Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I understood you clearly enough. Being a consumer of pirated material -- and passing it on to others -- supports and abets the wrongdoing, even if doing so is not strictly illegal.

 

If I hear another orchestra play a new piece I like and ask the conductor for a copy of the score, I am pirating the composer's music. If the conductor also pirated it from someone else, then I'm still playing from pirated material. Being a published composer, I lose money when people copy my publications and give them to others..

Edited August 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[churchistrue]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have occasionally tried to define prophetic function by appealing to the Bible and to scholarly opinion among non-Mormons in order to help us all to get to the heart of the matter, but I am usually met with blank silence.  People apparently want to have it both ways, if at all:  To attack LDS prophets for not being perfect and infallible, or to attack the membership for mistakenly believing LDS prophets to be perfect and infallible -- leaving no room for substantive discussion.

I think the issue is specifically the italics not the bold.  The reason people are attacking prophets for not being perfect are the high expectations.  The way out of this mess is to remove the high expectations.  That's the answer to all the CES Letter issues.  Of course it brings up other problems, like authority, exclusivity, certainty of doctrine, etc.  But those are the sacrifices we'll have to make.  This is what the Bushmans and Masons are trying to prepare us to do.

 

[Buckeye]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

I've not posted here for a few weeks, but just wanted to say this DB:

I think the way that a few people have gone after you on this thread is unreasonable. 

But if you want them to talk about the substance of the OP rather than your motives in posting the video on Facebook, I suggest you simply ignore any further comments and questions on the subject (including this one). 

I'd go even further. Shut down this thread and open a new one linking to the now-available transcript. No sense making people wade through 10 pages of personal tangents.

[DBMormon]

My last few comments are towards Scott who said I was inaccurate in my post.  To everyone else.... please, lets discuss.  

Patrick on my own podcast stated that Prophets need to be redefined.  meaning we defined them wrongly

 

Quote

"one of the tasks before us in this century I think we have to do it this century because I don't think we can wait much longer to do it a given all that's facing us, we have to come up with a better theology of prophets. We have to do it, I think it's one of the most pressing things before us we have to because in Mormonism, we do not want to give up on the claim that God calls prophets in modern days."

 

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, churchistrue said:

fify  

Mason and Hardy's talks were powerful and will likely get a lot of attention.  There is going to be some argument over what they exactly meant.  Both Progressive Mormons and Conservative Mormons will likely try to declare victory.  But I think it's pretty plain they both go about destroying some of the favorite sacred cows of conservative Apologists of the past.  They each (and throw in Bushman and to lesser extent Givens in with them) have radically different views of scripture and prophets than conservative LDS do.  This will get interesting.  Stay tuned!

You point out something that I think is important to emphasize, the human characteristic that we all have of seeing the things that we already agree with and emphasizing those elements.  This is what I did when I read the summary of Mason's talk, and this is what more conservative thinkers do when they listened to these talks as well.  Are we willing to actually adjust our paradigm when presented with new information?  If we are willing to adjust our thinking its only in small or gradual steps, and only on rare occasions.  Most of the time when we're presented with information, we will find the things we agree with and ignore the rest.  This is human nature.  

I'm grateful for talks like this because they sound different than what I hear from church leadership, and I think that its important for us to make progress and not be stuck in the past.  How much progress we can actually make when you take into account our human tendencies, is the question.  

[Buckeye]

I'd prefer a new thread to clear the dust, but that's Bill's call. Since he's sticking with this one, here is my analysis of his bullet-point list. As with any list, some context and nuance will be lacking; that's just the nature of a bullet-point list. On the whole, though, I find Bill's recitation to be very fair and accurate. Most of Bill's statements clearly match statements from Mason's talk; many of them nearly verbatim. In a few places, there is not a clear match, but IMO Bill's tone matches Mason's. My biggest quibbles are with Bill's use of the works "valid" (#2) and "made up" (#4)

 

1.)  He flatly says we have defined Prophets incorrectly. (GRADE: A-)

One of the key tasks before us is developing a better, more sophisticated, and frankly more Christian theology of prophets and prophethood. We have treated our prophets too often as demigods. We do not believe in prophetic infallibility. This cannot be said enough, and it cannot be taken seriously enough. We give it lip service but too often do not believe it, nor consider its implications, other than the intellectually lazy conclusion that the whole thing must either be all true or a complete fraud. . . . We need to think harder about why we should…sustain prophets and apostles whom we know will occasionally be wrong about certain things. We don’t always know what those things are except in hindsight, because we were usually all wrong together. . . . We still have a lot of work to do. . . .

