Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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.

You don't know what you're talking about.

There are few things in this world about which I can claim insider knowledge, but this is one, and I repeat, with emphasis: You don't know what you're talking about!

Edited August 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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

Of course.  Catholics even have a name for it- sensus fidelium

Quote

 

Sensus fidei (sense of the faith), also called sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful) when exercised by the body of the faithful as a whole, is "the supernatural appreciation of faith on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals".[1] Quoting the document Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, the Catechism of the Catholic Church adds: "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),... receives... the faith, once for all delivered to the saints... the People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."[2]

The terms sensus fidei fidelium (sense of the faith on the part of the faithful) and sensus fidei fidelis (sense of the faith on the part of an individual member of the faithful) are also used.[3]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_fidelium

Mormonism is a culture like any other, and the 15 are raised in this culture.   

As the 15 are enculturated, their values and ideas are absorbed from the common culture and confirmed within their senses of right and wrong.

"The golden rule" for example can be seen as "revelation" or as just plain common sense- an evolutionary rule all societies must believe to maintain peace and order.  So too the 10 commandments

Depending on the language game we choose, we see these as "revelations" in the church or "evolutionary changes" in secular parlance

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, BHodges said:

It's been interesting to scan over the discussion here, to see the strong feelings and the back and forth. There are a few different interpretations of Patrick's talk and each of them highlight particular aspects of the piece. I think what Juliann is getting at is that DBMormon's original synopsis was selective, and in its selection it made Patrick's address appear more pointed than it came across when delivered at the FairMormon conference. It reminded me of an excerpt from Patrick's book Planted where he talks about perspective. Everyone's looking at the same talk (now that the transcript is available), but we're seeing somewhat different things. This is because each of us brings a whole lifetime of experiences into our interpretation of the address. We can choose to see in Patrick's address different interpretations depending on what we focus on:

(Parenthetically, if I had this to edit over again I might suggest Patrick use a different example. The "gnarled old hag" stuff is a bit ageist and sexist, albeit inadvertently.)

Anyway, the principle itself is useful in helping me think about how I can better appreciate the interpretations other people offer. I think the original depiction of the presentation made it seem much more controversial than Patrick intended, and some of the coverage elsewhere skipped over some of the more "hard sayings" of the presentation. If we can find a way to make both interpretations make sense in tandem we'll be closer to Patrick's intent, I think.  

This is straight "Wittgenstein Made Easy" except he used a duck that could also be seen as a rabbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit–duck_illusion

Did Patrick give W credit?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

bold mine...

I remember a church leader back a few years ago mention how the biggest worry they have is secularism. Funny how that is mentioned as not the bogeyman in Patrick's talk. C/P below a portion of his talk....

I believe we need to summon the courage to make secularism an ally rather than a bogeyman. Secularism is here to stay as one of the principal conditions of late modern society. Furthermore, we of all people should be grateful for it, because without secularism, with its bequest of disestablishment and religious freedom, there would be no Mormonism. Secularism is not the enemy—it is the very air we breathe, and the foundation for our modern democratic, scientific, and human rights regimes that we all value and which have led to such a dramatic increase in human flourishing. To be sure, secularization can also include an aggressive campaign toward the privatization of religion, in which it is banned mostly or entirely from the public square. And in their most hostile forms, secularization theorists and champions have predicted the inevitable decline of religion, celebrated any movement in that direction, resisted any indicators to the contrary, and portrayed the stubborn persistence of religion as not only backward but genuinely dangerous. But before dismissing secularists as bigoted cranks, let’s have the courage to listen to their real grievances and fears about what centuries of state-sponsored religious majoritarianism and moral establishments did to atheists and religious minorities—including, let’s not forget, Mormons. Despite the cries of the merchants of fear on both sides, my personal feeling, and scholarly analysis, is that at least in America, thanks to the First Amendment, secularism is still mostly benign and generally beneficial to the flourishing of voluntary religious commitments and communities, including ours.

I don't think it will go well at all with church leaders but give kudos to FairMormon and it's members for allowing free thought to happen. I almost applaud, okay, I do applaud FairMormon for it!

