to call it a fraud and leave the church. They think if Adam and Eve aren't real people, it's all BS. If Book of Abraham's a fraud, then there is no value in Mormonism. I very nearly bought into this binary view myself. And struggled for many years trying to make sense of it. It took me many years and I almost left the church BECAUSE guys like mfbukowski seemed like they had a different view, but I just couldn't figure it out, because guys like mfbukowski wouldn't come right out and say it and explain it to me.

So, maybe I'm better for fighting through myself and taking the years and time to figure it out for myself. That's a good counter. But also, there are people dropping like flies all over the place because it's just not an accessible perspective. That's why when people claim this New Mormonism idea, I don't pretend it doesn't exist and fight it, and make up confusing arguments that most people just don't understand. I'll go ahead and stick my neck out and say yes, it's totally different. Here's what it looks like. See if it works for you.

I'm sorry if that appears divisive or prideful. But I don't think it is. The end goal is to be unified in that we don't have fractures of people leaving the church and to be more humble by acknowledging there is value in the word of God and the counsel of prophets outside the traditional perspective.

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I appreciate this line of thinking. I sometimes think I should retire my blog and my idea of wanting to publicize "New Mormonism" ideas. I truly appreciate and respect you and others who I think probably think just like me, but downplay it and focus on where we all agree. And as you may know, I operate anonymously online, and so in my private life when I interact at church with real members, I do exactly that--I assimilate. 

But here's my logic of why I think it's important to be vocal, to clearly define what I'm doing that's different, and to bring attention to it. Not because I think I'm smarter or this is a better way to go. Or even that "New Mormonism" concepts are important such that all members should understand them. 

But I see people leaving the Church because they don't know these ideas exist. They don't know it's possible. They think if someone can demonstrate the BOM is a 19th century work, their only option is to call it a fraud and leave the church. They think if Adam and Eve aren't real people, it's all BS. If Book of Abraham's a fraud, then there is no value in Mormonism. I very nearly bought into this binary view myself. And struggled for many years trying to make sense of it. It took me many years and I almost left the church BECAUSE guys like mfbukowski seemed like they had a different view, but I just couldn't figure it out, because guys like mfbukowski wouldn't come right out and say it and explain it to me.

So, maybe I'm better for fighting through myself and taking the years and time to figure it out for myself. That's a good counter. But also, there are people dropping like flies all over the place because it's just not an accessible perspective. That's why when people claim this New Mormonism idea, I don't pretend it doesn't exist and fight it, and make up confusing arguments that most people just don't understand. I'll go ahead and stick my neck out and say yes, it's totally different. Here's what it looks like. See if it works for you.

I'm sorry if that appears divisive or prideful. But I don't think it is. The end goal is to be unified in that we don't have fractures of people leaving the church and to be more humble by acknowledging there is value in the word of God and the counsel of prophets outside the traditional perspective.

  

 

In no way did I mean it as an insult toward you- I am sorry if it sounded like that.

I have just seen quotes hereabouts from folks who were clearly "new Mormon" and seemed to lord it over the dummies who were "liahonas" 

I think there should be a way to unify the two factions if indeed there are two factions.

For me perspectivism -sorry but I will even use the word "Nietzschean perspectivism" is the answer. 

If every Mormon could truly COMPREHEND this one Rorty quote, I think the church could become what it needs to become.

The problem is COMPREHENDING the quote fully and all its implications.  Nothing short of that will do the trick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

Quote

 

Rorty: I think it was unfortunate that Pragmatism became seen as a theory of truth.  I think it would have been better if the pragmatists had said “We can tell you about justification we just can’t tell you about “truth” - there’s nothing to be said about it.  We know how we justify beliefs, we know that the adjective “true” is applied to beliefs we have justified, we know that a belief can be true without being justified, that’s about all we know about truth.  Justification is relative to an audience or range  of truth candidates, “TRUTH” is not relative to anything.  

Just because it isn’t relative to anything, there’s nothing to be said about it.

Truth with a capital T is sort of like God- there’s nothing to say about God.  That’s why theologians talk about ineffability, contemporary Pragmatists tend to say the word “truth” is undefinable, but none the worse for that, we know how to use it, we don’t have to define it.

Commentator: That’s like Nietzschean Perspectivism “There are no facts only interpretations”

Rorty: That gives the general Pragmatist idea that no description, or if you like, interpretation is closer to “reality” than another, some of  them are more useful for some purposes than others, but that’s about all you can say.

Nietzschean perspectivism which says you can’t rise above interpretations to get to facts, or dig down below interpretations to get to facts, it’s substantially the same thing that I said before that Pragmatists try to get rid of the reality / appearance distinction.

 

THIS is all that really needs to be understood and accepted for all this to fly and unify New Mormonism and Liahona Mormonism

We know what "truth" means in court, we know what is true or false when you don't know which kid stole the cookies.  That's about all the word "truth" is good for.  Applying it as if there is a verbal correspondence between words and what is "real" is the MISTAKE.   It is mistaking symbols for reality, when all we can talk about are alleged "descriptions" of reality

All anybody has are APPEARANCES as things APPEAR to the speaker.  Your testimony- your point of view- is based on YOUR life experience, not mine, hence every human sees the universe from a slightly different angle than every other human who has ever lived.  No one else has your parents, the place you were raised, the same siblings as you etc etc. all of which affect the way you see EVERYTHING

If everybody got that, we would be DONE!