2.)  That there is valid reason to doubt. (GRADE: B; "valid" suggests more approval than merely "plausible")

There are still things that I think will always be puzzling to me. There is a plausible narrative that you could construct (and many people do) about it all being a lie. But there is also a plausible narrative that you can construct that it is all true. Sometimes I feel like I’m having to make allowance for a lot of ambiguity and shortcomings of men…

3.)  That belief is "plausible" (his words) (GRADE: A+)

There are still things that I think will always be puzzling to me. There is a plausible narrative that you could construct (and many people do) about it all being a lie. But there is also a plausible narrative that you can construct that it is all true. Sometimes I feel like I’m having to make allowance for a lot of ambiguity and shortcomings of men…

4.)  That We made up much of our theology and have put way more in the truth cart then belongs there. (GRADE: A) (Even I missed the "made up" quote in my review; good catch Bill)

One of the problems we have in Mormonism is that we have loaded too much into the Truth Cart. And then when anything in the cart starts to rot a bit, or look unseemly upon further inspection, some have a tendency to overturn the entire cart or seek a refund for the whole lot. We have loaded so much into the Truth Cart largely because we have wanted to have the same kind of certainty about our religious claims—down to rather obscure doctrinal issues—as we do about scientific claims. . . . 

Over the years the church leadership and laity have also done our religion no favors by putting more in the cart than the cart could possibly bear. . . . Many of the things which trouble people are things that we probably should never have been all that dogmatic about in the first place. I find that a little humility about our doctrine, especially given the contingencies of its historical development, goes a long way in remaining satisfied with the whole. . . .

But as missionaries we were simply doing what the rest of the church and its leaders had been doing for almost a century and a half—filling in theological and historical blanks with what were really some rather reprehensibly bad explanations, because we felt like we had to have a solid doctrinal basis for everything, even if we were making it up. And if a General Authority said it, well then, it must be dictated straight from heaven. 

 

4.) That we should not blame the doubters and that we would be better looking at ourselves for our problems rather than secularists, feminists, intellectuals, and even Satan (GRADE: A+)

One of the reasons I’m skeptical of blaming outside influences for our troubles—whether it be secularism, or liberalism, or feminism, or marriage equality, or even Satan—is that doing so can prevent us from engaging in self-critique. … The vast ranks of eminently modern believers, including myself and most of you here today, prove that living in a secular age does not in itself compel one to give up on belief. So when it comes to declining rates of faith, affiliation, and trust in religious institutions and authority, the secularism of the modern world is more context than cause. The same can be said for feminism, liberalism, capitalism, nationalism, and all the other modern ideological and structural contexts in which Mormonism operates. The charge of our theology, both because of the incarnation of Christ and the ideal of Zion, is to work in and redeem history rather than escape from or condemn it.

 

EDIT to fix the grade and quote for the first #4. Bill nailed that one too.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

 

5.) That the CES letter was an inevitable response to the false dominant narrative we have taught.  And that said narrative is not his mormonism nor the Mormonism that can flourish in the future. (GRADE: A+)

The CES Letter [formally, “Letter to a CES Director,” which he cited as one of the online sources he had read] is emblematic of this all-or-nothing approach to religion. . . . The letter is nearly a perfect inverse of the version of Mormonism it is reacting to. Jeremy Runnels may have written the letter, but it was actually an inevitability—someone, sometime, somewhere was going to write that letter, because it was the obvious response to a certain style, tone, and mode of Mormonism that culminated in the highly doctrinaire, no-retreat-no-surrender positions taken by certain church leaders and members especially in the second half of the twentieth century. I would actually agree with the CES letter’s basic notion, that the Mormonism it is responding to is unsustainable. Where I disagree is that I don’t think the Mormonism it is responding to is actually the real, only, or inevitable Mormonism. Certainly, that was some people’s Mormonism, but it’s not my Mormonism, and I don’t think it’s the Mormonism that is going to endure in future decades and centuries.