I agree with you that this is a step in the right direction for FAIR.  Hopefully, over time, we'll see less pointing of fingers at secularism and other isms in the future.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, DBMormon said:

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

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course.  Catholics even have a name for it- sensus fidelium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_fidelium

Mormonism is a culture like any other, and the 15 are raised in this culture.   

As the 15 are enculturated, their values and ideas are absorbed from the common culture and confirmed within their senses of right and wrong.

"The golden rule" for example can be seen as "revelation" or as just plain common sense- an evolutionary rule all societies must believe to maintain peace and order.  So too the 10 commandments

Depending on the language game we choose, we see these as "revelations" in the church or "evolutionary changes" in secular parlance

I would respond to Bill's snark by saying that Mormonism almost always works on unified agreement guided by revelation.

In the council system of Church administration, which Elder Ballard has often championed, deliberative bodies ponder, weigh and discuss a given matter. As the members of the body are moved upon by the Spirit individually, unacceptable ideas are blown away like chaff, leaving the kernels of wisdom and truth that everyone, with the confirmation of the Holy Spirit, can agree upon. It's a process that often takes time, but as a matter of faith, I believe it prevails in nearly every instance.

Edited to add:

When a council in the Church cannot agree on something, it strikes me as the group counterpart to the scriptural "stupor of thought," which we are taught to interpret as a "no" from the Almighty.

 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is straight "Wittgenstein Made Easy" except he used a duck that could also be seen as a rabbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit–duck_illusion

Did Patrick give W credit?

NO! Not another argument over copyright law!

[hope_for_things]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think what I said was that you were sensationalistic in your post.

Edited to add:

Apparently, Blair Hodges, publicist for the Maxwell Institute, which published Patrick Mason's book, agrees with me (see the post just before this one).

Are you serious that what you got out of Blair's post was that he agrees with you????  I think you missed the point of his post.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

Yes, it's my opinion. But if you're going to nit-pick, it would be better to offer some plausible alternative interpretations. Do you really think it plausible that the brethren would issue an essay addressing the priesthood/temple ban, disclaim in that essay all of the racist teachings underlying the ban, and never once discuss among themselves whether the ban itself was of God? I find that to be simply absurd. Of course they discussed it. 

I'm not trying to nitpick.  It's just that, if you are going to state something as fact, then you can't answer a CFR with your opinion on it (or a plausible alternative interpretation).  I'm wasn't commenting at all on the strength of your opinion or how plausible.  I think it's very plausible.  But a fact or a given?  No.  In the end, we don't actually know why the ban isn't disavowed in the essays.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you serious that what you got out of Blair's post was that he agrees with you????  

Not the only thing, no, but it's one point I chose to highlight. He correctly stated that Bill's OP made the speech seem more controversial than Patrick intended.  In other words, Bill sensationalized it.

Quote

I think you missed the point of his post.  

No, I got the point of his post.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

I am not a true academic writer and this is a discussion board on the internet.  my point still stands he has in different words implied the same point.

I misunderstood then.  I thought you were attempting to discuss mormonism professionally outside of this board.  If that's true, then you need to proceed in a professional manner regardless of the place.  If it's not true, then sounding like an amateur when writing doesn't really matter, you're right.

Either way, if your point was that you believe he implied such, then yes, your point stands.  If your point was that Mason stated such, then no, your point doesn't stand.  

[DBMormon]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I misunderstood then.  I thought you were attempting to discuss mormonism professionally outside of this board.  If that's true, then you need to proceed in a professional manner regardless of the place.  If it's not true, then sounding like an amateur when writing doesn't really matter, you're right.

Either way, if your point was that you believe he implied such, then yes, your point stands.  If your point was that Mason stated such, then no, your point doesn't stand.  

then I guess it stands.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

3. Please answer my question,  I want to know how we can detect the Holy Ghost? How can we know it is not the result of patternicity, hallucination(minor brain stroke), the Improbability Principle, false memory? 

Does the feeling you're getting inspire you to support the doctrines, principles, policies and leaders of the LDS Church?

