Planted: New Interview

[HappyJackWagon]

I've been listening to the new Mormon Discussion podcast interview with Patrick Mason. I've heard a number of his other interviews and always appreciate his perspective. He seems to be a true believer who is empathetic to the struggle many are facing in faith transitions. That empathy is often missing in church on Sunday and on the internet. While I don't always agree with him, Mason's approach and tone is something I really support. He acknowledges that sometimes the church can sin collectively and may be in need of repentance for false doctrines that were taught from the pulpit but are now disavowed and "the worst day in Mormon history" at Mountain Meadows. But he also calls for respect and understanding for leaders. I think he gives the true believer and the doubter a lot to think about.

At the beginning of the podcast Bill makes a great observation about how hope is sometimes discussed in the church as simply a starting point that should move towards knowledge but that many experiencing faith crisis/transition started with knowledge and now hope is all that is left. Not belief. Not even faith. Hope is what many of us hang on to by our fingernails but sometimes we have to adjust our grip of what we hope for or exercise faith in.

I love how Mason talks about Hope as being more than just a starting point of faith. He talks about how hope is foundational to Christianity and is not some cute principle meant only for beginners.

This got me thinking about the language of faith crisis and faith transition. I think we sometimes misuse the word faith in referring to crisis and transition. It seems more accurate (for me at least) to talk about a belief crisis or belief transition as it relates to the church. I believe we are intended to have faith in Christ but I have made the mistake in the past of placing my faith in the church. The church and Christ are not the same things.

There's a lot of good stuff in this podcast to chew on. I recommend it.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/06/premium-patrick-mason-planted/

 

[James Tunney]

I wonder if the church will ever admit that it made mistakes and that it needs to repent? That seems impossible, currently, as the Q12 and FP want to have us think that the "church" is synonymous with God or at least JC. I wonder if the leaders understand what Mr. Mason is saying about the "church" entity not being perfect?

[salgare]

6 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I wonder if the church will ever admit that it made mistakes and that it needs to repent? That seems impossible, currently, as the Q12 and FP want to have us think that the "church" is synonymous with God or at least JC. I wonder if the leaders understand what Mr. Mason is saying about the "church" entity not being perfect?

They can't until the metaphysical generations pass away or are converted to givenism.

[HappyJackWagon]

48 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I wonder if the church will ever admit that it made mistakes and that it needs to repent? That seems impossible, currently, as the Q12 and FP want to have us think that the "church" is synonymous with God or at least JC. I wonder if the leaders understand what Mr. Mason is saying about the "church" entity not being perfect?

It's a catch-22 for the church. If they admit error then they reduce their own credibility. If they don't admit error they also reduce their own credibility because any claim or attitude of perfection is just absurd. So in my mind they are likely to take hits either way, so they might as well be open, honest, and contrite where and when necessary.

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a catch-22 for the church. If they admit error then they reduce their own credibility. If they don't admit error they also reduce their own credibility because any claim or attitude of perfection is just absurd. So in my mind they are likely to take hits either way, so they might as well be open, honest, and contrite where and when necessary.

My feeling is that the Church's fear of admitting mistakes and apologizing is a monstrous phantasm of its own making.

Church leaders think if they do this, the sky will fall.

What will really happen is that they will be seen as humble, teachable, and contrite.

In other words, they will be seen as following the example of the Savior they claim to represent.

It is a strange state of things when the leadership of the LDS Church believes that acting like the Savior will cause them to lose credibility . . .

[rpn]

I would think it would be just as puzzling to church leaders as it is to the rest of us, to receive inspiration to change things we've been doing or thought for a long time, without any explanation of what exactly was wrong about whatever was being changed or why.   How can church leaders "repent", when they don't know how their attempts to follow Christ and inspiration somehow ended up with something that wasn't quite right?   And what could He be thinking in allowing X for years, while the entire group of leaders got the unanimous confirmation of Y required to move forward with a change?   Were they really mistakes?   Or is it just that God needs something else now?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

I would think it would be just as puzzling to church leaders as it is to the rest of us, to receive inspiration to change things we've been doing or thought for a long time, without any explanation of what exactly was wrong about whatever was being changed or why.   How can church leaders "repent", when they don't know how their attempts to follow Christ and inspiration somehow ended up with something that wasn't quite right?   And what could He be thinking in allowing X for years, while the entire group of leaders got the unanimous confirmation of Y required to move forward with a change?   Were they really mistakes?   Or is it just that God needs something else now?

Is it necessary to know how past leaders were mistaken so badly that they harmed people, or is it enough to know that people were harmed? I've offended people in the past, unsure of what I did wrong, but also knowing I needed to ask for their forgiveness.