 

6.)  He expressed that we must do better to support gender equality and our LGBT brothers and sisters.   He says we aren't loving or inclusive enough (GRADE: A)

The second group in Richard Bushman’s perceptive typology are those who feel “squeezed out,” like they just don’t fit in at church. Usually this comes about more because of current issues than past ones, though historical and doctrinal concerns may be contributing factors. Oftentimes those who feel squeezed out fully embrace the basic principles and ordinances of the gospel. But they feel alienated over things like the dominant and unreflexive political conservativism among most American church members, or heartfelt questions about whether girls and women have all the opportunities for spiritual growth and recognition in the church that boys and men do, or how the church fails to adequately minister to and often hurts our LGBT sisters and brothers. Feeling isolated, alienated, judged, and sometimes pressured, these Saints sense that there is simply no place for them in the church in spite of their core beliefs. They feel squeezed out, and many of them leave us.

 

7.)  He says our culture and leadership have sadly adopted a non-apologizing posture towards its mistakes (GRADE: B; this is not explicitly stated in Mason's remarks, but it reasonably implied in the quote for #8)

8.)    He says we need to repent as a church and apologize for our serious errors. (GRADE: A+)

I believe we need to summon the courage to finally and truly repent for some of our past transgressions. Let’s start with the obvious stuff, like Mountain Meadows, the spurious racial ideologies surrounding the priesthood-temple ban, and generations of patriarchal discourse that relegated women to being reflected light compared to the glory of their husbands and priesthood leaders. Repentance, at least as the church has taught me the principle, requires an admission of wrongdoing and an effort toward reconciliation with those who have been trespassed against. It is more than either just moving on or a lawyerly expression of remorse that bad things may have happened.

 

For some odd reason, I keep getting formatting errors when I try to copy/paste for Bill's 9th and 10th points. 

I give both points Grade A's. You can find the direct quotes he's referencing by searching the Mason article for "I believe we need to summon the courage to authentically incorporate more of the diversity" (Point 9) and "My second fear is for the fundamentalist takeover of Mormonism" (Point 10).

Edited August 17, 2016 by Buckeye

[DBMormon]

19 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I'd prefer a new thread to clear the dust, but that's Bill's call. Since he's sticking with this one, here is my analysis of his bullet-point list. As with any list, some context and nuance will be lacking; that's just the nature of a bullet-point list. On the whole, though, I find Bill's recitation to be very fair and accurate. Most of Bill's statements clearly match statements from Mason's talk; many of them nearly verbatim. In a few places, there is not a clear match, but IMO Bill's tone matches Mason's. My biggest quibbles are with Bill's use of the works "valid" (#2) and "made up" (#4)

 

1.)  He flatly says we have defined Prophets incorrectly. (GRADE: A-)

 

One of the key tasks before us is developing a better, more sophisticated, and frankly more Christian theology of prophets and prophethood. We have treated our prophets too often as demigods. We do not believe in prophetic infallibility. This cannot be said enough, and it cannot be taken seriously enough. We give it lip service but too often do not believe it, nor consider its implications, other than the intellectually lazy conclusion that the whole thing must either be all true or a complete fraud. . . . We need to think harder about why we should…sustain prophets and apostles whom we know will occasionally be wrong about certain things. We don’t always know what those things are except in hindsight, because we were usually all wrong together. . . . We still have a lot of work to do. . . .

2.)  That there is valid reason to doubt. (GRADE: B; "valid" suggests more approval than merely "plausible")

 

There are still things that I think will always be puzzling to me. There is a plausible narrative that you could construct (and many people do) about it all being a lie. But there is also a plausible narrative that you can construct that it is all true. Sometimes I feel like I’m having to make allowance for a lot of ambiguity and shortcomings of men…

 

3.)  That belief is "plausible" (his words) (GRADE: A+)

 

There are still things that I think will always be puzzling to me. There is a plausible narrative that you could construct (and many people do) about it all being a lie. But there is also a plausible narrative that you can construct that it is all true. Sometimes I feel like I’m having to make allowance for a lot of ambiguity and shortcomings of men…

 

4.)  That We made up much of our theology and have put way more in the truth cart then belongs there. (GRADE: B-; Mason didn't say the theology was "made up", though that can be one interpretation; that said, he clearly said the cart is too full)

 

One of the problems we have in Mormonism is that we have loaded too much into the Truth Cart. And then when anything in the cart starts to rot a bit, or look unseemly upon further inspection, some have a tendency to overturn the entire cart or seek a refund for the whole lot. We have loaded so much into the Truth Cart largely because we have wanted to have the same kind of certainty about our religious claims—down to rather obscure doctrinal issues—as we do about scientific claims. . . . 