If so: Holy Ghost

If not: Satan

Neither for or against the Church: Who cares

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

then I guess it stands.

Great!  I'm glad our conversation could clarify and fix the weaknesses in your original post.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, BHodges said:

Anyway, the principle itself is useful in helping me think about how I can better appreciate the interpretations other people offer. I think the original depiction of the presentation made it seem much more controversial than Patrick intended, and some of the coverage elsewhere skipped over some of the more "hard sayings" of the presentation. If we can find a way to make both interpretations make sense in tandem we'll be closer to Patrick's intent, I think.  

I highlighted this section. 

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not the only thing, no, but it's one point I chose to highlight. He correctly stated that Bill's OP made the speech seem more controversial than Patrick intended.  In other words, Bill sensationalized it.

Scott,  

Could you take a look at the highlighted portion above.  I think the primary point of Blair's post is to show that everyone approaches things from their own unique perspective.  He's acknowledging that Bill's perspective is different that Patrick's, but its also differing from your perspective or the perspective of the author of the DNews piece, or anyone else that has written a summary of the talk.  Don't miss out on this concept, its important.  We need to learn to "better appreciate the interpretations other people offer" as Blair points out above.  

Now, take a look at Bill's OP, and apply this idea to the OP.  How can you, Scott Lloyd, better appreciate the interpretation that Bill is offering?  

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have difficulty separating talks and discussions like this from the finger-pointers in the Great and Spacious Building. At what point do we let go of the rod and cross the gulf to join those in the GSB?

It appears to me that the point of this type of discussion is to try to avoid, dilute, or negate the prophecies in 1 Nephi 14 concerning the situation of the Church in the end times. We want the Church to be large, progressive, ecumenical, popular, influential, cordial, or in a word, hip. According to that scripture, the problems to be faced by the Church would be the result of the wickedness of the world, but here we are laying them at the feet of naïve, unsophisticated, and mendacious prophets.

For example, what criteria should we follow to redefine the role and position of the prophets and make them more "Christian"? What would a more "Christian" Mormon prophet look like? Better educated in theology and history, more or less spiritual, better groomed, more contrite, better spoken, more scientific, less controversial, less assertive, more democratic, nicer robes?

Nibley said the prophets' reward was rejection and death. 

 

I think we need to separate those who wish the prophets to change and those who wish the language among the members about the prophets to change.  They are significantly different things.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I highlighted this section. 

Scott,  

Could you take a look at the highlighted portion above.  I think the primary point of Blair's post is to show that everyone approaches things from their own unique perspective.  He's acknowledging that Bill's perspective is different that Patrick's, but its also differing from your perspective or the perspective of the author of the DNews piece, or anyone else that has written a summary of the talk.  Don't miss out on this concept, its important.  We need to learn to "better appreciate the interpretations other people offer" as Blair points out above.  

Now, take a look at Bill's OP, and apply this idea to the OP.  How can you, Scott Lloyd, better appreciate the interpretation that Bill is offering?  

 

I told you, I understood Blair's primary point. I don't need your tutorial.

But part of his post happened to coincide with a point I made. I believe I'm entitled to draw attention to it.

[Flexible]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"That kind" of Mormonism will die out- it is inevitable.

"This kind" is already here.  10 or 15 years ago there would not have been enough members on this board to support this KIND of discussion- now it is all you see on this board.

EVERY topic essentially talks about how Mormonism is changing.   I know we are not the brightest bulbs, but those who post here are a kind of "avant garde" that shows the direction the church is headed, at least by "gut" if not fully thought- through positions

Fundamentalism cannot stand in today's world- we WILL learn that- or put differently, the survivor generations of today's Mormonism WILL have accepted those views.

It is evolution.  The environment changes (in this case the intellectual environment) and what survives, survives.  It is not so much that the old views will "die" it is just that they will disappear and no one will be left who believes that way anymore.

There are no real flat-earther's left and no one worships Zeus.   It is not as if one day the worship of Zeus "died"- it just became irrelevant under different conditions.

THAT is the inevitable future of Mormonism, I am sure

20 years ago you yourself would not believe what you believe today and that is true of all of us.

