rockpond Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 And that is the point and the changing dynamic. Post mormons who are still active lds. Not easy to adjust to if one has been here a long time. Old timers can begin to lose their minds. But this is something for researchers to research. How the dynamics have changed: a post mormon active lds board. I have read the criticisms expressed on this board by active members of the lds church also on the postmormon board. Maybe this is the influence of the internet. I'm not trying to be argumentative... I'm just confused: How can one be a post-mormon and still active LDS. 1
ALarson Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 And that is the point and the changing dynamic. Post mormons who are still active lds. Not easy to adjust to if one has been here a long time. Old timers can begin to lose their minds. But this is something for researchers to research. How the dynamics have changed: a post mormon active lds board. I have read the criticisms expressed on this board by active members of the lds church also on the postmormon board. Maybe this is the influence of the internet.I agree with you, why me, and this would be interesting to study. I honestly believe there are many more "middle way" Mormons than there used to be. I guess that's where I'm at after I went through a time of inactivity and then returned to full activity. I have a love for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and a love for the church and especially my ward members. So I enjoy attending and I feel there's a lot of good within the church. However, the days of believing in only one true church or blind obedience are gone for me....at least for now. 1
ALarson Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I'm not trying to be argumentative... I'm just confused: How can one be a post-mormon and still active LDS.Well, that's a good question! I didn't focus in on that part of his quote. He's probably referring to those who no longer believe but still attend?
why me Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I'm not trying to be argumentative... I'm just confused: How can one be a post-mormon and still active LDS.When active lds sound like postmormons. It is really that simple. I am amazed just how some threads are so similiar to the postmormon boards when it comes to church policy and doctrine both past and present. And to criticism of the GAs. I tend to think that these active members have been influenced by such post boards and ex boards. But still remain in the church.
rockpond Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 When active lds sound like postmormons. It is really that simple. I am amazed just how some threads are so similiar to the postmormon boards when it comes to church policy and doctrine both past and present. And to criticism of the GAs. I tend to think that these active members have been influenced by such post boards and ex boards. But still remain in the church. Is it possible that what you are actually seeing is a gradual shift in the belief systems of active, believing members? Do you consider me to be a postmormon because I believe differently than many here? (I'm not familiar with the boards you are referring to. The only other board I have ever posted to was NOM but stopped posting on that board when I found this one.)
why me Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I agree with you, why me, and this would be interesting to study. I honestly believe there are many more "middle way" Mormons than there used to be.Maybe this is a 'middle way' board now. This is a good name for it. Or perhaps if we make it more academic we can call this board a 'third way' board, somewhere between active and post. I have noticed this for quite some time now. This is certainly not a place for apologists. I like the name 'third way mormons', mormons who are active and yet post-mormon too.
Buckeye Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) FWIW, the only boards I've been booted from are RfM and M*. Go figure. As a fully-active, recommend-holding, raising 5 kids to be missionaries (boys and girls) Mormon, I'm rather baffled that anyone would label me a "post-mormon." Considering all the changes the church has adopted over the years, perhaps it's best to label the church itself as "post-mormon," or at least "post-Joseph" "post-Brigham" "post-BRM". As long as we're going to label each other with "ites" I request to be identified as an Emma-ite Mormon. Edit to clarify: M* isn't really a board, but they tightly police the comments. Apparently supporting women giving their children blessings is over the line. Edited April 10, 2015 by Buckeye
ttribe Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Maybe this is a 'middle way' board now. This is a good name for it. Or perhaps if we make it more academic we can call this board a 'third way' board, somewhere between active and post. I have noticed this for quite some time now. This is certainly not a place for apologists. I like the name 'third way mormons', mormons who are active and yet post-mormon too. Frankly, (IMO) had some of the apologists toned down the rhetoric, I think this would be exactly the place for them. As to this board being a "middle way" haven, I'm not seeing it. Edited April 10, 2015 by ttribe
why me Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Is it possible that what you are actually seeing is a gradual shift in the belief systems of active, believing members? Do you consider me to be a postmormon because I believe differently than many here? (I'm not familiar with the boards you are referring to. The only other board I have ever posted to was NOM but stopped posting on that board when I found this one.)Yes, you would be a third way mormon if you are active and yet, continue to believe what you believe. I don't think that there is a major shift in the church but there is on this board. And who knows as more 'third way mormons' discover this board, they will find a home. Apologist will need to go else where to defend the church. Third way mormons have been influenced by identity politcs/rights, feminisms, postmormon thought, and liberalism, meaning individual liberty to believe in what they wish to believe in the lds church.
