Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Flexible said:

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.

This forum, in my estimation, is about 100 times better in regards to being a place where "people can feel comfortable working through their questions and doubts".  It's much better than Church anyway.  It's also a better place in regards to "more embracing Mormonism...helping people more fully embrace Mormonism" than is Church. 

Of course there are comments on this forum that bring into question that this place supports those points, but it's good to have diversity. 

[Flexible]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

You're welcome.  Thanks for the feedback. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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 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.

 

Yep- on this we are agreed- and you put it better than I did

You must be a writer or something.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

NO! Not another argument over copyright law!

LOL!

I am sure he knew that idea came from W, but I would have cited it.  No biggie.

Or maybe he didn't. Honestly I did not comment much on his book- though it was a great book- because it was all "old hat" to me.  I had seen all the ideas before.

Many times these ideas get into the culture and people think they figured it out for themselves, because the ideas are in the "air we breathe"

But it is valuable to put them into a context and show them to folks who have not thought those thoughts before and make them relevant in a new context and I think he did that very well.

Honestly I see most of the "new" stuff in Mormonism that way.  I was thinking that way 40 years ago when I joined the church

I should have been writing then, and it might have been new back in those days!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

 

I'd recommend the duck-rabbit.

 

LOL

I just found this!!

[churchistrue]

2 hours 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 might be guilty of misinterpreting Mason, but I think you have it wrong.  When he says a more Christian view of a prophet, he's not talking about qualities that would make a prophet better or more Christlike.  I think he's talking about a view of a prophet which would be more in line with a Christian/Biblical view of a prophet, ie more human less Godlike more prone to mistakes than maybe how we view them within Mormonism.

 

[Flexible]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This forum, in my estimation, is about 100 times better in regards to being a place where "people can feel comfortable working through their questions and doubts".  It's much better than Church anyway.  It's also a better place in regards to "more embracing Mormonism...helping people more fully embrace Mormonism" than is Church. 

Of course there are comments on this forum that bring into question that this place supports those points, but it's good to have diversity. 

Can't disagree with you that it's 100% better than at church  of course.  But I see a lot of ad hominem nastiness here.  Defensiveness and name calling, entrenchment and side-taking. Those things can happen here without really ruining anybody's day too much or hurting the church. It's relatively harmless.  My point earlier is that evolving as Patrick would like to see could bring this nastiness and factionalization into the church body. Not good. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

1. Again I am talking about doctrine and policies. 

2. I did take three different philosophy courses at the University, including the study of religious philosophy, it was an easy "A" 

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? 

Ask your philosophy professors.

They should have covered that.  I have gone over it numerous times with you.  It's about paradigms and language games.  You are stuck in a Cartesian paradigm, you think that reality is "out there" when it is "in here".

Read the below Rorty quote for the 9 millionth time until it sinks in.  If you think it's the spirit it is.  It is a subjective call, not objective." 

Quote

 

To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

Everything you know is a "mental state" including the distinction between the spirit and "not the spirit".  You just get to decide.

Edit: And notice the direct relevance of that quote to both Patrick's point and Wittgenstein's duck/rabbit!!

Edited August 17, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

LOL

I just found this!!

On my drive to work every day I pass a coffee shop called "Duck Rabbit Coffee" with this logo. So it's kind of front of my mind. 

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Flexible said:

 ....at the altar of Correlation is.....

This is not so much a response to that one post, but what I am getting as a whole from the posts here of yours...

Correlation is what has put up the Gospel Topic essays (and directed their use in Seminary), the women's history section, the JSP section and everything else that is on lds.org and all of its subwebsites.  It is best to portray an accurate picture if you want to encourage change. (Iow, I think Coorelation itself is moving for change)

Edited August 17, 2016 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

On my drive to work every day I pass a coffee shop called "Duck Rabbit Coffee" with this logo. So it's kind of front of my mind. 

So is iced coffee a "hot drink"?

Rabbit/duck.   Seeing "as"

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I might be guilty of misinterpreting Mason, but I think you have it wrong.  When he says a more Christian view of a prophet, he's not talking about qualities that would make a prophet better or more Christlike.  I think he's talking about a view of a prophet which would be more in line with a Christian/Biblical view of a prophet, ie more human less Godlike more prone to mistakes than maybe how we view them within Mormonism.

 

I disagree. I think Bernard gets it quite well.

In speaking of a more "Christian view" of a prophet, he is perhaps using "Christian" as a synonym for sectarian, a view that would have the prophet be more "naïve, unsophisticated, and mendacious."

Of course, I in turn might be misinterpreting Bernard. I invite him to clarify if need be.

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So is iced coffee a "hot drink"?

Rabbit/duck.   Seeing "as"

I don't stop at the coffee shop, if that's what you're asking. ... 