I think you may be prematurely patting yourself on the back for being the "avant garde" of where Mormonism Is heading.  I love what Patrick Mason is saying.  I think he has articulated some of the major conundrums facing Mormonism more clearly than anyone else to date.  It resonates with many of us who are TBMs, love the Church, and believe in the Restoration.  We can see the growing dissonance that the conundrums are creating. We would love to see the type of Mormonism Patrick is hoping for. 

 But I am not at all optimistic that the kind of Mormonism  is what we are actually going to experience.  I live in Southern California in a stake that by all standards is successful, active and strong.  Full of smart, dedicated members.  But if you were to try to discuss any of these conundrums with the majority of the members and leaders here, you would quickly find yourself marginalized.  The issues would make them feel uncomfortable and threatened and they would not see the light of day for very long.  We are the epitome of what Patrick calls the Fundmentalist.

No one I know wants the facts of our history and doctrine to be "subjected to the same level of scrutiny as any other topic of study". And  they are very comfortable with "juvenilization and EfY-ification" in all of our classes and meetings.  They seem quite comfortable living in the structure that is "too rigid and brittle to stand the storms of scrutiny". 

I travel a lot around the world.  I think my area is pretty typical.  So here's my assessment:  I believe what you call the "avant garde" will likely never have the ear of the leaders of the church, who will always manage things to the lowest common denominator.  You can call that "Correlation".  They must do this to nurture the faith of the average member who isn't part of the "avant garde", and also avoid upsetting the strict fundamentalists who are still the "base" of the Church.  So I see a greater likelihood of the "fundamentalist takeover" scenario Patrick fears.

The Church will survive and move on like the caravan Bruce R. McConkie compared it to in a conference talk many years ago.  The wishes and hopes of the "avant garde" will be relegated to the "barking dogs nipping at the heels of the caravan" in that talk I'm afraid.  I hope that the "avant garde" will stay faithful and find some fulfillment through participating in forums like this and others.

 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I told you, I understood Blair's primary point. I don't need your tutorial.

But part of his post happened to coincide with a point I made. I believe I'm entitled to draw attention to it.

That's good because as you know working in the media, drawing attention to one point and leaving out other information, could be considered selective journalism and can skew the message.  (Yes, I'm being a little snarky here) 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I misunderstood then.  I thought you were attempting to discuss mormonism professionally outside of this board.  If that's true, then you need to proceed in a professional manner regardless of the place.  If it's not true, then sounding like an amateur when writing doesn't really matter, you're right.

Either way, if your point was that you believe he implied such, then yes, your point stands.  If your point was that Mason stated such, then no, your point doesn't stand.  

 

22 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

then I guess it stands.

 

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Great!  I'm glad our conversation could clarify and fix the weaknesses in your original post.

One needn't be an academic or be engaging in academic work to strive for precision and clarity in writing. Doing so is within the capability of most anyone. I believe that failure to do so stems more often from carelessness than from incompetence.

 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Flexible]

And incidentally, examples of what I am saying are abundant in this forum.  I am always amazed at the vitriolic, defensive, and arrogant comments by many of the legacy posters here to anything that threatens their correlated, comfortable positions. Is this the  "intellectually laziness"  Patrick was referring to?  The idea that one can't be a faithful, covenant-keeping member unless they kneel at the altar of Correlation is, in my opinion, an example of the "rigid and brittle" framework Patrick was describing as not able to withstand scrutiny.

[cinepro]

FYI, Here are, as far as I can tell, the supporting quotes for the claims made in the OP:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/courage-convictions

 

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

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

2.)  That there is valid reason to doubt.

"One of the ironies we haven’t fully appreciated in our discussions of doubt is that to some degree our church culture is responsible for many people’s reactions to troubling information. Whether consciously or not, they are simply applying what they learned in well-intentioned but ultimately damaging Primary and youth lessons"

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

"But there is also a plausible narrative that you can construct that it is all true."

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

"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. . . ."
 

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

"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."

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.

"Jeremy Runnels may have written the [CES 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.

