New article by Terryl Givens

[salgare]

On 5/9/2016 at 4:07 PM, mfbukowski said:

OK well good point then- it almost, as I think I said becomes an issue of the best "branding" to gain the most fallout from the demise of fundamentalist Evangelicalism.

I want the secularists - you want the former EV's.  We just need to go maybe for more of the idea of the Restoration and somehow stress that.

But honestly my secular folks do not like the word "Christian"- they see it as a hate word.   Hard to say that, but that is what it has become to them.  I don't like that either but that the unvarnished way I see it.

"Restored Christians"?  "Revolutionized Christians"?

 

Look who's looking for labels now

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, salgare said:

Look who's looking for labels now

Surely you understand the distinction between contrasting Mormons with Evangelicals - who are already clearly divided into completely different religions- and using that label to express real differences to the members of a third paradigm- and destroying the unity of Mormonism with another sloganized "movement" WITHIN the same church?

One seeks to describe legitimate differences between two faiths to a third faith, and the other seeks to destroy the unity of Mormonism.

Apparently not.

[salgare]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Surely you understand the distinction between contrasting Mormons with Evangelicals - who are already clearly divided into completely different religions- and using that label to express real differences to the members of a third paradigm- and destroying the unity of Mormonism with another sloganized "movement" WITHIN the same church?

One seeks to describe legitimate differences between two faiths to a third faith, and the other seeks to destroy the unity of Mormonism.

Apparently not.

"Destroy the unity of Mormonism"  Now that's funny right there!  The division of unity is blatantly obvious and growing yet acknowledging that by trying to use labels for the purposes of analysis and discussion is somehow the cause of the disunity.

Maybe you take the say it and it makes it so thing a bit too far?  In this cause, hush everyone, what ever you do, don't say it, don't admit it, don't talk about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

On May 10, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't think so. Even if Givens writes that, certainly he is not going very far.

When was the last time we heard Polygamy is doctrinal or God has Flesh & bone like us humans?  Pres. Hinckley in late 90's He publicly refuted those as; "It is not Doctrinal".

This is fatuous and facile nonsense. 

I'm acquainted with what you are likely referring to -- interview settings with journalists -- and when the statements are read in context, President Hinckley did no such thing. 

[RevTestament]

On 5/12/2016 at 8:43 AM, salgare said:

"Destroy the unity of Mormonism"  Now that's funny right there!  The division of unity is blatantly obvious and growing yet acknowledging that by trying to use labels for the purposes of analysis and discussion is somehow the cause of the disunity.

Maybe you take the say it and it makes it so thing a bit too far?  In this cause, hush everyone, what ever you do, don't say it, don't admit it, don't talk about it.

I think the point MFB is trying to make is that labels can be harmful - sometimes they are used to perpetuate a negative image, and thus if someone feels a certain label casts a negative image upon them, or don't care to be called a certain thing, I normally try to respect that. The examples are endless. Negroes don't care for that appellation nor "black" or "colored" anymore, and usually prefer to be called African American - yet black men will still use the N word amongst themselves, but dang if someone else uses it.

Children have a whole list of words/labels used for name calling which adults usually try to dissuade them from using as they are being used to hurt the feelings of others

The name "Mormons" was started by Christians as a negative appellation to distinguish members of the LDS church from "true" Christians. I have encountered many "Christians" on-line who are very resistant to the notion of calling me LDS Christian for the same reasons I ask to be called LDS Christian really, among other reasons. 

You have your labels you have come up with, which divide LDS into groups with different theological outlooks. MFB finds this destructive or perhaps offensive. 

I feel your labels are based on somewhat valid distinctions or changes within the Church, but I feel that your desire to use your labels is based either on a measure of personal pride or some need to impose your will on the church. I also feel your labels are not accurate enough to be used on people - at least in my case. As I have said, I believe I would fit into some aspects of each of your labels - in other words I am all three. Therefore, an attempt to place just one label on me as descriptive of my beliefs or behavior I feel would be inaccurate. 

People label others and things with labels all the time. I see no good reason to insist on a particular label for someone which is against their wishes. I feel it is disrespectful, which seems to explain why your attempts to use them on this board meets with resistance.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/10/2016 at 9:44 AM, mfbukowski said:

And "read" not "red" and on it goes.

This is a twist on a common spelling error that I see. People write "lead" when they mean led.

[salgare]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I think the point MFB is trying to make is that labels can be harmful - sometimes they are used to perpetuate a negative image, and thus if someone feels a certain label casts a negative image upon them, or don't care to be called a certain thing, I normally try to respect that. The examples are endless. Negroes don't care for that appellation nor "black" or "colored" anymore, and usually prefer to be called African American - yet black men will still use the N word amongst themselves, but dang if someone else uses it.

Children have a whole list of words/labels used for name calling which adults usually try to dissuade them from using as they are being used to hurt the feelings of others

The name "Mormons" was started by Christians as a negative appellation to distinguish members of the LDS church from "true" Christians. I have encountered many "Christians" on-line who are very resistant to the notion of calling me LDS Christian for the same reasons I ask to be called LDS Christian really, among other reasons. 

You have your labels you have come up with, which divide LDS into groups with different theological outlooks. MFB finds this destructive or perhaps offensive. 

I feel your labels are based on somewhat valid distinctions or changes within the Church, but I feel that your desire to use your labels is based either on a measure of personal pride or some need to impose your will on the church. I also feel your labels are not accurate enough to be used on people - at least in my case. As I have said, I believe I would fit into some aspects of each of your labels - in other words I am all three. Therefore, an attempt to place just one label on me as descriptive of my beliefs or behavior I feel would be inaccurate. 