And, yes, my understanding from local leaders is that iced coffee is still covered by the WOW. Coffee flavored ice-cream? Much tougher call.

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Serious question. What should we do with those who want the Prophet's message to change? .... People like, well, this guy (http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/courage-convictions). Do they need to be separated too?

When I speak of separation, I am speaking of ensuring we don't label everyone who speaks of change in the same way and thus end up talking as if some are rejecting the prophets or making certain demands when they most certainly not.  

As to your question, has anything I have ever said suggested to you I think someone like Brother Mason needs to be separated out?  Or anyone save perhaps the most extreme of those who make demands for change?

Edited August 17, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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. 

One plausible possibility is that they discussed it and then sought but never received an answer, in which case, it would be just as wrong to declare it was not of God as it would be to declare it was of God.

Another plausible possibility is that they sought and and received the assurance that it was of God but were divinely inspired to keep that information to themselves because of the divisiveness in the Church and the injured feelings that would ensue if they were to declare it publicly.

[Flexible]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is not so much a response to that one post, but what I am getting as a whole from the posts here of yours...

Correlation is what has put up the Gospel Topic essays (and directed their use in Seminary), the women's history section, the JSP section and everything else that is on lds.org and all of its subwebsites.  It is best to portray an accurate picture if you want to encourage change. (Iow, I think Coorelation itself is moving for change)

I don't think any of that is getting any traction at all with members at large, but I hear what you're saying. When the church decides it wants the members to know something it is very good at quickly and  broadly introducing it. Take Extraction for example. Or each year's Primary and YW/YM themes. Or RS Visiting Message. Or Refugee Relief. Or curriculum updates. 

Yes the topics you mentions are "out there" for those interested enough to go looking. But they're not in the mainstream consciousness.  I don't think the leaders want them there. 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is not so much a response to that one post, but what I am getting as a whole from the posts here of yours...

Correlation is what has put up the Gospel Topic essays (and directed their use in Seminary), the women's history section, the JSP section and everything else that is on lds.org and all of its subwebsites.  It is best to portray an accurate picture if you want to encourage change. (Iow, I think Coorelation itself is moving for change)

Correlation has as one of its purposes to preserve the purity of the doctrine as it is conveyed in Church instructional materials. I can't see how that could reasonably be viewed as a bad thing.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Flexible said:

Can't disagree with you that it's 100% better than at church  of course.  But I see a lot of ad hominem nastiness here.  Defensiveness and name calling, entrenchment and side-taking. 

Just as a side note...are you reporting this when you see it?  Many do not and thus deprive the board of the best tool, imo, to cut down on the personal stuff.  Many instead choose to step in and start making it personal themselves by targeting those they see engaging in personal attacks.  On occasion everyone is going to do this, but those who make a habit of it are, imo, only contributing to the very problem they are criticizing.

[Buckeye]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

When I speak of separation, I am speaking of ensuring we don't label everyone who speaks of change in the same way and thus end up talking as if some are rejecting the prophets or making certain demands when they most certainly not.  

As to your question, has anything I have ever said suggested to you I think someone like Brother Mason needs to be separated out?  Or anyone save perhaps the most extreme of those who make demands for change?

I only got worried about Brother Mason based on your last post. Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not sure of the line between "extreme" demands for change and reasonable ones.  FAIR seems to approve (and applaud) Mason's call for the church to apologize for MMM and other things, even though Elder Oaks has clearly and repeatedly stated in the recent past that the church does not issue apologies. (e.g., here: http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/02/no-apology/) And Mason's call for the church to stop worrying about beards similarly conflicts with recent declarations from church spokespersons that the policy will not change (e.g., http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765666725/BYU-makes-clear-there-are-3-exceptions-to-beard-ban.html?pg=all). 

On the other hand, I can't imagine that FAIR would approve of a speaker publicly calling for the church to allow women to be ordained or gays to be sealed in the temple. So I'm still confused as to the line. Don't get me wrong; I'm thrilled at the reception to Brother Mason's remarks. But it seems a line has been moved and I'm wondering where it falls now.

EDIT TO ADD: Or what about a FAIR speaker who publicly criticizes the church's policy prohibiting children of gay couples to be baptized? In or out?

Edited August 17, 2016 by Buckeye

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

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

Obama's speeches inspire millions. 

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Read the below Rorty quote for the 9 millionth time until it sinks in.  If you think it's the spirit it is.  It is a subjective call, not objective." 

I understand, but your philosophical argument won't work in court. You can't tell the judge: "It's my reality" 

What if someone hears voices all the time? Are you going to tell him "You need to go to a doctor" or "that is your reality" ? 

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, Wiki Wonka said:

The video of Patrick Mason's talk has now been posted on the FairMormon blog:

The Courage of Our Convictions: Embracing Mormonism in a Secular Age

Thanks to all the powers that be at FairMormon who contributed to getting the transcript, and especially the video, up for public viewing.  It is very appreciated, given the attention it's garnered, and very gracious to host it for free viewing.  I am grateful, and imagine many others are, as well.

