An Early Christmas Present For "progressive Mormons"

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.millennialstar.org/a-helpful-template-for-progressive-mormons-to-help-them-respond-to-the-latest-news/

It's a helpful template for publicly declaring their shock/disgust/sadness/injury/ailment/heartburn over some new thing that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have done that they don't like.

[Senator]

http://www.millennialstar.org/a-helpful-template-for-progressive-mormons-to-help-them-respond-to-the-latest-news/

It's a helpful template for publicly declaring their shock/disgust/sadness/injury/ailment/heartburn over some new thing that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have done that they don't like.

I'm sure they'll love it!

You're a peach..

[Teancum]

http://www.millennialstar.org/a-helpful-template-for-progressive-mormons-to-help-them-respond-to-the-latest-news/

It's a helpful template for publicly declaring their shock/disgust/sadness/injury/ailment/heartburn over some new thing that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have done that they don't like.

Feeling a bit cynical today?

[Senator]

Feeling a bit cynical today?

Well, it is before he went to church today.

 

Give him time

[Scott Lloyd]

Feeling a bit cynical today?

Nah.

 

I just saw the link on a Facebook post (actually, it was linked to Millennial Star from Dan Peterson's blog) and it struck me as funny.

 

Content warning: It uses the phrase "angry tirade" even as it acknowledges:

 

It’ll even work for those trendy new rants that poorly veil their murmuring under the guise of being diplomatically disappointed.

 

Edited November 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[SmileyMcGee]

http://www.millennialstar.org/a-helpful-template-for-progressive-mormons-to-help-them-respond-to-the-latest-news/

It's a helpful template for publicly declaring their shock/disgust/sadness/injury/ailment/heartburn over some new thing that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have done that they don't like.

I don't care who you are, that there link is funny. It is however missing a date field for any upcoming mass resignations... Edited November 29, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

At the risk of being perceived as a humorless curmudgeon (too late to avoid that one, so I'll just go with it), I suppose I can provide the (no doubt eagerly-expected) voice taking the bait to say that this piece is neither funny, clever, intelligent as satire, or helpful in the real world. 

 

Rather than addressing the reasons some people are feeling "horrified" or "indignant", the author merely asserts without argument that such responses are obviously illegitimate, despite the very noticeable tone of horrified indignation in this piece itself. Apparently it is only acceptable if the horror and indignation is expressed at "progressive" Mormons. Does the author show any signs of ever having reexamined his/her passionately believed conservative assumptions? Is this author unaware that pieces like this are the conservative equivalent of the 'public moral vanity' of the most hardline progressive? 

 

Why are outrage, shock, or depression illegitimate? The author does not say, only assumes that the audience will agree that such responses are not warranted. I think it says quite a lot that this author sneers at the idea of someone having a sincerely 'sensitive and compassionate conscience'. Since the very first chapter of the D&C itself clearly states that our leaders are not infallible, it's very important that Church members stay awake enough to understand whether leadership is "out of touch", "tone deaf", or "afraid of change", because all those things are, in reality, possibilities. 

 

There is no shortage of scriptural precedent for people to need to "evolve, wake up, get with the times" (whether leadership or any other member); we believe in eternal progression, after all. If people are not thinking about minorities, non-Mormons, or children, why is it illegitimate to do what we can to change that? Supposedly, even 'conservative' members should be seeking the one lost sheep, regardless of politics. Is this piece supposed to be an example of a non-stale non-criticism not scribbled online for non-cheap non-social non-capital? 

 

Asserting the existence of logical fallacies, straw men, reductio ad absurdum, ad hominem, or false analogy does not actually address a single logical statement. Is it possible that men of a certain age and background have not considered questions that are outside their experience? Yes. Is it possible that politicians can inspire church members? Since this author clearly believes that progressives are inspired to their detriment by their politicians, the answer is, again, yes - there is no reason to believe that either side of the aisle is immune to that. Doctrinal precedent is not the determination of what is true; there are plenty of doctrines that have been changed in the past. 

 

Finally, what is wrong with waiting for change, or praying for our leaders? Is this author somehow not "wast[ing] time showing off online"? 

 

Real people are hurting, Scott. Blithely dismissing them should be beneath you, or anyone. 

[provoman]

http://www.millennialstar.org/a-helpful-template-for-progressive-mormons-to-help-them-respond-to-the-latest-news/

It's a helpful template for publicly declaring their shock/disgust/sadness/injury/ailment/heartburn over some new thing that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have done that they don't like.

More mockery of members of the Church toward whom a finger of scorn is pointed with the pronouncement "not as faithful as me".

From the millenialstar own guideline:

"We wish this to be a place where we and our readers can discuss topics and issues of interest to the LDS community in an edifying and uplifting manner. We invite all readers to add comments, and we expect those comments to uplift, rather than tear down."