Brian 2.0 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 This is certainly not a place for apologists.Why do you think that? I wasn't around earlier so I don't know what it was like. In the past would the apologists all chime in together and help each other out, but now it's become to critical to those types of idea?
rockpond Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Yes, you would be a third way mormon if you are active and yet, continue to believe what you believe. I don't think that there is a major shift in the church but there is on this board. And who knows as more 'third way mormons' discover this board, they will find a home. Apologist will need to go else where to defend the church. Third way mormons have been influenced by identity politcs/rights, feminisms, postmormon thought, and liberalism, meaning individual liberty to believe in what they wish to believe in the lds church. Wow. Yeah, I'm really opposed to these kinds of classifications. To my point... you are quite incorrect about what has influenced me. What is it that I believe that makes me a "third way Mormon"? Edited April 10, 2015 by rockpond
ttribe Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Yes, you would be a third way mormon if you are active and yet, continue to believe what you believe. I don't think that there is a major shift in the church but there is on this board. And who knows as more 'third way mormons' discover this board, they will find a home. Apologist will need to go else where to defend the church. Third way mormons have been influenced by identity politcs/rights, feminisms, postmormon thought, and liberalism, meaning individual liberty to believe in what they wish to believe in the lds church. Since you seem to have taken on the mantle of categorizing and labeling others, I have to ask - Are you still inactive and floating between the LDS and Catholic churches? Where do you fit into this schema you are developing? 2
cinepro Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Yes, you would be a third way mormon if you are active and yet, continue to believe what you believe. I don't think that there is a major shift in the church but there is on this board. And who knows as more 'third way mormons' discover this board, they will find a home. Apologist will need to go else where to defend the church. Third way mormons have been influenced by identity politcs/rights, feminisms, postmormon thought, and liberalism, meaning individual liberty to believe in what they wish to believe in the lds church. That's a good point. It's almost as if there are two different kinds of Mormons now. There are those who are willing to believe everything they hear at General Conference or read in a Church publication, even if it means they have to change their minds about something. But there are those who seem more interested in carving out a unique brand of Mormonism that fits their own views. These have obviously always existed, but as long as the primary gathering place for LDS was the chapels, only the former had a public venue for expressing themselves. But now with the internet, the latter group have been able to find each other and become more vocal. I wonder what we could call these two different groups. Does anyone have any ideas...? 1
ALarson Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 This is certainly not a place for apologists.I don't know. Maybe the hard line ones that used to be around (I haven't been here long myself). I think so much of what the apologists labeled "anti-Mormon" material has now been discussed by the church in their new essays. It's sort of taken the wind out of some of the apologist's sails so to speak.
why me Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 FWIW, the only boards I've been booted from are RfM and M*. Go figure. As a fully-active, recommend-holding, raising 5 kids to be missionaries (boys and girls) Mormon, I'm rather baffled that anyone would label me a "post-mormon." Considering all the changes the church has adopted over the years, perhaps it's best to label the church itself as "post-mormon," or at least "post-Joseph" "post-Brigham" "post-BRM". As long as we're going to label each other with "ites" I request to be identified as an Emma-ite Mormon.And your post above is a good case in point. A fully active member who goes against the grain on certain issues in the church. I would call you a 'third way mormon'. Fully active who has adopted some post-mormon ideology or beliefs. Nothing wrong in that. But this is what the board has become for many posters. And that is fine. We are all free to believe and share what we believe and share. In the past, I defended the church against its critics on this board. But I would never do so now. However, I may counter such posts, but not to agressively regardless of the reaction. Once when I was aggressive toward a 'third way' poster I got reported by similiar members. Thus, I am where I am today.
rongo Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Anyone else sorely miss the old FAIR message board? Much better discussion, and it is a tragedy/travesty how much good stuff has been lost in the changeovers that got us to this point (I had a lot of material from myself and others that I relied on being able to find on the old boards, which is now gone). This would have been from, say, 2004-2009 or so. This board is no comparison, and it's sad.
