Wishing for answers

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Not when I'm paying their salary.

Then stop paying them.

[UtahTexan]

24 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Not if one is contributing  a lifetime of dollars to an organization.

Not true......you contribute because you want to..it is a donation.....no one makes you....so...you are wrong

[Bobbieaware]

17 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Your welcome to answer them but I wish the Brethren would answer these directly.

"God’s kingdom, where questions are honored" - Elder Oaks

HERE ARE MY 21 SINCERE QUESTIONS I HOPE THE BRETHREN WOULD HONOR BY ANSWERING EACH OF THEM AS THEY ARE.

These are sincere questions I have that would go a long way to resolve my doubt and even more my frustration.  It doesn't even matter what the answers are, only that my leaders be vulnerable enough to answer them without changing the questions or avoiding them.  I realize that it may seem as though some questions are duplicated but I assure you they are different to me.  Please honor that.  Brethren, I need you to answer these, please.  Gone are the days where you can change my question or deflect it to apologists or scholars, or avoid them altogether.  Even an "I don't know" would go really far to help me.

1.) Can one pay tithing in the present on surplus income and still be a temple worthy and faithful Latter-day Saint? especially in light of the historical and theological evidence that this was the way it was intended/understood?  My question here is based on what I percieve is your discomfort in giving people this option in your public discourse while seemingly approving the 10% of Gross definition in spite that history, scripture, and revelation seem to give more validity to Surplus or something like it.  

2.) Have all 15 prophets seers and revelators at any one time been united on doctrine only to be shown to be wrong? in light of the Race and Priesthood essay. While you seem to hint at this, you seem to steer clear of ever acknowledging it publicly.  It seems you like you are willing to acknowledge this on some surface level and history bears it out but you seem determined to not say this to general membership.

3.) Do you concede church stances on issues have likely contributed to youth suicide especially the Church stances on LGBT issues?

4.) How much money do Full time Seventies get paid.... what about Apostles?

5.) Did you sign a non-disclosure form when joining the seventy... What about the 12?

6.) Was the priesthood ban an error rooted in racism? Again you seem happy to have your words be ambiguous so both sides fight over their meaning... could you just tell us what the essay is saying?

7.) Did John Taylor receive a revelation from God in 1896 that we turn a blind eye to.... Why?  you agree it seems to be Christ speaking and that polygamy will never end and that it was the new and everlasting covenant?  As a followup - You do see how our fundamentalist Brothers and Sisters in the break off groups can validate their schism from this revelation right?

8.) Is it true that Brigham young taught that he believed his Adam God ideas were revelation from God and if he did, why do we now say he was wrong?  The quotes are there, it is just important to hear you acknowledge it due to the repercussion of disavowing an idea once taught by a prophet as revelation revealed from God.

9.) Is it true that while leaders claim to be scripture, that scripture can be wrong?

10.) Is it true that no explanation for the book of Abraham is without deep problems?

11.) Is it true that the strengthen members committee keeps records on dissenting members to assist or encourage local leaders to weed them out?  Do they have a file on me? Can I see it?

12.) Is it true that while Church Public Affairs insists that all discipline matters are handles locally that certain discipline cases have been encouraged by members of the 12 and seventy with pressure to go after certain individuals?

13.) To the top 15 men, have you seen Jesus face to face individually and collectively or one or the other?  If you have not seen him collectively How can you know when you are getting revelation from him and not your own biased prejudiced views like leaders in the past

14.) Why do you continue to pose hope as less than knowing when Alma 32 seems to value both as gifts to be honored by God?

15.) Did the brethren approve/ know / authorize shock treatment to the genitals to "cure" gays at BYU?  Because we can no longer debate if this was done.  It was.  You know that right?

16.) Why do you tell us we can trust you as having attained the mind and will of God when all 15 of you are united when that has seemingly failed in the past and present leaders among you admit as much in the Race essay that approved by the 1st presidency on LDS.ORG

17) Can you help us understand how the top 15 under George Albert Smith were unitedly wrong about Doctrine that is today disavowed theories but in the next breath assure us that the current top 15 are absolutely right on the doctrine of LGBT members?