One has to wonder, if edifying and uplifting or lift up and not tear is really their approach, why such an article was posted.

[provoman]

From the comments on the article:

"Millennial Star is better than this. This is a form of ad hominem, and is below our normal standards. Mocking is what the great and spacious building does, not what those at the Tree of Life do."

And

"This piece comes across as snarky and mean-spirited.

The issue isn’t whether the portrayed issue is true or not. Just as Elder Oaks said that evil speaking isn’t OK if the criticism is true, similarly this type of mocking is not OK just because it may be true. It is supposed to be the great and spacious building that is full of mocking and laughter, it should not be the model that is used for the saints."

emphasis added

[SmileyMcGee]

If you can't laugh at the content, at least find the humor in the irony

[DBMormon]

At the risk of being perceived as a humorless curmudgeon (too late to avoid that one, so I'll just go with it), I suppose I can provide the (no doubt eagerly-expected) voice taking the bait to say that this piece is neither funny, clever, intelligent as satire, or helpful in the real world. 

 

Rather than addressing the reasons some people are feeling "horrified" or "indignant", the author merely asserts without argument that such responses are obviously illegitimate, despite the very noticeable tone of horrified indignation in this piece itself. Apparently it is only acceptable if the horror and indignation is expressed at "progressive" Mormons. Does the author show any signs of ever having reexamined his/her passionately believed conservative assumptions? Is this author unaware that pieces like this are the conservative equivalent of the 'public moral vanity' of the most hardline progressive? 

 

Why are outrage, shock, or depression illegitimate? The author does not say, only assumes that the audience will agree that such responses are not warranted. I think it says quite a lot that this author sneers at the idea of someone having a sincerely 'sensitive and compassionate conscience'. Since the very first chapter of the D&C itself clearly states that our leaders are not infallible, it's very important that Church members stay awake enough to understand whether leadership is "out of touch", "tone deaf", or "afraid of change", because all those things are, in reality, possibilities. 

 

There is no shortage of scriptural precedent for people to need to "evolve, wake up, get with the times" (whether leadership or any other member); we believe in eternal progression, after all. If people are not thinking about minorities, non-Mormons, or children, why is it illegitimate to do what we can to change that? Supposedly, even 'conservative' members should be seeking the one lost sheep, regardless of politics. Is this piece supposed to be an example of a non-stale non-criticism not scribbled online for non-cheap non-social non-capital? 

 

Asserting the existence of logical fallacies, straw men, reductio ad absurdum, ad hominem, or false analogy does not actually address a single logical statement. Is it possible that men of a certain age and background have not considered questions that are outside their experience? Yes. Is it possible that politicians can inspire church members? Since this author clearly believes that progressives are inspired to their detriment by their politicians, the answer is, again, yes - there is no reason to believe that either side of the aisle is immune to that. Doctrinal precedent is not the determination of what is true; there are plenty of doctrines that have been changed in the past. 

 

Finally, what is wrong with waiting for change, or praying for our leaders? Is this author somehow not "wast[ing] time showing off online"? 

 

Real people are hurting, Scott. Blithely dismissing them should be beneath you, or anyone.

Jeremy,. While I no longer have the time or energy to debate such nonsense as this op or blog it links to, I do want to say that from day one I have appreciated your level thinking and the voice you provide. Thank you

[readstoomuch]

I don't think it is a laughing matter that some members are hurting or offended by recent Church policies and teachings. What is hard for many faithful members to fathom is how quickly some of these individuals will write scathing comments on social media, threaten to resign their membership, buy into whatever social issue is at play and generally throw a fit (my opinion). All without giving the leaders the benefit of a doubt, not applying critical thinking over the whole of man's history or careful pondering God's word. If my own children are any proof, unless the Church changes to the nth degree that is demanded, then they are underwhelmed. Since they have stopped going to Church, I am not sure I see them coming back to Church just because the Church becomes socially progressive. This is an example. My daughter wants to minister in the priesthood and loves the Church so much that she demands that women be ordained. She has stopped going to Church and as far as I can tell she doesn't believe any more once this didn't happen.

These observation in the Church and the world at large bring up the type of dark humor on display. I have some empathy for both sides.

[Rivers]

I thought the article was funny. But I also understand people are really hurting too. I believe much of the hurt comes from people trying to be in the church but wanting it to change at the same time. That's setting yourself up for disappointment.

[mapman]

It makes me really sad when church members condemn each other. The saddest thing about the whole church policy thing for me has been the anger, the defensiveness, and the lack of empathy towards other church members that has been displayed on all sides. It has woken me up to the fact that we are still really far from a Zion society, and that in many cases we are insecure jerks towards each other. We obviously don't understand the importance of baptism and the covenants we make at that time (hint: one of those is mourn with those that mourn, not make fun of those that are hurt and struggling).

