Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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 successful 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 payment members and it will do nothing to attract the lost souls like myself.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree. And my hope is that the changes that come will get us by until big overhaul changes resettle us.  I can't help it.  My desire to believe is too strong, I guess. 

Edited August 17, 2016 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

11 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.

Never say never.  He's a good guy and will relent and apologize sometimes.  I believe I've seen it.  But, surely he's really good at sticking to his guns. 

[Daniel2]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

 

What he actually said:

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. . . .

 

To be fair, he also did say that some theology has apparently been "made up":

"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. I’ve had to repent for my own un-Christian acts and words, and have been able to reconcile myself to the fact that the church that sent me out as an official representative didn’t arm me with better and more accurate information."

Edited August 17, 2016 by Daniel2

[DBMormon]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Never say never.  He's a good guy and will relent and apologize sometimes.  I believe I've seen it.  But, surely he's really good at sticking to his guns. 

CFR  (It would be even better if you could provide it with someone he detests.)

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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.

I think locally I see all kinds of retrenchment as it pertains to this question.  In different wards and stakes I guess it's different.  I wonder what this local level variation will do as we go forward. 

[stemelbow]

Just now, DBMormon said:

CFR  (It would be even better if you could provide it with someone he detests.)

I don't want this to get personal about him.  I do believe I've given him thumbs up when I've seen it.  This isn't about him and I'm not going to search him to find an instance.  I'll leave my perspective as is and you are free to disagree.  But this has gotten ugly enough. 

[Buckeye]

 

I've now also re-reviewed the DN write up (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659562/LDS-scholar-calls-for-a-more-embracing-Mormonism-that-rejects-fear.html?pg=all) and the Robert F. Smith analysis (found here: 

 

It's clear to me that both of these reviews fail to mention many of the important critiques Mason makes of the church, church culture, and even church leaders. Below are just a few examples (direct quotes):

• 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.
• There is a plausible narrative that you could construct (and many people do) about it all being a lie. 
• 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’m skeptical of blaming outside influences for our troubles—whether it be secularism, or liberalism, or feminism, or marriage equality, or even Satan
• 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.
• And for heaven’s sake, let’s stop fussing over women wearing pants to church, or men coming with beards or blue shirts. With all the other problems in the chur and the world, is that where we’re going to spend our emotional energy?
• My second fear is for the fundamentalist takeover of Mormonism.

Juliann is correct to emphasize that context matters. But so do the actual recommendations that Mason makes. And these are ignored by the DN and by Smith. He recommends that the church apologize for MMM and the priesthood/temple ban. That is simply huge. He recommends that the church stop blaming secularists, liberals, feminists and gays. Again, a very key point. He advises that we drop the wars over pants, white shirts, and beards.

I'm encouraged that this address received a resounding applause (even if not a standing one). Here's hoping that Mason's specific recommendations become realities. 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

Stemelbow: I wouldn't necessarily disagree. And my hope is that the changes that come will get us by until big overhaul changes resettle us.  I can't help it.  My desire to believe is too strong, I guess. 

 

Completely respect your desire to believe.  My wife says the same thing...kind of...she says "I choose to believe"  while I'm in a "I'd like to believe but can't seem to make the pieces of the Mormon puzzle fit together so I don't", Camp

 

PS: Being on in limited posting mode sucks.  All this cut and pasting just to quote someone sucks. And all because I posted a truthful post that someone, mystery person, found offensive.  Mod's ignore my request for communication and have taken the fun out of posting here.

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

To be fair, he also did say that some theology has apparently been "made up":

 

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. I’ve had to repent for my own un-Christian acts and words, and have been able to reconcile myself to the fact that the church that sent me out as an official representative didn’t arm me with better and more accurate information.

Excellent. I'll have to fix my grading. DB Mormon got this one correct as well.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Stemelbow: I wouldn't necessarily disagree. And my hope is that the changes that come will get us by until big overhaul changes resettle us.  I can't help it.  My desire to believe is too strong, I guess. 

 

Completely respect your desire to believe.  My wife says the same thing...kind of...she says "I choose to believe"  while I'm in a "I'd like to believe but can't seem to make the pieces of the Mormon puzzle fit together so I don't", Camp

 

PS: Being on in limited posting mode sucks.  All this cut and pasting just to quote someone sucks. And all because I posted a truthful post that someone, mystery person, found offensive.  Mod's ignore my request for communication and have taken the fun out of posting here.