 

Over the years the church leadership and laity have also done our religion no favors by putting more in the cart than the cart could possibly bear. . . . Many of the things which trouble people are things that we probably should never have been all that dogmatic about in the first place. I find that a little humility about our doctrine, especially given the contingencies of its historical development, goes a long way in remaining satisfied with the whole. . . .

 

 

 

5.) That we should not blame the doubters and that we would be better looking at ourselves for our problems rather than secularists, feminists, intellectuals, and even Satan (GRADE: A+)

 

One of the reasons I’m skeptical of blaming outside influences for our troubles—whether it be secularism, or liberalism, or feminism, or marriage equality, or even Satan—is that doing so can prevent us from engaging in self-critique. … The vast ranks of eminently modern believers, including myself and most of you here today, prove that living in a secular age does not in itself compel one to give up on belief. So when it comes to declining rates of faith, affiliation, and trust in religious institutions and authority, the secularism of the modern world is more context than cause. The same can be said for feminism, liberalism, capitalism, nationalism, and all the other modern ideological and structural contexts in which Mormonism operates. The charge of our theology, both because of the incarnation of Christ and the ideal of Zion, is to work in and redeem history rather than escape from or condemn it.

 

love this.  Thanks for the high marks.  Looks like I have a 3.5 ish gpa

[DBMormon]

23 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

 

5.) That the CES letter was an inevitable response to the false dominant narrative we have taught.  And that said narrative is not his mormonism nor the Mormonism that can flourish in the future. (GRADE: A+)

 

The CES Letter [formally, “Letter to a CES Director,” which he cited as one of the online sources he had read] is emblematic of this all-or-nothing approach to religion. . . . The letter is nearly a perfect inverse of the version of Mormonism it is reacting to. Jeremy Runnels may have written the letter, but it was actually an inevitability—someone, sometime, somewhere was going to write that letter, because it was the obvious response to a certain style, tone, and mode of Mormonism that culminated in the highly doctrinaire, no-retreat-no-surrender positions taken by certain church leaders and members especially in the second half of the twentieth century. I would actually agree with the CES letter’s basic notion, that the Mormonism it is responding to is unsustainable. Where I disagree is that I don’t think the Mormonism it is responding to is actually the real, only, or inevitable Mormonism. Certainly, that was some people’s Mormonism, but it’s not my Mormonism, and I don’t think it’s the Mormonism that is going to endure in future decades and centuries.

 

 

 

6.)  He expressed that we must do better to support gender equality and our LGBT brothers and sisters.   He says we aren't loving or inclusive enough (GRADE: A)

 

The second group in Richard Bushman’s perceptive typology are those who feel “squeezed out,” like they just don’t fit in at church. Usually this comes about more because of current issues than past ones, though historical and doctrinal concerns may be contributing factors. Oftentimes those who feel squeezed out fully embrace the basic principles and ordinances of the gospel. But they feel alienated over things like the dominant and unreflexive political conservativism among most American church members, or heartfelt questions about whether girls and women have all the opportunities for spiritual growth and recognition in the church that boys and men do, or how the church fails to adequately minister to and often hurts our LGBT sisters and brothers. Feeling isolated, alienated, judged, and sometimes pressured, these Saints sense that there is simply no place for them in the church in spite of their core beliefs. They feel squeezed out, and many of them leave us.

 

7.)  He says our culture and leadership have sadly adopted a non-apologizing posture towards its mistakes (GRADE: B; this is not explicitly stated in Mason's remarks, but it reasonably implied in the quote for #8)

 

8.)    He says we need to repent as a church and apologize for our serious errors. (GRADE: A+)

 

I believe we need to summon the courage to finally and truly repent for some of our past transgressions. Let’s start with the obvious stuff, like Mountain Meadows, the spurious racial ideologies surrounding the priesthood-temple ban, and generations of patriarchal discourse that relegated women to being reflected light compared to the glory of their husbands and priesthood leaders. Repentance, at least as the church has taught me the principle, requires an admission of wrongdoing and an effort toward reconciliation with those who have been trespassed against. It is more than either just moving on or a lawyerly expression of remorse that bad things may have happened.

 

Again thanks.  As people reading who are open minded can see, I did not go out of my way to create a false narrative.  That I am being honest to Mason's words while certainly being perhaps more poignant or direct.  Curious if Scott will use mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that I was fair.  I have not once seen him validate ever when he is wrong and I am was right.  