I've unintentionally hurt people even when I was trying to help. Still, they were hurt, so they received an apology and I tried to do better. This really isn't a lot to ask of anyone or any institution.

Recognize errors. Stop making the error. Apologize. Try to make things right.

It's not complicated.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I wonder if the church will ever admit that it made mistakes and that it needs to repent? That seems impossible, currently, as the Q12 and FP want to have us think that the "church" is synonymous with God or at least JC. I wonder if the leaders understand what Mr. Mason is saying about the "church" entity not being perfect?

Questions like this nearly always presuppose that what the critic characterizes as mistakes really are mistakes or that the Church is at fault. Just because you don't like something, that doesn't mean it was a mistake or, if it was, that the Church is to blame for it.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Questions like this nearly always presuppose that what the critic characterizes as mistakes really are mistakes or that the Church is at fault. Just because you don't like something, that doesn't mean it was a mistake or, if it was, that the Church is to blame for it.

 

It presupposes that the church has made mistakes. If the church made mistakes the church is to blame for those mistakes.

Elder Uchtdorf stated that the church and leaders have made mistakes which is very reasonable. Otherwise one must suppose that the church has never made mistakes and even if they had, they wouldn't be responsible for them. That's rubbish.

 

Question: Assuming the church and leaders aren't perfect and have thus made mistakes, who besides the church, is at fault for mistakes the church has made?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It presupposes that the church has made mistakes. If the church made mistakes the church is to blame for those mistakes.

Elder Uchtdorf stated that the church and leaders have made mistakes which is very reasonable. Otherwise one must suppose that the church has never made mistakes and even if they had, they wouldn't be responsible for them. That's rubbish.

 

Question: Assuming the church and leaders aren't perfect and have thus made mistakes, who besides the church, is at fault for mistakes the church has made?

Can you find the quote by President (not "Elder") Uchtdorf? Did he say specifically that the Church has made mistakes?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you find the quote by President (not "Elder") Uchtdorf? Did he say specifically that the Church has made mistakes?

Quote

President Uchtdorf- Come, Join With Us (October 2013)

#1  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.

#2  And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

There you go.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

[James Tunney]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It presupposes that the church has made mistakes. If the church made mistakes the church is to blame for those mistakes.

Elder Uchtdorf stated that the church and leaders have made mistakes which is very reasonable. Otherwise one must suppose that the church has never made mistakes and even if they had, they wouldn't be responsible for them. That's rubbish.

 

Question: Assuming the church and leaders aren't perfect and have thus made mistakes, who besides the church, is at fault for mistakes the church has made?

The FP and Q12 collectively make up the church as far as decisions go, so the responsibility starts at the top when the church makes a mistake.

[DBMormon]

My favorite part of my discussion w/ Patrick was his insistence that we as a Church have to redefine prophet and need to do it quick.   I was knocked off my seat when he said that.  To be honest this is one of the best interviews I have been a part of.  Worth the listen!!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

On June 22, 2016 at 2:10 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

There you go.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

Read the quote carefully. It does not ascribe blame to or find fault with the Church. It says that some leaders and members have made mistakes. That's no big news flash. Church members and leaders have been making mistakes from the beginning. There have even been apostles excommunicated. Whether these individuals' errors can rightly be ascribed to the Church as an institution is what is in question.

I maintain, for example, that the Church as a whole is not to blame for the atrocities committed by the perpetrators of the Mountains Meadows Massacre.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

My favorite part of my discussion w/ Patrick was his insistence that we as a Church have to redefine prophet and need to do it quick.   I was knocked off my seat when he said that.  To be honest this is one of the best interviews I have been a part of.  Worth the listen!!!!

Is this one of those episodes you are charging people money to listen to, and if so, can you give us some context here for this alleged statement?

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is this one of those episodes your charging people money to listen to, and if so, can you give us some context here for this alleged statement?

 

All my episodes are free..... eventually.  This one is free.  have a listen. you have more free time than me so by all means

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Read the quote carefully. It does ascribe blame to or find fault with the Church. It says that some leaders and members have made mistakes. That's no big news flash. Church members and leaders have been making mistakes from the beginning. There have even been apostles excommunicated. Whether these individuals' errors can right be ascribed to the Church as an institution is what is in question.

I maintain, for example, that the Church as a whole is not to blame for the atrocities committed by the perpetrators of the Mountains Meadows Massacre.

I was expecting this response because it is a standard apologetic response and for many people, myself include, it is a nothing more than a political side-step.

If the prophet makes a mistake, like teaching false doctrines about race which create (or at least add to) a culture of racism, then yes, the church should apologize and take responsibility for that. If there is an atrocity like Mountain Meadows that is ordered by church leaders (At the very least local leaders) then it is appropriate for the church to apologize and take responsibility for it.