That's a shame.  You are a great voice for us to have here, as are others who are on limited. 

[Mystery Meat]

29 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

I've now also re-reviewed the DN write up (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659562/LDS-scholar-calls-for-a-more-embracing-Mormonism-that-rejects-fear.html?pg=all) and the Robert F. Smith analysis (found here: 

 

It's clear to me that both of these reviews fail to mention many of the important critiques Mason makes of the church, church culture, and even church leaders. Below are just a few examples (direct quotes):

• 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.
• There is a plausible narrative that you could construct (and many people do) about it all being a lie. 
• 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’m skeptical of blaming outside influences for our troubles—whether it be secularism, or liberalism, or feminism, or marriage equality, or even Satan
• 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.
• And for heaven’s sake, let’s stop fussing over women wearing pants to church, or men coming with beards or blue shirts. With all the other problems in the chur and the world, is that where we’re going to spend our emotional energy?
• My second fear is for the fundamentalist takeover of Mormonism.

Juliann is correct to emphasize that context matters. But so do the actual recommendations that Mason makes. And these are ignored by the DN and by Smith. He recommends that the church apologize for MMM and the priesthood/temple ban. That is simply huge. He recommends that the church stop blaming secularists, liberals, feminists and gays. Again, a very key point. He advises that we drop the wars over pants, white shirts, and beards.

I'm encouraged that this address received a resounding applause (even if not a standing one). Here's hoping that Mason's specific recommendations become realities. 

 

The bold is actually incorrect. He does suggest we apologize for the spurious racial ideologies surrounding the ban. That might mean a variety of things. But it is worth noting that the presiding Elders have never received a revelation in modern times confirming the source of the ban in the first place. While I understand the sentiment, I do think it would be inappropriate for the brethren to issue an apology without a direct revelation on the subject. God has, as of yet, not provided one. In the meantime, we are left to approach the Lord in prayer and receive revelation for ourselves (not for others or to use that revelation to condemn past leaders or to advance a position publicly). And that is perfectly okay.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[DBMormon]

20 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

I've now also re-reviewed the DN write up (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659562/LDS-scholar-calls-for-a-more-embracing-Mormonism-that-rejects-fear.html?pg=all) and the Robert F. Smith analysis (found here: 

It's clear to me that both of these reviews fail to mention many of the important critiques Mason makes of the church, church culture, and even church leaders.

I once knew a comedian who held up an ax and stated that this ax was George Washington's except the handle had been replaced and shortly after the ax head had been switched out.  I have always believed falsely that journalistic entities were obligated to portray events in the spirit of portraying them accurately.  I have come to expect that the Deseret News will soften, gloss over, and leave out things that are faith demoting or challenging even at the expense of portraying an event as something different than it was.  I find it odd the number of important stories that are even avoided while the rest of the media and their readers find them important.  And yes my OP left many points out.  My OP was not a reporting on an event in an effort to cover the jist of his session, rather it was to focus on these specific points.  I am not a newspaper nor was I claiming to desire to cover the spirit of all he said.

Edited August 17, 2016 by DBMormon

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

The bold is actually incorrect. He does suggest we apologize for the spurious racial ideologies surrounding the ban. That might mean a variety of things. But it is worth noting that the presiding Elders have never received a revelation in modern times confirming the source of the ban in the first place. Why I understand the sentiment, I do think it would be inappropriate for the brethren to issue an apology without a direct revelation on the subject. God has, as of yet, not provided one. In the meantime, we are left to approach the Lord in prayer and receive revelation for ourselves (not for others or to use that revelation to condemn past leaders or to advance a position publicly). And that is perfectly okay.

That's a fair point. Mason called for an apology for the "spurious racial ideologies surrounding the priesthood-temple ban", not the ban itself. For me, there's not much difference between the two. The racial ideologies were just as much capital-D doctrine as was the ban itself (see the 1949/1951 First Presidency Letters).

IMO, it's a bad idea to apologize only for the "ideologies." That would tick off the traditionalists who can't grasp that the brethren could get those doctrinal teachings wrong. And it would fail to assuage the younger generations who would take a partial apology to be not sufficient. The best course is to apologize for the whole thing and deal with the consequence that the church got this doctrine wrong (both the doctrine of the ban itself, and the doctrine of the ideologies underlying the ban).