After listening to the talk, I am so appreciative for Patrick's candor, insight, sincerity, sensitivity, self-awareness, willingness to be an advocate for positive change, and call to inclusion and Christ-like compassion.  Had I experienced more support, flexibility, humility, and responses like his, I, too, wonder how my path out of Mormonism would have been different.

His talk is exceptional.  I forwarded it to my two brothers who are serving in their respective Stake Presidency and Bishopric.  I hope Patrick's message takes root and spreads across church membership and culture.  It seems to me that his vision of Mormonism is one that would engender far more respect and embrace-ability than the current course seems to.

[Flexible]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just as a side note...are you reporting this when you see it?  Many do not and thus deprive the board of the best tool, imo, to cut down on the personal stuff.  Many instead choose to step in and start making it personal themselves by targeting those they see engaging in personal attacks.  On occasion everyone is going to do this, but those who make a habit of it are, imo, only contributing to the very problem they are criticizing.

Oh, thanks.  I will try to practice that.  I guess I should read the guidelines and such so I'm better informed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

FAIR seems to approve (and applaud) Mason's call for the church to apologize for MMM and other things, ...

Has FairMormon done that? If so I missed it.

I know that was in Mason's speech, but I thought FairMormon had a standing disclaimer to the effect that speakers at its conferences don't necessarily speak for FairMormon and that the organization doesn't take official positions on anything unless the Church itself does. Perhaps Calm or Juilanne or someone else can clarify.

For the record, I disagree with Mason on this. The Church, through Henry B. Eyring, who spoke at a gathering at the Mountain Meadows site, has already expressed "profound regret" for the massacre. This was mistakenly reported in the news media as an apology, but it's not the same thing. An apology is tantamount to an acceptance of blame or fault. No one now living can do that for Mountain Meadows, nor should they. The only ones who can accept blame are the perpetrators themselves.

By comparison, the Illinois General Assembly some years ago passed a resolution expressing regret for the atrocities committed in that state against the Mormons in the 1840s. The language in the resolution originally termed it an apology, but this was changed, based on the reasoning I have expressed above, that no one now living can take blame (and thus, apologize) for what went on in the 1840s.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Flexible said:

I don't think any of that is getting any traction at all with members at large, but I hear what you're saying. When the church decides it wants the members to know something it is very good at quickly and  broadly introducing it. Take Extraction for example. Or each year's Primary and YW/YM themes. Or RS Visiting Message. Or Refugee Relief. Or curriculum updates. 

Yes the topics you mentions are "out there" for those interested enough to go looking. But they're not in the mainstream consciousness.  I don't think the leaders want them there. 

So teaching the Gospel Topic essays in Seminary is not seeking to put them into the mainstream conciousness?

I think going to the youth first is both the most effective and the least chaotic approach possible.  Have the CES teachers (who generally are the teachers who receive the most training in the Church these days) share the information as part of the curriculum as that will lead to the least missteps in sharing and the highest positive absorption due to not already having definite ideas about the subject.  As these youth grow and become teachers themselves, the level of discussion and even more important the level of comfort in these discussions will rise.  It may take a generation or two dying off for it to become not only the norm, but have the very widespread entrenchment that the current narrative does, but it should only take imo about ten years or so for a significant effect to begin to be seen.

As to your examples of change, none of them are narrative changes, but are rather policy/program changes.  We are used to such as a culture as they happen quite often.  In depth narrative changes by their very nature generally take longer even if directed from the top down.  For example, the language change that GAs and Officers have been using in regards to women having Priesthood power and authority in conference talks.  It is not happening at the 'grassroots' level much yet from what I have seen and not much can be called more mainstream consciousness than conference talks.  (example:  doubt your doubts)

For conference and other talks, we have Elder Oaks' 2014 talk and Elder Ballard's 2013 devotion printed in the Sept 2014 Ensign.

There are others but need to finish this post now.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I only got worried about Brother Mason based on your last post. Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not sure of the line between "extreme" demands for change and reasonable ones.

My view of extreme ones is when someone starts holding meetings and protests primarily for the purpose of demanding change or establishes websites calling for the membership to put pressure on leadership.

FM does not applaud or approve of everything a speaker says, even if individual members do.  Speakers are chosen because they have important ideas we feel contribute to the current discussion and do so in appropriate ways, but we have had nonmembers speak at conferences (Margaret Barker for example), so one shouldn't assume that FM approves just because it is in someone's talk or they get an ovation (most at conferences are not FM members btw).  We don't vet speakers' talks before they speak either, telling them what they can and cannot say.  Please take our disclaimers seriously.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Calm