18.) Why on one hand do we declare that Joseph Smith said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations" as if that shows the revelation of today's leaders can be trusted and on the other hand we have set aside several revelations from prophets as being understood today as not true? (Adam God, John Taylor 1886 revelation, and others)

19.) Why do you insist on our not trusting the internet for answers to our questions when you either change our questions or avoid answering them altogether?  In other words why say gone are the days teachers can avoid the tough questions of students but that is exactly what you do?

20.) Why do you not speak up in General Conference and tell our gay youth not to hurt themselves?

21.) How are we to trust our experiences with the spirit when those of other faiths have the same kind of experiences giving them testimony of their beliefs which contradict ours?  Can you validate that others seem to have the exact same experiences about contradicting beliefs?  Can you validate that others outside our faith seemingly feel the holy ghost as strong as those in our faith who have "The Gift of the Holy Ghost"

22.) Was it true that Joseph's treasure digging and mystical practices go much deeper than he let on?  can you truly grasp why stuff like this disturbs peoples faith?

23.) Was there ever a revelation from Christ to cease the participation of the sisters in blessings? If so where can I find it?

 
Honestly acknowledge your questions and your concerns - Elder Holland
 
 
In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. - Elder Uchtdorf
 
We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question. - Elder Uchtdorf
 
It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. - Elder Uchtdorf
 

“Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, ‘Don’t worry about it!’ Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. ” - Elder Ballard

What questions do you have that you wish would be honored?

My guess is you will likely never get the answers you want in this life. You seem to be so driven to have your many questions answered to your complete satisfaction, and for this reason it could be that your life's great spiritual test will be to see if you gain an unshakable testimony of the Restored Gospel, even though your many questions will go unanswered.  And before you dismiss my musings out of hand, remember the Book of Mormon promises the humble, meek and sincere followers of Christ that the Holy Ghost will reveal all hidden mysteries without the need for input from man.

[strappinglad]

As a former educator in the public system, I have on rare occasions encountered people who demanded a response because " I pay your salary !" . I was tempted to hand them a dollar and say, " here's your money back " .

The BoM is the story of brothers and their descendants who had opposing views of what was right and proper. Over a period of a millennium thousands fought and died because they had different answers to the same questions. Even the appearance of angels made no difference in the long run. We are told that God holds the destroying angels back . My what patience!

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I have written two GA's in the past asking such tough questions. While kind they have declined to answer

I have an acquaintance among the GA's, who was in the same mission as I at about the same time.  Years later, we even served at about the same time as branch presidents in the same stake in a foreign land, and we've maintained a loose fellowship over all that time. He was a spiritual giant then, and he is a spiritual giant now.  

I've never thought that it was necessary for me to ask him questions like until the ones in this laundry list.  I've confided in him certain thoughts I have had regarding certain precious topics, such as the Atonement, and he has responded occasionally with comments about what I've written.  But I did not need his input, nor was my intent to resolve horrendous issues I was having, because I have none.  I've discussed things relating to church policies with local authorities, and had interesting conversations with them about such things, but you know something?  Nothing in your laundry list causes me one bit of consternation.  Perhaps some of them might be interesting to hear more about.  But perhaps nothing in your list is at all important in the ultimate scheme of things.  I have had a sufficient number of deep, spiritual communications through the Spirit that lead me to conclude that that which is among the most important is how we treat our fellow humans, and how we express our love for them.  And that Christ's Atonement is something that is of supreme importance, over everything else, and teaching and understanding this is far more important than anything in your list, and indeed, your entire list.

We won't know everything in this life, and there is not reason to believe we even need it.

With regard to your list, you are barking up the wrong tree.  As for me and my house, these questions are distractions.  Pointless distractions.  If you ever get them answered, guess what?  There will be more questions.  

[rodheadlee]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Rod, in what way does that answer my question? I didn't ask if God created male and female.

Nevermind.

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Why???

Because it shows a total lack of faith in Jesus Christ to be able to run His church as He sees fit,to choose His apostles and Prophet, to institute doctrine when He sees fit etc. 

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I never cease to be amazed how many otherwise intelligent Mormons will defend the refusal of their leaders to be transparent in answering simple questions.

There may be innocent enough answers to these questions, but the reticence to address them suggests otherwise.

Rarely do people hide what is innocent.