Edited August 17, 2016 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

Looks to me like DBMormon was really quite accurate in his ten points.  People who are upset with him seem to want to make this personal, which is a shame.

Most of all I liked his alluding to his two fears at the end:

Quote

First, I fear for what I call the “juvenilization” of Mormonism, or the “EFY-ification” of the church, or the “Gospel According to Internet Memes.” When it’s adults in the room, let’s respect one another enough to talk like adults. Most people can handle complexity and nuance.

and

Quote

My second fear is for the fundamentalist takeover of Mormonism. I’m not referring to fundamentalism in terms of polygamy—I’m pretty confident we’re totally past that phase of our history. Instead, this is a reference to what I think is the rather remote possibility of a process similar to what happened in the Southern Baptist Convention in the early 1990s, when theological fundamentalists took over the churches, seminaries, and governing bodies of the denomination and either pushed out liberals and moderates or made their lives in the church so miserable that they left on their own, thus leaving only the fundamentalists to control the whole denomination.

That was good.  But also when he said one of our problems is fear:

Quote

But I do think that a lot of the way we have constructed our community has been predicated on fear, which has led to a certain parochialism, risk aversion, lack of moral imagination, reticence to take accountability for past missteps, and the overall defensiveness that my colleague spotted.

I've said how we proceed with fear in the Church and use our fears in a negative way is one of our biggest problems.  I think he has a good point here. 

[DBMormon]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Looks to me like DBMormon was really quite accurate in his ten points.  People who are upset with him seem to want to make this personal, which is a shame.

Most of all I liked his alluding to his two fears at the end:

and

That was good.  But also when he said one of our problems is fear:

I've said how we proceed with fear in the Church and use our fears in a negative way is one of our biggest problems.  I think he has a good point here. 

Thank You.  

[Buckeye]

DELETE

Edited August 17, 2016 by Buckeye

[DBMormon]

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

Test

I am looking forward to your grading of the end points

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Looks to me like DBMormon was really quite accurate in his ten points.  People who are upset with him seem to want to make this personal, which is a shame.

Most of all I liked his alluding to his two fears at the end:

and

That was good.  But also when he said one of our problems is fear:

I've said how we proceed with fear in the Church and use our fears in a negative way is one of our biggest problems.  I think he has a good point here. 

I wonder if Scott Lloyd will now answer the CFR about his statements about Bill's inaccuracy, or retract his statement?

 JK

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Looks to me like DBMormon was really quite accurate in his ten points.  People who are upset with him seem to want to make this personal, which is a shame.

Most of all I liked his alluding to his two fears at the end:

and

That was good.  But also when he said one of our problems is fear:

I've said how we proceed with fear in the Church and use our fears in a negative way is one of our biggest problems.  I think he has a good point here. 

From my perspective he wasn't that accurate.  I don't think it's because he was trying to spin anything though.  I think it's probably a symptom of different people hearing different things.  The only way to know which perspective is closer to the truth would be for Mason himself to come on here and see if he agreed with Reel's 10 points.  That's probably not going to happen though.

[Johnnie Cake]

I've enjoyed reading this thread...with the exception of all of the accusations, bullying and plying on of Bill's initial OP.  Sure took a long time to get through all  of that wrangling to the gist of what Bill posted...geez believers can get so picky when faced with information that doesn't support their paradigm, kind of reminds me of how church critics get sometimes.  Any way

As a non-believer in Mormonism I'm trying to imagine how a full embrace of Patrick Mason's new and improved brand of Mormonism would influence someone like me.  Would it cause me to take a new look at the church...would I be more inclined to return to the fold of my youth?  in all honestly probably for only a second or two.  While I applauded this new nuanced, friendlier, more accommodating, set in reality brand of Mormonism I can not see how the church can turn the ship soon enough to avoid the icebergs that are already in its path.  Plus  if the church can successfully make that turn it only exposes the church to other dangers lurking just below the surface of the waters.

The church is tilting towards fundamentalism, always has...rebranding itself as a more accommodating organization runs the risk of alienating its core, traditional world view, tithe paying members and it will do nothing to attract the lost souls like myself.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Bernard Gui]

It would be more productive to address each point in a separate discussion rather than this unfocused scattershot approach.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

My last few comments are towards Scott who said I was inaccurate in my post.  To everyone else.... please, lets discuss.  