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

"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."

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

"Circling the wagons was an effective pioneer tactic, but was also a telltale sign of vulnerability and weakness, not strength. Shifting analogies somewhat, for too many years we refused to yield to dissenters and critics even an inch of territory—including some pretty rocky, barren outposts that should never have fallen within our borders and definitely weren’t worth defending. This no-retreat-no-surrender mentality has only fueled the CES Letter and other polemics, which have made the claim that a series of apparent infelicities, contradictions, gaps, errors, and transgressions invalidate the entire Mormon system. They can effectively make that argument, and lead many thousands of people out of the church, because too many Latter-day Saints, including many of our leaders, have over the years essentially made that same all-or-nothing argument. In the process we constructed an edifice that was too rigid and brittle to withstand the storms of scrutiny that have been unleashed especially in our Internet age."

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

"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."

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

"I believe we need to summon the courage to authentically incorporate more of the diversity of God’s children into our—rather, his—church. Twentieth-century Mormonism was astonishingly successful at creating a committed core of white, middle-class, upwardly mobile, professional, suburban American nuclear families. We need greater courage to allow members in the international church, having been taught correct principles, to govern themselves. (Read the rest of the quote at the talk...the board software won't let me post it here for some reason...?)

 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 

"As I wrap up, I will admit that I have two fears for the church that I love and am totally committed to. 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."

Edited August 17, 2016 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Flexible said:

And incidentally, examples of what I am saying are abundant in this forum.  I am always amazed at the vitriolic, defensive, and arrogant comments by many of the legacy posters here to anything that threatens their correlated, comfortable positions. Is this the  "intellectually laziness"  Patrick was referring to?  The idea that one can't be a faithful, covenant-keeping member unless they kneel at the altar of Correlation is, in my opinion, an example of the "rigid and brittle" framework Patrick was describing as not able to withstand scrutiny.

A couple of fine contributions I see.  Thanks for chiming in.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

That's good because as you know working in the media, drawing attention to one point and leaving out other information, could be considered selective journalism and can skew the message.  (Yes, I'm being a little snarky here) 

Being a lot snarky, I'd say.

Since my post occurred in the sequence immediately after Blair's I don't think there is any great danger that any of his information will be lost or that his message will be skewed.

Moreover, in my post, I referred the reader to Blair's post, which was situated directly above mine. So, in the process of reading my post, the reader's eyes would be directed there, thus exposing the reader to all of the information and central message that you are so worried I am leaving out and skewing.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Flexible]

And while I'm at it, this forum is living proof of why I'm not optimistic about the kind of future Patrick is hoping for.  Hardly a place where "people can feel comfortable working through their questions and doubts",   Hardly an example of "a more embracing Mormonism...helping people more fully embrace Mormonism".  I fear what we see here is what we would see in the Church if the evolution Patrick is hoping for were to take place.

[Buckeye]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think we need to separate those who wish the prophets to change and those who wish the language among the members about the prophets to change.  They are significantly different things.

Serious question. What should we do with those who want the Prophet's message to change? For instance, those who want the Prophet to stop being so defense, who want the Prophet to begin apologizing for church mistakes, who want the Prophet to stop making up reprehensibly bad explanations for church teachings, who want the Prophet to stop putting forth an "all-or-nothing argument" when it comes to church teachings. People like, well, this guy (http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/courage-convictions). Do they need to be separated too?

To put it another way, is there a difference between "those who wish the prophets to change" and "those who wish the prophet's message to change"? Because while he was (wise and) careful to give his counsel universally - ie., to all members and generic "leaders" - it is quite clear that much of Patrick Mason's counsel is directed at the Prophet and Q12 who would have to approve of the changes he's proposing. As one example, Mason's call for an apology on MMM would certainly require FP/Q12 approval; the cedar city stake president would never act on his own. And Mason's call to drop policies about beards flies directly in the face of current church (and church school) policies that prohibit beards for bishops, temple workers and byu students. I'm really having a hard time seeing how Mason avoids your description of "[one] who wish[ses] the prophets to change."

Edited August 17, 2016 by Buckeye