 

 

If only Jesus Christ had chosen you to run His Church  everything would be great. Why do you suppose He didn't?

[Tacenda]

https://leavingthegarden.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/letter-from-a-doubter/ This letter is packed full of questions needing answers.  One is why would it take 100 years to reverse the ban on blacks receiving the PH if it was wrong in the first place.  Sorry to horn in on your OP DB, I hope you don't mind.  

[Rivers]

I probably have a longer list of questions but I have come to accept there are things for which we will never have satisfactory answers. Not that having questions is wrong. We just shouldn't become overly preoccupied with them.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, strappinglad said:

As a former educator in the public system, I have on rare occasions encountered people who demanded a response because " I pay your salary !" . I was tempted to hand them a dollar and say, " here's your money back " .

 

This made me guffaw. 

Early in my career at the Church News, some guy came into the office for some matter or other that I've forgotten. Making small talk, he had the temerity to say his tithing money paid our salaries. The editor made certain he understood that our pay came not from his or anyone else's tithing but from the money earned by the Deseret News through ad sales and subscriptions. 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

16 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I DO have training in the law...and I know when questions are designed to solicit honest answers and I know when questions are meant to cause discussion and to ridicule and to make points.

 

Most people with training in the law know answers are "elicited," not "solicited."

[Kevin Christensen]

20 hours ago, salgare said:

Thank you Kevin for this response.  It is because of Mark, Robert and likely you with out me remembering the name and this Alama 32 association that I have been very intrigued with philosophy of which I had no previous contact.  For my own personal spiritual journey, I've started to pursue this and intend to continue.  I started here and became addicted to the thinking with the very first lesson showing the paradox's in a simple example of what is right and wrong.

http://www.justiceharvard.org/

I watched the whole series with great interest.

My comments here at MDDB may seem negative towards nuanced Mormonism.  What my negativism is about is it is almost opposite of the church I grew up in and IMO is going to be totally foreign to the majority of active, correlated Mormons.

I wrote a letter/essay to my children highlighting what I saw as the various eras of Mormonism.  In a nutshell not a lot, doctrinal wise, change from JS death to well into 50's (end of the Grand Generations time).  Then what I called the BRM years ... the Baby Boomer and their children's years.  Heavy correlation coming on during this era with it coming into full bloom during the X generation and now what I see as nuanced Mormonism being the era of the millennials and beyond.  The rapid acceleration of change over time being non-linear and going hockey stick on a graph from 2000 on and currently having three or more generations across these eras (hence IMO the need for secrecy and mixed messages from the Church).

Is the Church being transparent in where this is going?  Who's driving this bus?  Realize my objections are not towards doctrines over these eras, or where they may lead in the future.  My concern is for my grandchildren tied into an organized religion that IMO sold out to capitalism, and how this is going to effect my children caught in the middle of an upbringing in fundamentalism/BRMism from their father to this brave new world.  A lot of potential pain lies ahead for the likes of my children and how they might adjust to this new found "diversity"

One of my favorite comments from Brigham Young is is urging the saints to "understand people as they are, and not as you are."  (Quote in Nibley's Brigham Young and the Enemy" an essay that is never quote-mined by critics for reasons that are obvious when you read it.)  Personally, I think God is in charge, but he does things his way, without compulsory means, with love as the "first and great commandment" rather other high sounding values such as freedom, or efficiency, or safety, or order.  So things take time and get messy, and call for faith on our part.  (Some people complain, "How can I have faith without absolute certainty!" and do so without comprehending the irony.)

One of the reasons I love Kuhn is that understanding how paradigms work helps me understand now only who is driving the bus, but also how even asking such a question in those terms (a need for a known driver, concern about who drives, and a bus in which we are merely clueless passengers) reveals something about your paradigm, how you see the world, and also, inevitably, how you do not see and question.  Every paradigm is both a lens and a filter.  

I also love the Myers-Briggs type theory which helps me appreciate diversity among the saints, and tendencies among those whose spiritual gift happens to be "administration", and yes "administration" is listed as a spiritual gift, separately, I notice from the gift of knowledge.  Nibley, I notice, was never called on to act as an administrator, but without any position, he did manage to have a far reaching effect on the lives of many members of the church.  And he was not the only one to do so.