Patrick on my own podcast stated that Prophets need to be redefined.  meaning we defined them wrongly

 

 

Where did he state that prophets need to be redefined?  I'm not seeing it.

[hope_for_things]

21 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Patrick Mason recently spoke at FairMormon and gave a very progressive Mormon speech.  I thought it would be good to have a dialogue about the actual points he raises.  the video and audio is behinds Fairmormon's paywall so you will have to take my word for it.  But here is a list of things he says.

I’m also going to take a shot at addressing the questions:

1.)    He flatly says we have defined Prophets incorrectly.

Our contemporary Mormon culture inherits a lot of folk lore about prophets some from internal influences, but others from the broader Christian world.  The idea that any human being receives divine communication in a pure form, uninfluenced by culture and bias, is a myth and creates false expectations. 

2.)    That there is valid reason to doubt.

I think he’s trying to take away the negative sigma that doubt has in our religious dialogue.  I’ve told many people that I consider myself a doubter now, just to get them to think differently about doubt.  I like this approach. 

3.)    That belief is "plausible" (his words) 

I think he’s implying that there are still logical and reasonable constructs for belief.  That in spite of all the challenges and problems with assumptions and paradigms, that he finds plausible approaches to a belief system. 

4.)    That We made up much of our theology and have put way more in the truth cart then belongs there.

Sounds like what Richard Bushman said as well.  This is a very important point to me, and I’m glad to hear this being discussed.  Yes, yes, I love this discussion.  It forces us to reexamine our truths, and evaluate which ones we believe are true for us today in 2016, and which ones we want to say goodbye to.  I thought of the new book by Carolyn Pearson about the ghosts of polygamy. 

5.)    That we should not blame the doubters and that we would be better looking at ourselves for our problems rather than secularists, feminists, intellectuals, and even Satan

Absolutely, this goes hand in hand with what Grant Hardy said about new approaches to apologetics, it also goes well with Uchtdorfs talk about focusing on our own problems and not focusing on others.  We can learn from the secularist, the feminists, the intellectuals, the atheists.  Let’s build bridges and learn from one another. 

6.)    That the CES letter was an inevitable response to the false dominant narrative we have taught.  And that said narrative is not his mormonism nor the Mormonism that can flourish in the future.

Thank you Patrick for this, and for not just dismissing the CES letter because of its flaws.  Too many people just dismiss it because of its flaws.  What can we learn from the CES letter?  How can we grow as a church from this critique?  What elements do we need to change?

7.)    He expressed that we must do better to support gender equality and our LGBT brothers and sisters.   He says we aren't loving or inclusive enough

This is the #1 most important point in the whole talk.  We need to do more, people are suffering and too many in our culture are hurting the vulnerable and fear mongering because of their own internal prejudice and the church’s policies and structures which are so out of date that its not even funny.  Please LDS church, now is the time.  The BYU sex abuse scandals, the LGBT policy, the BYU honor code, all of these things are an opportunity to respond with inclusiveness and love and throw away the outdated phobias of the past.  Please LDS church leadership, have the courage of President Kimball to make a change here!

8.)    He says our culture and leadership have sadly adopted a non-apologizing posture towards its mistakes

This one is just dumb.  We need to apologize better, period. 

9.)    He says we need to repent as a church and apologize for our serious errors.

Yes, sound the same as the previous point. 

10.) He says we need to Incorporate more diversity into our church ( race, gender, economic status. sexual orientation, and other differences)

Yes, sounds the same as #7 above.  I agree.

11.) He concludes that he is scared of a immature faith never growing up and giving space for nuance and complexity and he fears a fundamentalist takeover

This is a risk for sure.  Fowler stage three thinking is vulnerable and a fundamentalist break off response is a risk. 

[Buckeye]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder if Scott Lloyd will now answer the CFR about his statements about Bill's inaccuracy, or retract his statement?

 JK

In my experience, Scott never relents or apologizes.  He's a prime example of the old school that Mason is critiquing in this article.

[Buckeye]

9 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I am looking forward to your grading of the end points

Look back to my second post on the analysis. I still can't figure out why the system was rejecting the cut/paste quotes from Mason's article that I was citing for points 9 and 10. Overall, I'd give you a solid A- for the list.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective he wasn't that accurate.  I don't think it's because he was trying to spin anything though.  I think it's probably a symptom of different people hearing different things.  The only way to know which perspective is closer to the truth would be for Mason himself to come on here and see if he agreed with Reel's 10 points.  That's probably not going to happen though.