Also, I'm curious why you think a revelation is need for an apology. If the ban itself was not the result of a revelation, why would a revelation be needed for the brethren to apologize for the ban itself?

 

[Buckeye]

12 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I once knew a comedian who held up an ax and stated that this ax was George Washington's except the handle had been replaced and shortly after the ax head had been switched out.  I have always believed falsely that journalistic entities were obligated to portray events in the spirit of portraying them accurately.  I have come to expect that the Deseret News will soften, gloss over, and leave out things that are faith demoting or challenging even at the expense of portraying an event as something different than it was.  I find it odd the number of important stories that are even avoided while the rest of the media and their readers find them important.  And yes my OP left many points out.  My OP was not a reporting on an event in an effort to cover the jist of his session, rather it was to focus on these specific points.  I am not a newspaper nor was I claiming to desire to cover the spirit of all he said.

Funny. I can understand that the DN would limit its review to only the non-controversial things. A reporter is limited by the scope that his employer allows. Reporting on direct criticism of church teachings (priesthood ban ideologies), calls for apologies for church actions (MMM, etc.) and calls for changes of church policy (white shirts, beards, etc.) is going to get a reporter booted quickly at the DN. Hopefully the DN article will spur people to read/watch the actual discourse.

For me, the overall theme of Mason's remarks is that "we" (the church and its defenders) have big motes in our eyes that should be addressed now, not only because its the right thing to do, but because its the only course to gain the credibility and trust that will be needed to hold on to future generations.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

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.

I see no sacrifices required, and Bushman and Mason are not doing anything new at all.  We saw the same with B. H. Roberts, Leonard Arrington, Hugh Nibley, Truman Madsen, Gene England, and other LDS scholars.  It is simply that ordinary members of the faith are unfamiliar with these issues, and the Gospel does not require them to be concerned with such matters.  Trouble is that they hear rumors and read ill-informed comments here and there, jump to conclusions, and have a panic attack or something.  This will not be the first time that Mormons have gone through crises, and it won't be the last.  However, I think they will do just fine.  Meantime, I hope that this board will feature some substantive discussion, rather than ineffectual handwringing.

[Mystery Meat]

5 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

That's a fair point. Mason called for an apology for the "spurious racial ideologies surrounding the priesthood-temple ban", not the ban itself. For me, there's not much difference between the two. The racial ideologies were just as much capital-D doctrine as was the ban itself (see the 1949/1951 First Presidency Letters).

IMO, it's a bad idea to apologize only for the "ideologies." That would tick off the traditionalists who can't grasp that the brethren could get those doctrinal teachings wrong. And it would fail to assuage the younger generations who would take a partial apology to be not sufficient. The best course is to apologize for the whole thing and deal with the consequence that the church got this doctrine wrong (both the doctrine of the ban itself, and the doctrine of the ideologies underlying the ban).

Also, I'm curious why you think a revelation is need for an apology. If the ban itself was not the result of a revelation, why would a revelation be needed for the brethren to apologize for the ban itself?

 

In the recent essay on the matter, the brethren did not see fit to repudiate the ban itself, only the ancillary teachings. If memory serves me, the essay does mention that a source for the ban could not be identified. Therefore, if we are not sure of its source (be it revelation or otherwise), I don't think we can apologize for it until we have correctly identified its origin. In the case where the ban was ordained of God, then, an apology may be contrary to the will of the Lord. I think that is important enough to wait upon the Lord for further light and knowledge before we jump the gun.

[TheSkepticChristian]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In addition, it is false doctrine to preach that God has to decide,

policies and doctrine of the church? 

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Who is the "we" that sees or doesn't see evidence of the Holy Spirit?  Speak for yourself, Skeptic.  Moreover, if you are unwilling to make the effort, you will not obtain any knowledge, either secular or religious.  Just a stupor of thought.

How do you know I didn't do everything? I can't try forever. 

Edited August 17, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[DBMormon]

5 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Funny. I can understand that the DN would limit its review to only the non-controversial things. A reporter is limited by the scope that his employer allows. Reporting on direct criticism of church teachings (priesthood ban ideologies), calls for apologies for church actions (MMM, etc.) and calls for changes of church policy (white shirts, beards, etc.) is going to get a reporter booted quickly at the DN. Hopefully the DN article will spur people to read/watch the actual discourse.