And I often refer to the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth, and have a link to a summary on my "About Me" page.  That helps me see how different people operate at different positions among 9, and that there is no way to institutionally shove everyone to Position 9, nor can those at Position 9 necessarily satisfy the intellectual and spiritual needs of those at, say, Position 2.  I'll make it easy.  Veda Hale's little summary to me reads like poetry.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/Perry%20Scheme.pdf

I see "The Church" as an assembly of people of different types, cultures, backgrounds, genders, talents, aptitudes, interests, ages, awareness, and at different stages of growth.  What binds us is that we have made covenants with God, and by doing do ought to sustain one another.  And yes it makes a surprising difference if you actually look up what "Sustain" means in a good dictionary.  What "The Church" is not, is a Giant Moral Agent that has an obligation to report to me for my personal approval, or only those who work in office buildings in Salt Lake City.  To me The Church is not "them", separate overlords, but "us" in a diverse community.  The institutional arms of the church are after all, appendages serving the body, but NOT the whole body.  The Church is not a complete set of directives regarding "What to Think."  It is a living covenant community in process, not stasis.  D&C 1 is very clear on this, if you actually read it carefully, which I happen to have done.

I participate simply and solely because I believe that the Restoration is Real.  Not that the people or knowledge or institutions are perfect, or obligated to live up to my personal expectations, or pander to my desires.  But because it is Real.  God, Jesus, Joseph Smith, Nephi, Moroni.. Real.  Not because I know everything, or because of a feeling or experience I've had, though I have had those.  I've tested it in a wide variety of different ways (some of which is in print because no one had done it before me), and have found my doing so to be mind-expanding, soul enlarging, enlightening, fruitful, beautiful and appealing, and possessing the most appealing future promise 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited April 9, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://leavingthegarden.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/letter-from-a-doubter/ This letter is packed full of questions needing answers.  One is why would it take 100 years to reverse the ban on blacks receiving the PH if it was wrong in the first place.  Sorry to horn in on your OP DB, I hope you don't mind.  

Maybe it was a challenge for white members to see for  themselves how to treat the black members. 

[salgare]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Could you clarifywhat you mean by "a critic's view as a defense against a simple two way split" because it is confusing and my closest guess of what you mean never resembled FM's approach since I became involved 15 years or so ago.

First, when I returned here I asked for the decency and respect to simply notify me if I was not welcome here and that I would simply leave.  Yesterday I was thread-banned and put on restricted status in less than one hours time of the OP.  The reason given was obviously a fraudulent and unjust charge of not responding to others posts and not answering CFR's.  This board needs the diversity of posters like me.  I sure as heck don't need to be one of your leashed regular critics, controlled by the constant fear of the ban axe falling after every submit, or to be constrained via limited status.  I had hoped that your need for some diversity would bring on some respect and change in this regard.  I'll finish up with a few posts, as my daily limit might allow.

Now to your question:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_internet/Internet_Mormons_vs._Chapel_Mormons

The apologist insists that we are a big tent, no doctrine, no orthodoxy church.  Mark drives this concept home

here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67331-a-different-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209612218

and here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67331-a-different-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209612220

And yet Juliann seems to acknowledge the obvious "diversity" indeed can be categorized into named sterotypes:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67384-wishing-for-answers/?do=findComment&comment=1209612172

Over the last few days I spent time trying to impress upon Steve that he can not simply go to lds.net to understand this diversity.  I believe it was also Juliann that labeled jlhPROP a fundamentalist when Steve started to pick up on this diversity and she was pointing out what I mean by old school.  I don't know what label she might use for Mark, mine is Nuanced.

The one thing that is certainly clear is that the spectrum are all TBM.  The thing that is much more shuttle is that the two ends of the diversity spectrum are all but polar opposites in many ways and categorizing and labeling this diversity of believe is required for any meaningful dialog and discussion of what does a TBM believe.

My view as a critic is that Steve would need to understand the three categories, and the four generations that are currently alive, understanding the rapidly changing stereotypical beliefs of these groups of TBM's

I used to scratch my head as to why the apologist fought this in the past.  But stand amazed at the forethought of how important it is going to be to transition the current generations.  It has snuck up on me unawares ... no orthodoxy, no doctrine ... what G.I./baby boomer would have ever thought?