I'd say if coming from his perspective he got the ten points out of Mason's words, and I got something a little different here or there, I would not think his rendition not accurate.  That's my take. 

We can certainly all discuss and state our opinions about what Mason might have meant.  He could come here and say he disagrees with the way someone is framing any one of his points.  But that's just the process of discussion.  there's no need to get after each other for trying to participate in discussion.  I'm glad, int his, you acknowledge you don't think he was trying to spin anything.  I think that's a good way to view this.

[DBMormon]

 

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where did he state that prophets need to be redefined?  I'm not seeing it.

One of the key tasks before us is developing a better, more sophisticated, and frankly more Christian theology of prophets and prophethood.

 

 

[DBMormon]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m also going to take a shot at addressing the questions:

1.)    He flatly says we have defined Prophets incorrectly.

Our contemporary Mormon culture inherits a lot of folk lore about prophets some from internal influences, but others from the broader Christian world.  The idea that any human being receives divine communication in a pure form, uninfluenced by culture and bias, is a myth and creates false expectations. 

2.)    That there is valid reason to doubt.

I think he’s trying to take away the negative sigma that doubt has in our religious dialogue.  I’ve told many people that I consider myself a doubter now, just to get them to think differently about doubt.  I like this approach. 

3.)    That belief is "plausible" (his words) 

I think he’s implying that there are still logical and reasonable constructs for belief.  That in spite of all the challenges and problems with assumptions and paradigms, that he finds plausible approaches to a belief system. 

4.)    That We made up much of our theology and have put way more in the truth cart then belongs there.

Sounds like what Richard Bushman said as well.  This is a very important point to me, and I’m glad to hear this being discussed.  Yes, yes, I love this discussion.  It forces us to reexamine our truths, and evaluate which ones we believe are true for us today in 2016, and which ones we want to say goodbye to.  I thought of the new book by Carolyn Pearson about the ghosts of polygamy. 

5.)    That we should not blame the doubters and that we would be better looking at ourselves for our problems rather than secularists, feminists, intellectuals, and even Satan

Absolutely, this goes hand in hand with what Grant Hardy said about new approaches to apologetics, it also goes well with Uchtdorfs talk about focusing on our own problems and not focusing on others.  We can learn from the secularist, the feminists, the intellectuals, the atheists.  Let’s build bridges and learn from one another. 

6.)    That the CES letter was an inevitable response to the false dominant narrative we have taught.  And that said narrative is not his mormonism nor the Mormonism that can flourish in the future.

Thank you Patrick for this, and for not just dismissing the CES letter because of its flaws.  Too many people just dismiss it because of its flaws.  What can we learn from the CES letter?  How can we grow as a church from this critique?  What elements do we need to change?

7.)    He expressed that we must do better to support gender equality and our LGBT brothers and sisters.   He says we aren't loving or inclusive enough

This is the #1 most important point in the whole talk.  We need to do more, people are suffering and too many in our culture are hurting the vulnerable and fear mongering because of their own internal prejudice and the church’s policies and structures which are so out of date that its not even funny.  Please LDS church, now is the time.  The BYU sex abuse scandals, the LGBT policy, the BYU honor code, all of these things are an opportunity to respond with inclusiveness and love and throw away the outdated phobias of the past.  Please LDS church leadership, have the courage of President Kimball to make a change here!

8.)    He says our culture and leadership have sadly adopted a non-apologizing posture towards its mistakes

This one is just dumb.  We need to apologize better, period. 

9.)    He says we need to repent as a church and apologize for our serious errors.

Yes, sound the same as the previous point. 

10.) He says we need to Incorporate more diversity into our church ( race, gender, economic status. sexual orientation, and other differences)

Yes, sounds the same as #7 above.  I agree.

11.) He concludes that he is scared of a immature faith never growing up and giving space for nuance and complexity and he fears a fundamentalist takeover

This is a risk for sure.  Fowler stage three thinking is vulnerable and a fundamentalist break off response is a risk. 

[DBMormon]

8 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

In my experience, Scott never relents or apologizes.  He's a prime example of the old school that Mason is critiquing in this article.

The question is whether Mormonism will feel so threatened that it entrenches in this kind or mormonism or if Mormonism has the vulnerability to shift to this more open more inclusive faith.