Brian 2.0 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 All this talk makes it sound like in the past this board was like the wild west in a town where apologists ruled, cooking up new papers and theories, and when a critic strolled in on his high horse the apologist-posse set him straight and ran him out of town.
bluebell Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Anyone else sorely miss the old FAIR message board? Much better discussion, and it is a tragedy/travesty how much good stuff has been lost in the changeovers that got us to this point (I had a lot of material from myself and others that I relied on being able to find on the old boards, which is now gone). This would have been from, say, 2004-2009 or so. This board is no comparison, and it's sad. I joined the fair message board in 2006 and made the change to this one. I honestly don't notice a difference. The same posters that were there are here, and we have pretty much the same mods as far as i can tell.
bluebell Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 All this talk makes it sound like in the past this board was like the wild west in a town where apologists ruled, cooking up new papers and theories, and when a critic strolled in on his high horse the apologist-posse set him straight and ran him out of town. I don't remember it ever being like that, but i think some people believe it was. 1
why me Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Since you seem to have taken on the mantle of categorizing and labeling others, I have to ask - Are you still inactive and floating between the LDS and Catholic churches? Where do you fit into this schema you are developing?Thus I can observe the change rather well. But I have always defended the lds church. And so, I am still a member based on my spiritual experiences in the past. I don't judge members. But the dynamics have changed on the board.That's all. And I never said that it was bad but different now. I am an inactive defender. But if I had some of the feelings of the critical lds, I would have probably left the fold. For example, if I supported OW and other identity issues and had strong negativity against the GAs, etc.
why me Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) All this talk makes it sound like in the past this board was like the wild west in a town where apologists ruled, cooking up new papers and theories, and when a critic strolled in on his high horse the apologist-posse set him straight and ran him out of town.Actually, it wasn't like that at all. Just good discussion. However, there were board purges when the critics became too many. It was always stressed that the board was a promormon board and a balance was needed to be preserved. But those were the days: Dan, Brian, Allen, and many more who are now forgotten. I think that apologists are more into blogging now. But it was a place for members to come for answers from what the critics were saying. And to see the explanations that the apologists were giving. I need to stop posting now because I can't make any more posts today. But I still have 6 more posts listed that I can make. So, something is wrong. Edited April 10, 2015 by why me
JulieM Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 This is somewhere that I feel safe asking some questions I have from time to time. I wouldn't be comfortable asking them at church. I really appreciate this board and feel the moderators do a great job. Thanks to all of them!
ttribe Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Thus I can observe the change rather well. But I have always defended the lds church. And so, I am still a member based on my spiritual experiences in the past. I don't judge members. Based on the categorizing and labeling in this thread, I'm guessing a few participants might disagree with that last (bolded) bit. Edited April 10, 2015 by ttribe 2
ChristKnight Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Pretty sure the mods were not clueless on this. Russell/Pahoran has been a known quantity on LDS-themed boards for a very long time. Nor do I think Russell/Pahoran was attempting to deceive anyone by posting under the new username (for that very same reason). That being said, I'm guessing he was trying to thumb his nose at the powers that be a little for the disciplinary action they took against him. Just to add to the above:The "all-encompassing" assumption I alluded to is the unspoken basis of a doctrine known as the "all-sufficiency" of scripture -- meaning, of course, the 66-book Protestant Bible.Note that "all-sufficiency" assumes that everything necessary for a Christian to know in order to be saved is found in the Bible. However, "all-sufficiency" is not found in the Bible, anywhere. It is not even hinted at.Therefore, "all-sufficiency" is a self-excluding doctrine. For if, guided by the assumption of "all-sufficiency" we must reject anything not found in the Bible, it rather remorselessly follows that we must reject "all-sufficiency" itself, since it is not found in the Bible!Regards,Russell The new tone is appreciated. Even one justified post report and you will be banned again.
The Nehor Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 That's a good point. It's almost as if there are two different kinds of Mormons now. There are those who are willing to believe everything they hear at General Conference or read in a Church publication, even if it means they have to change their minds about something. But there are those who seem more interested in carving out a unique brand of Mormonism that fits their own views. These have obviously always existed, but as long as the primary gathering place for LDS was the chapels, only the former had a public venue for expressing themselves. But now with the internet, the latter group have been able to find each other and become more vocal. I wonder what we could call these two different groups. Does anyone have any ideas...? The saved and the damned.
Recommended Posts