Edited April 9, 2016 by salgare

[thesometimesaint]

Salgare:

I'm a GI and a Baby Boomer. Joined the Church when I was 20. If someone is uncomfortable with change the Church probably isn't for them.

Articles of Faith #9 We believe  all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[Rain]

On Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:45 AM, DBMormon said:

It would help me regain trust in the authorized institution of the Lord.  No whether they did it or not but whether they are ready to own the truth of said behaviors and experiences.

Perhaps you are asking the wrong questions if that is what you are looking for.  Wendy Watson Nelson's book on questions and prayers really changed the way I ask questions to God. It made me think, sometimes for quite awhile,  of the best questions to ask Him.  While I was actively working through the book I sometimes needed to pray to get help to formulate the right question to ask Him. 

Have you considered asking Him if you are asking Him the right questions in regards to your concerns over trust with church leaders? 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Rain

[Jim Stiles]

16 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

My guess is you will likely never get the answers you want in this life. You seem to be so driven to have your many questions answered to your complete satisfaction, and for this reason it could be that your life's great spiritual test will be to see if you gain an unshakable testimony of the Restored Gospel, even though your many questions will go unanswered.  And before you dismiss my musings out of hand, remember the Book of Mormon promises the humble, meek and sincere followers of Christ that the Holy Ghost will reveal all hidden mysteries without the need for input from man.

The God of the Bible really does not want or expect in blind faith.  The Gospel of the Bible is absurd (Camus sense, not Monty Python sense), but I cannot find a better explanation of what happened after the resurrection.

[salgare]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

One of my favorite comments from Brigham Young is is urging the saints to "understand people as they are, and not as you are." 

 

Again thank you for a thoughtful reply.  I wish I would have spent more time here following you.

[Jim Stiles]

On 4/8/2016 at 3:03 AM, DBMormon said:

...

3.) Do you concede church stances on issues have likely contributed to youth suicide especially the Church stances on LGBT issues?

10.) Is it true that no explanation for the book of Abraham is without deep problems?

13.) To the top 15 men, have you seen Jesus face to face individually and collectively or one or the other?  If you have not seen him collectively How can you know when you are getting revelation from him and not your own biased prejudiced views like leaders in the past

18.) Why on one hand do we declare that Joseph Smith said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations" as if that shows the revelation of today's leaders can be trusted and on the other hand we have set aside several revelations from prophets as being understood today as not true? (Adam God, John Taylor 1886 revelation, and others)

19.) Why do you insist on our not trusting the internet for answers to our questions when you either change our questions or avoid answering them altogether?  In other words why say gone are the days teachers can avoid the tough questions of students but that is exactly what you do?

3. Lots of churches have issues with LGBTQ activity.  LGBTQ teens have higher rates of suicide both inside and outside of churches and religious organizations.

10. None of the literature contemporary to the "translation" of the Book of Abraham say that it was anything other than a translation.

13. Over 500 people were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ.

18. Deuteronomy says that a prophet has to be accurate 100% of the time.

19. Most churches are fearful of the internet because there is porn on the internet.  Most churches do not care about non-porn internet content.

 

[salgare]

46 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Salgare:

I'm a GI and a Baby Boomer. Joined the Church when I was 20. If someone is uncomfortable with change the Church probably isn't for them.

Articles of Faith #9 We believe  all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I don't have many posts sometime so if I quit responding I've hit my limit ... in more ways than one.

1. Are you clear and understand what MFB wishes for and works for the Church to become?

2. Do you believe there is no absolute or external Truth?

3. Are you familiar with relativism and pragmatism?

4. Do you believe there is NO doctrine or orthodoxy in the Church?

5. Do you believe that all that is involved in the above questions is being reviled by God to the FP to be distributed to the members?  If so, why are these concepts not taught at GC?

 

 

Edited April 9, 2016 by salgare

[Calm]

22 hours ago, salgare said:

For example, when did FAIR/FairMormon switch over from a critics view as a defense against a simple two way split (the old Chapel Mormon, Internet Mormon) to now supporting a wide spectrum of belief?