But now we mention the word "Nietzsche" and everyone thinks "OH NO- that's the God is dead guy" and turns off.  Turns out that Nietzsche was talking about the old sectarian god who never lived, he is not the LIVING GOD of Mormonism.   The old god is a pickled fossil of mistaken tradition- actually a fossil of dead men's metaphors as Rorty would put it.

There is still too much Protestant sectarian thinking in Mormonism- and THAT is the problem.  Our dear dear ancestors brought their culture with them and it stuck.  It was inevitable, just as Neoplatonism got into early "Christianity",  a word hijacked for 2000 years

So what Neoplatonism calls "appearances" ARE reality.   A chair is red or brown- all of those are appearances of the chair and the only reality we can see- the APPEARANCE of a chair is its reality- there is no "Form of Chairness" attached to it which is the "reality"

There IS no distinction between reality and appearance.

In the religious realm, if you think God is speaking to you, there is no "reality" to say He is NOT!!  We have to take the reality of that experience as just as valid as the experience of a red chair in your corvette.

There are no "facts" to prove that God does not exist IF he manifests himself to you.   There IS no "reality /appearance" distinction here

What you see is what you get!!  What you feel in your heart is truth for all you can know as a human being- bias is a part of every thought we are able to think and proper in thinking about morals and religion.  We know that murder is "wrong" NOT by "evidence" but because we know it in our hearts.  We see a mutilated body and find it "disgusting", want to cover it up and KNOW murder is wrong. 

So imo that quote right there plus a dose of Fideism and you've got the stew right there in front of you to unify the "Liahona" Mormons and the "Chapel Mormons"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

As I see it all it is is education in philosophy and anybody can learn it.  It's not about being "intellectual" it is about common sense.   Reality is right in front of your nose in all you see, if you put what you see into words, you just put it into symbols and is NOT what you see!!

It is as obvious as can be to me!

Words are not things- red chairs do not appear when I say the words so words are not reality.  Appearances ARE reality.  No distinction.

It's as simple as that!

Don't get caught up in the Neoplatonic world of illusion which no one can see or experience.  The world IS as you experience it, including God.

How much more simple do you have to be than that??

It's the people who pursue "truth" as if it is something beyond the tip of your nose and the feelings in your gut that are confused!!  How much more common sense can you get?  You could be a farmer in a field who never had one day of schooling to understand THAT!!

In fact an "education" of the wrong kind is what causes the problem- you get brain washed into the idea there is some "reality" besides what you see and feel in your heart.

Trust your gut and you become an instant Fideist!

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Rory--

I get the sense it makes you feel bad when some of us question your motives.  You seem like a nice guy.  Obviously, many here know and like you.  I'm fairly new, and I like you.  Still, I question your objectivity and ability to have a sincere, open minded discussion on this topic.  

You start out with an apparent light hearted joke, or was it in fact condescending?

On 2/17/2018 at 1:16 PM, 3DOP said:

I just know that if you could have eyes to see, unblinded by this philosophy of men, that we could be best of friends. Do you not think the same way toward me when you think about it? For my part, I still hope that we could reach some point of agreement. Realizing that this would require a miracle of grace, I lit a candle after Mass this morning, and prayed the appropriate prayers that you would stop being such a stubborn blankety blank. Not really...just that maybe I could have some wisdom to explain why I must profoundly object to your apparent beliefs.

From the quotations below, blaming the New Mormonism on the video, and the quotation that the New Mormonism doesn't read scriptures or attend conference, you make it sound like you don't have a dog in this hunt.

On 2/17/2018 at 1:40 PM, 3DOP said:

Its probably an in (sic) internet phenomenon.

But the new Mormonism to which I refer says that the ban on blacks in the priesthood was because of racism. It accepts that the polygamy Joseph Smith practiced allowed him to sleep with other men's wives while they were away on missions. It doubts the historicity of the geography and characters in the Book of Mormon. It is typified by a young man who made a video a week or two ago saying that he is Mormon even while holding to views like those I have just described. In short, the New Mormonism I have in mind accepts anti-Mormon apologetics and remains LDS.

I doubt if ‘new Mormonism’ (my term) uses conference, Scripture study, or their church experience to arrive at their position.”

Rather than just say they disagree with some things in our history, you make it very clear what the offensive things were.  You spell some of them out in the most offensive way possible.  Throughout your responses, from beginning almost to end, you defend your take on these things, and refuse to acknowledge what Mark and others are trying to communicate when they say you misunderstand what and why we believe what we do, in faith.

That's okay.  We still like you.  I just think it would be help dialogue if it didn't start with "If you could have eyes to see, " and not tell us why you must "profoundly object to your apparent beliefs."

Can you see how that kind of intro could inhibit an otherwise interesting conversation for some of us.

Regarding why some apostacize and fall into athiesm, this is how I see it: I believe the problems with apostasy correlate with the advent of internet and pornography.  I've seen several returned missionaries get involved in pornography and fall away, many becoming athiests.  I believe for many, they chase the Spirit away by their actions.  When that Spirit goes, so does their faith in God.  Ill come back latet.  Out of steam for tonight.  Sorry.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×