For me, the overall theme of Mason's remarks is that "we" (the church and its defenders) have big motes in our eyes that should be addressed now, not only because its the right thing to do, but because its the only course to gain the credibility and trust that will be needed to hold on to future generations.

Amen

&

Amen

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

In the recent essay on the matter, the brethren did not see fit to repudiate the ban itself, only the ancillary teachings. If memory serves me, the essay does mention that a source for the ban could not be identified. Therefore, if we are not sure of its source (be it revelation or otherwise), I don't think we can apologize for it until we have correctly identified its origin. In the case where the ban was ordained of God, then, an apology may be contrary to the will of the Lord. I think that is important enough to wait upon the Lord for further light and knowledge before we jump the gun.

The reason the essay does not disclaim the ban itself is because there was no unanimity on that point. Apparently there was unanimity on disclaiming the "ideologies."  I'll grant that a revelation would likely lead to unanimity for disclaiming the ban. But unanimity could also be obtained if the hold-outs died or changed their minds. So a revelation is only one path. There are others.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

policies and doctrine of the church? 

How do you know I didn't do everything? I can't try forever. 

Our free agency should be our prime motivating factor.  It puts the responsibility on us, not God.

Of course, you are not expected to go beyond reasonable efforts, and only you can be the judge of whether you have worked at it hard enough.  My question would be, what is everything?  That conjures up a lot.  Part of my advice for anyone with your wide array of interests would be to feed those interests.  For a genuine skeptic, that might mean serious college and university course-work delving into the very issues which are of most concern in dealing with reality -- philosophy and science.

If that secular direction doesn't appeal to you, take it in the other direction and try yogic or Buddhist (Zen) meditation or a similar Eastern religious discipline.  Train your mind to deal with your inner thoughts and to systematically probe them.

[DBMormon]

4 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The reason the essay does not disclaim the ban itself is because there was no unanimity on that point. Apparently there was unanimity on disclaiming the "ideologies."  I'll grant that a revelation would likely lead to unanimity for disclaiming the ban. But unanimity could also be obtained if the hold-outs died or changed their minds. So a revelation is only one path. There are others.

seriously?  Mormonism sometimes works on unified agreement rather than revelation?

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I once knew a comedian who held up an ax and stated that this ax was George Washington's except the handle had been replaced and shortly after the ax head had been switched out.  I have always believed falsely that journalistic entities were obligated to portray events in the spirit of portraying them accurately.  I have come to expect that the Deseret News will soften, gloss over, and leave out things that are faith demoting or challenging even at the expense of portraying an event as something different than it was.  I find it odd the number of important stories that are even avoided while the rest of the media and their readers find them important.  And yes my OP left many points out.  My OP was not a reporting on an event in an effort to cover the jist of his session, rather it was to focus on these specific points.  I am not a newspaper nor was I claiming to desire to cover the spirit of all he said.

Well, they about have to. See bold..

Edited August 17, 2016 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

seriously?  Mormonism sometimes works on unified agreement rather than revelation?

I think it's been that way for years.  Probably why so many of our traditional teachings and practices our outdated--can't change because someone in the upper echelon won't have such change. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might need to talk with someone like Armand Mauss about that type of research (back in the 1970s I think).  Having been born &  raised in California, and having lived in many other places for extended periods (including 4 years in Israel), I am particularly sensitive to cultural differences.  Also, I am not sure that judging character by outward appearance is very useful.

Who said anything about judging "character"? I thought we were talking here about determining cultural differences.

[Buckeye]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's been that way for years.  Probably why so many of our traditional teachings and practices our outdated--can't change because someone in the upper echelon won't have such change. 

I think DB Mormon was being rhetorical. 

I find the principle of unanimity to be very helpful in understanding church pronouncements. For example, in reading the genderized roles assigned in the Proclamation, I read the statements strictly: men should preside, provide, and protect; women should nurture. But I don't do as many members and assume that the brethren are unanimously speaking against men nurturing, or women providing, presiding, or protecting. Why didn't they speak to that clearly? Because there was no unanimity. So they only spoke to what they could agree on. And what they agreed on is very good. It is good for men to preside, provide and protect. It is good for women to nurture. The brethren left to members to decide whether men should nurture too, and whether women should preside, provide, and protect. In my home, my wife and I take on all those roles fully. We both strive to embrace all good.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Buckeye