Thank you for your explanation, but I am still confused.  Perhaps you could give examples of FM's previous position as you see it to contrast to the current one.  I have been with FM since 2002 and my experience is that in general FM members individually and collectively has always seen belief positions in the Church as a wide spectrum of belief.

[juliann]

On 4/8/2016 at 9:36 AM, DBMormon said:

IGNORE THIS WINDOW THAT WON"T GO AWAY

Salgare asks:

Quote

 I'm not trying to be nasty here, I really do want to understand the correct evolution and be able to discuss this evolution with a better vocabulary that is not so offensive.  I did ask in the other thread if someone would explain what I assume is a fairly recent change, at least in name from FAIR to FairMormon?  Is my view of FairMormon just stuck in the past?  Would my statements of conservative orthodoxy have been true five years ago, 10, or have I simply always been wrong in this view?  For example, when did FAIR/FairMormon switch over from a critics view as a defense against a simple two way split (the old Chapel Mormon, Internet Mormon) to now supporting a wide spectrum of belief?

The name change was for better branding. FAIR is an acronym. Most people didn't know what apologist meant. We got permission from the Church to use "Mormon", BTW.  We started on the AOL message boards where we were assaulted by evangelical ministry types no matter where we were or what protections we asked for,  Today, we could  file a lawsuit against AOL for the discrimination they allowed and even supported. We had to rely on AOL or one other larger server for access to the internet community at that time so leaving wasn't the option it is today.   It was very ugly and quite shocking for those just new to the internet...like me. We evolved from that very polemical beginning.

IMO, the biggest changes happened when we combined forces and used the Bible right back at the hostile EVs, as well as early Christian history. We were much more informed and more skilled in our approach. Over the years, they dropped away just as we have seen on this board. Now everything is about secularism and unhappy Mormons or ex-Mormons who seek to do damage in more creative ways. There is a recent push to support those who are struggling and that has become a major goal.  I wouldn't say we support a "wide spectrum of belief" in the way I think you might mean it, there are limits. But I do think there is a place for everyone no matter what as long as they aren't trying to do damage. It has been disheartening to see so many FB posts giggling over how they got a "subversive" lesson over on the children, for example. The emphasis is on giving reasonable responses to critics from a faithful perspective. That means we do have to accurately represent those critiques or we aren't really answering anything. (It is much easier for critics to misrepresent our side when they are starting with accusations.)

The Chapel/Internet nonsense was tested on us when this was the FAIR board. Those of us who answered the questions scored as Chapel Mormons. So Shades' changed the questions to get the answer he wanted. He still couldn't. An orthodox leaning Internet Mormon will always score as a Chapel Mormon because it is a simplistic false dilemma meant to avoid having to respond to what is being said by the wide variety of those who support the church.. Using that to determine anything ensures you will not reach a reliable conclusion.  I have never seen anyone who defends the church use that terminology so it isn't helpful in communicating with anyone outside of those who promote those terms.

Edited April 9, 2016 by juliann

[salgare]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thank you for your explanation, but I am still confused.  Perhaps you could give examples of FM's previous position as you see it to contrast to the current one.  I have been with FM since 2002 and my experience is that in general FM members individually and collectively has always seen belief positions in the Church as a wide spectrum of belief.

I linked the FairMormon article, which in my understanding has always been the stance taken ... i.e. critic there are two division (me suggesting three now), and the apologist have always maintained, not so ... there is no divisions, we are one, we are strong, we are TBM.

As I hoped to point out in my previous post, I think FairMormon might have painted themselves in a corner on this old, not so often heard anymore categorization.  As I hoped to point out in my examples of Mark and Juliann in my previous post, yes we are one, we are TBM, but to understand us we are diverse and cover a wide spectrum from fundamentalist to Nuanced.

It would seem we are one and we are diverse at the same time is an oxymoron right?

 

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, salgare said:

It would seem we are one and we are diverse at the same time is an oxymoron right?

Only if you are including attributes we share in common in the diverse attributes category, but there is no need for that.  For example I see my family both as "one" and "diverse" at the same time.  It all depends on what attribute or behaviour one is discussing.  Human behaviour is complex both on an individual and group level, thus I can say without any feeling I am bending the truth that I am terminally shy while being very aware I am participating in highly extrovertive behaviours.  Groups function in much the same way in that the group overt characteristics will vary depending on context.