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the church monument at Mountain Meadows? What does that monument say?

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is this one of those episodes your charging people money to listen to, and if so, can you give us some context here for this alleged statement?

 

I already provided the link, therefore it's available and you can get all the context you need. Give it a listen. It's good.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I was expecting this response because it is a standard apologetic response and for many people, myself include, it is a nothing more than a political side-step.

If the prophet makes a mistake, like teaching false doctrines about race which create (or at least add to) a culture of racism, then yes, the church should apologize and take responsibility for that. If there is an atrocity like Mountain Meadows that is ordered by church leaders (At the very least local leaders) then it is appropriate for the church to apologize and take responsibility for it.

 

So I guess it boils down to whether or not one accepts the notion of guilt by association.

Some years ago, Illinois state government officials expressed regret for the atrocities that were committed against the Mormons in their state in the 1840s. I thought it a very magnanimous gesture.

But they did not apologize or take official responsibility or blame for what was done there. Nor should they have.

Quote

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the church monument at Mountain Meadows? What does that monument say?

I've been to Mountain Meadows, I've seen the monument, and I'm sure I've read it, but I can't quote it verbatim off hand. What are you getting at?

Edited June 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I already provided the link, therefore it's available and you can get all the context you need. Give it a listen. It's good.

 

I know how to get there. I just wasn't willing to pay to hear it.

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know how to get there. I just wasn't willing to pay to hear it.

you dont have to, its free.

Edited June 22, 2016 by DBMormon

[salgare]

8 hours ago, DBMormon said:

My favorite part of my discussion w/ Patrick was his insistence that we as a Church have to redefine prophet and need to do it quick.   I was knocked off my seat when he said that.  To be honest this is one of the best interviews I have been a part of.  Worth the listen!!!!

Bill, I listened with interest to this pod cast, yes excellent ... what a nice change the fresh blood out of Claremont seems to continue bringing to the world of Mormonism.

In his final statements he mentioned a possibility of the Church taking a turn that he would not be comfortable with, but did not elaborate.  Maybe via other conversations with him or others, do you have any indication of what that might be?

I have wondered if the new guard at byu/mi might lean toward the postmodernism movement or not.  I can see where parts of what he spoke about would require some level of relativism, and yet I wonder if what he referred to is a total turn to humanism?  I wonder where the environment at Claremont stands on the postmodernism movement?

Do you have any feel for this?

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by salgare

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, DBMormon said:

My favorite part of my discussion w/ Patrick was his insistence that we as a Church have to redefine prophet and need to do it quick.   I was knocked off my seat when he said that.  To be honest this is one of the best interviews I have been a part of.  Worth the listen!!!!

I thought it to be one of best also.  I've listened to all the interviews with him, I believe.  

He may just be more comfortable saying things as he goes along.  Just as the church is able to be more open now.  

I hope for the day the church will apologise for Mountain Meadows as Patrick mentions. Or even to those of us that that it caused a crises of faith by failing to report history in it's truest form, rather than sanitizing it. 

[DBMormon]

9 hours ago, salgare said:

Bill, I listened with interest to this pod cast, yes excellent ... what a nice change the fresh blood out of Claremont seems to continue bringing to the world of Mormonism.

In his final statements he mentioned a possibility of the Church taking a turn that he would not be comfortable with, but did not elaborate.  Maybe via other conversations with him or others, do you have any indication of what that might be?

I have wondered if the new guard at byu/mi might lean toward the postmodernism movement or not.  I can see where parts of what he spoke about would require some level of relativism, and yet I wonder if what he referred to is a total turn to humanism?  I wonder where the environment at Claremont stands on the postmodernism movement?

Do you have any feel for this?

 

If I were a guessing man having spoken to him on a couple occasions both on and off the record, my guess is he expects the Women to be given something complimentary to Priesthood offices and responsibilities sometime soon.  Again only a guess.

[DBMormon]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I thought it to be one of best also.  I've listened to all the interviews with him, I believe.  

He may just be more comfortable saying things as he goes along.  Just as the church is able to be more open now.  

I hope for the day the church will apologise for Mountain Meadows as Patrick mentions. Or even to those of us that that it caused a crises of faith by failing to report history in it's truest form, rather than sanitizing it. 

Imagine if the Church rather than be ambiguous about the race ban, said the ban itself was not from God, we got it wrong, we are sorry for an institutional error and we tried to repent and move on.....  wow  what power that would have.  We would collectively have to humble ourselves and acknowledge the gravity of what it means for generation after generation of prophets seers and revelators to misconstrue the mind and will of God.....

Edited June 23, 2016 by DBMormon