People label others and things with labels all the time. I see no good reason to insist on a particular label for someone which is against their wishes. I feel it is disrespectful, which seems to explain why your attempts to use them on this board meets with resistance.

I doubt MFB objects to the labels I suggested, none of them were derogatory.  His objection as he alluded to is that it highlights a dis-unity among Mormons.  He insists that his understanding of Mormonism does not differ from any other Mormons.  He insists his flavor of Mormonism is vanilla and that every Mormons flavor is vanilla.  But his flavor has no orthodoxy, no objective truth, pushed humanism and postmoderism.  His flavor is chocolate compared to say jlhprof's original vanilla Mormonism which are polar opposites of the items just listed. 

No movement, no labels, nothing to see here .... move along we are vanilla.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, salgare said:

I doubt MFB objects to the labels I suggested, none of them were derogatory.  His objection as he alluded to is that it highlights a dis-unity among Mormons.  He insists that his understanding of Mormonism does not differ from any other Mormons.  He insists his flavor of Mormonism is vanilla and that every Mormons flavor is vanilla.  But his flavor has no orthodoxy, no objective truth, pushed humanism and postmoderism.  His flavor is chocolate compared to say jlhprof's original vanilla Mormonism which are polar opposites of the items just listed. 

No movement, no labels, nothing to see here .... move along we are vanilla.

You have absolutely no understanding of what I believe and do not believe, and I have asked you repeatedly to stop trying to read my mind and tell others what I do or do not believe.  I am reporting this post- you are warned and every post in which you tell others what I believe will also be reported

I am a big boy and can speak for myself, as most here know and you should know.

[salgare]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am a big boy and can speak for myself, as most here know and you should know.

crying to the mods verses speaking up for yourself here seems to contradict this

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, salgare said:

crying to the mods verses speaking up for yourself here seems to contradict this

I think he does quite well at speaking up for himself, actually.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

crying to the mods verses speaking up for yourself here seems to contradict this

If you are unable to word something differently than saying "his objection is..." and getting it wrong, then saying "he insists..." and then pulling things out of your imagination, and repeating that allegation repeatedly using terms you do not even understand like "objective truth" and "postmodernism", then you are only doing yourself a disservice by showing your.......... uh, lack of understanding.

If you are unable to write well enough to express yourself without pretending to read people's minds, or tell others their beliefs, I have no sympathy for the consequences if any.

[salgare]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If you are unable to word something differently than saying "his objection is..." and getting it wrong, then saying "he insists..." and then pulling things out of your imagination, and repeating that allegation repeatedly using terms you do not even understand like "objective truth" and "postmodernism", then you are only doing yourself a disservice by showing your.......... uh, lack of understanding.

If you are unable to write well enough to express yourself without pretending to read people's minds, or tell others their beliefs, I have no sympathy for the consequences if any.

I basically made three statements:

He insists that his understanding of Mormonism does not differ from any other Mormons.

He insists that there is no orthodoxy.

He maintains there is no object truth.

So have I misrepresented you here?

 

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, salgare said:

I basically made three statements:

He insists that his understanding of Mormonism does not differ from any other Mormons.

He insists that there is no orthodoxy.

He maintains there is no object truth.

So have I misrepresented you here?

 

I do not feed trolls.This thread is about the Givens article cited.

Edited May 14, 2016 by mfbukowski

[salgare]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not feed trolls.This thread is about the Givens article cited.

big boy can't address this eh? Not surprised

[Teancum]

On 5/9/2016 at 4:41 PM, mfbukowski said:

It's not exactly that I disagree, but this is what we are up against- there is another thread right now discussing the nature of God

I frankly do not want to be associated with folks who think and say things like this- and more than that I refuse to argue with them.  There is no point to arguing.

What is bad is now good and the universe is upside down.  Christianity is done for- if we are talking about Creedal sectarians.  It no longer works.

I hate to say so but it becomes a PR "branding" problem- do we want to be identified with these people or a new and restored Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Honestly I tend toward the latter view.  

The supposition that there is an ontological divide between God and man which has been in Christianity for at least 1700 years just is impossible to maintain in today's way of seeing things.  We do not believe in "immaterial substance" and the central idea that God is both transcendent and immanent at the same time.  Those views cannot be reconciled- yet you have folks saying this sort of thing:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/problems-with-mormonism-the-doctrine-of-god/

Creedal Christianity is done for?  Have you informed that almost 2 billion Creedal Christians of this?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Creedal Christianity is done for?  Have you informed that almost 2 billion Creedal Christians of this?

The theology of immaterial substance has never made sense, yet yes many do not yet know that.

Our theology is in my opinion, perfectly rational and is based on principles that even atheist philosophers- highly reputed atheist philosophers- acknowledge as a reasonable and rational way to view the world, and they understand that their atheism is a matter of faith preference.  One even acknowledges that he "hopes" there is no God, yet cannot be certain that there is no God.  That professor is the famous and well published chairman of the department of philosophy at NYU.

My point was that we have good reasons to believe as we do, but Creedal Christians rely on centuries old philosophy which virtually no one in a non-church related university even teaches any more except as a historical curiosity.

Yes it is clear that the masses have not yet caught on.  I do not choose what is reasonable based on majority rule.

But perhaps you have not noticed the latest election results and think the masses are always right.  In that case, good luck.