[Thinking]

http://www.millennialstar.org/a-helpful-template-for-progressive-mormons-to-help-them-respond-to-the-latest-news/

It's a helpful template for publicly declaring their shock/disgust/sadness/injury/ailment/heartburn over some new thing that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have done that they don't like.

 

I wish this template had existed when I first started having questions. I could have saved a lot of time on research and I might not be addicted to this board.

[provoman]

It makes me really sad when church members condemn each other. The saddest thing about the whole church policy thing for me has been the anger, the defensiveness, and the lack of empathy towards other church members that has been displayed on all sides. It has woken me up to the fact that we are still really far from a Zion society, and that in many cases we are insecure jerks towards each other. We obviously don't understand the importance of baptism and the covenants we make at that time (hint: one of those is mourn with those that mourn, not make fun of those that are hurt and struggling).

Far from Zion. Unfortunately for millenialstar and Mr. Huston (Las Vegas native, contributor to M*, and published in Interpreter) mockery seems to be entirely acceptable. It is also unfortunate that in defending the "mormonism", violating the very ideals of mormonism is the tactic.

It is very sad, indeed, to see mockery were comfort and mourning should be offered.

[Jeanne]

Far from Zion. Unfortunately for millenialstar and Mr. Huston (Las Vegas native, contributor to M*, and published in Interpreter) mockery seems to be entirely acceptable. It is also unfortunate that in defending the "mormonism", violating the very ideals of mormonism is the tactic.

It is very sad, indeed, to see mockery were comfort and mourning should be offered.

Thank you.

[Bob Crockett]

 

Real people are hurting, Scott. 

 

 

In a politically correct sort of way, yes.   I've never seen you or anybody else trumpet the cause of the children of polygamists denied baptism and required to renounce their parents' marital practices.  My personal experience with such families is there's lots of them who'd have their children baptized if the chance were provided.   But because it is politically incorrect to practice plural marriage, nobody's going to stand up for them.   

 

Life shouldn't be driven by political correctness.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I, for one, simply didn't know that the children of polygamists were denied baptism until this policy change brought them to attention as well. I hereby officially trumpet their cause, too, since it's just as absurd to deny those children. I support [consensual, non-coercive, legal-age, by-the-common-consent-of-all-partners] polygamy just as much as I support [consensual, legal-age, etc] gay marriage. See Martha Nussbaum. Life shouldn't be driven by labeling other people's arguments "politically correct" and then dismissing them based on nothing but the label. 

Edited November 29, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Bobbieaware]

I'm beginning to wonder if this exercise may not boil down many progressive members of the Church being able to dish it out but not being able to take it. We TBMs come to this board and are constantly vexed by progressive members who think nothing of publicly declaring the leaders of the Church are in the wrong on many points of doctrine and policy, and that many of the teachings of the Church are false or -- even worse -- evil. Hearing progressives make these constant negative comments about the Church deeply troubles the souls of those of us who are determined to remain loyal to the Church and its living prophets whom we dearly love, appreciate and support, It"s also undeniably true that most of the progressive members who post here are entirely predictable: If the leaders of the Church come out against some progressive sacred cow, you can almost always count on the fact that the progressives will be outraged and then fearlessly blast the leaders of the Church for being "out of the way." So a perceptive TBM uses satire to point out the painfully obvious fact that the progressives are all too predictable in their outrages and condemnations of the Church, but now the progressives are offended because they don't want someone to use humor to point out an obvious truth. Would pointing out the obvious be acceptable as long as no humor is used to make the point?

[mfbukowski]

Is it possible that men of a certain age and background have not considered questions that are outside their experience? Yes.

Absolutely.

That's why the young and inexperienced need to grow up a bit.

[The Nehor]

Real people are hurting, Scott. Blithely dismissing them should be beneath you, or anyone. 

 

Does being in pain now equate to the right to speak and have people listen? As a blithe dismisser I would have to repent and rearrange my schedule and quit my job so I can attentively read about all the anger and pain in the world.

[The Nehor]

Absolutely.

That's why the young and inexperienced need to grow up a bit.

 

The young assume the old are clueless and ignorant and the elderly assume that somehow their "wisdom" and conclusions are timeless in a changing world.

[mfbukowski]

The young assume the old are clueless and ignorant and the elderly assume that somehow their "wisdom" and conclusions are timeless in a changing world.

I am the last person you want to lay that one on.

I am just looking for a substantive argument. If you have never seen one they are hard to find.

[The Nehor]

I am the last person you want to lay that one on.

I am just looking for a substantive argument. If you have never seen one they are hard to find.

 

Whatever you say grandpa.