Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

that the organization doesn't take official positions on anything unless the Church itself does.

 

I am not sure that it is stated this way, but I have often heard it expressed if there is anything on our site the Church tells us to take down, we will do it.  They never have (or even done anything even close that I have seen) for those who are wondering.  I will try and find if there is something specifically addressing this.

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Very helpful. Thanks. And I echo Daniel2's appreciation for the speedy publication of the transcript and video.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Thanks for that clarification, Calm. It is consistent with my understanding about FairMormon policies.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Very helpful. Thanks. And I echo Daniel2's appreciation for the speedy publication of the transcript and video.

A donation to help cover the loss of funds would be graciously welcomed from all.  

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not sure that it is stated this way, but I have often heard it expressed if there is anything on our site the Church tells us to take down, we will do it.  They never have (or even done anything even close that I have seen) for those who are wondering.  I will try and find if there is something specifically addressing this.

I am going off of what I heard John Lynch say at a FM conference a couple of years ago. In fact, I might have quoted him in print. I'll see if I can find it.

Edited to add:

Found it.

Quote

The only official position the organization takes on anything is what the official position of the Church is, Brother Lynch said. “If they don’t have an official position, neither do we.”

 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

One crosses the line when they stop focusing their eyes and pointing-fingers on the tree, and instead move their focus to the GSB. One of Mason's strongest points is that, far too often, church members and church leaders are focused on the GSB rather than the tree.

If that is his point, then I probably agree. However, his talk (if I understand it correctly) and DBM's laundry list (and other such symptoms of heartburn) appear to me to be more finger pointing than holding to the rod. 1 Nephi 14 says the Church will be small and persecuted. Who would want that?

[Daniel2]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

A donation to help cover the loss of funds would be graciously welcomed from all.  

Can you please provide a link on how we can donate?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I am going off of what heard John Lynch say at a FM conference a couple of years ago. In fact, I might have quoted him in print. I'll see if I can find it.

Edited to add:

Found it.

 

I would definitely say we don't have official positions on things the Church does not.  However, I don't think we would say that all the official positions the Church might have would be identically held by FM.

We don't, imo, have an official position on whether the flood was global or local, for example.  Some would argue the Church has an official position there.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Can you please provide a link on how we can donate?

http://www.fairmormon.org/about-fairmormon/donate-to-fair

I hate asking for money usually...unless I have my (once) little daughter next to me with daffodils in hand (the Canadian way of doing it...$5 a bunch; man, we raked it in), thank you to all those who set it up so I could do it in such a painless manner here.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours 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'm one of those old farts who will have to die so the New Dawn can be ushered in. But let me tell you, broski, I won't go down without a fight! {edit:  } I'm having a hard time thinking of something I believed 20, heck 40 years ago, that I don't believe now...and by that I mean anything to which the Spirit has born testimony to me, that and a lot more, too.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[cinepro]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

 

 

"News media" indeed.

[Buckeye]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

A donation to help cover the loss of funds would be graciously welcomed from all.  

But then you'd know my true identity.   FWIW, I've been a subscribing member to FAIR at times over the past decade. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm one of those old farts who will have to die so the New Dawn can be ushered in. But let me tell you, broski, I won't go down without a fight! I'm having a hard time thinking of something I believed 20, heck 40 years ago, that I don't believe now...and by that I mean anything to which the Spirit has born testimony to me, that and a lot more, too.

I'll stand with you, brother, and go down fighting if needs must.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours 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.

Instead of pointing fingers from the GSB, then, are they just casting mild aspersions from the path as they glance at it over the gulf? 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Flexible]

Yes, Correlation helps keep the doctrine pure, which is a desirable outcome. 
But I know many who  feel strongly that Correlation also helps dilute and "dumb down" the doctrine and gospel teaching on Sundays to the point that, as Patrick points out, the lessons and discussions rarely get past EFY and Seminary levels.  He even noted how in some cases we dilute powerful doctrines into "mealy mouthed compromises" that air brush the  Restoration's most powerful and distinctive revealed truths for the "sake of acceptance and respectability.  In my experience the Correlated curriculum is one reason why Patrick describes Mormonism, for too many members, as  "low energy" and  "irrelevant, dull, oppressive and insipid". 

Your mileage may vary.  I can only speak from my experience.  But I would like to see the Correlated material, as Patrick says, "stretch us beyond what we learned in seminary", allowing us to have the opportunity to handle "complexity and nuance" like adults.  Hopefully changes will come.   I think it will help our members be better prepared to deal with what is now known as fact, but was once brushed off as anti-Mormon lies. 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would definitely say we don't have official positions on things the Church does not.  However, I don't think we would say that all the official positions the Church might have would be identically held by FM.

We don't, imo, have an official position on whether the flood was global or local, for example.  Some would argue the Church has an official position there.

But you don't oppose the Church on anything, right?

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm one of those old farts who will have to die so the New Dawn can be ushered in. But let me tell you, broski, I won't go down without a fight! I'm having a hard time thinking of something I believed 20, heck 40 years ago, that I don't believe now...and by that I mean anything to which the Spirit has born testimony to me, that and a lot more, too.

That's alright I think the rest of us will continue to embrace you even when you spout flat earth type stuff.  That's gotta be better than the current and previous practice of plain shouting disagreers out.  "How dare you question the dominant narrative in the Church.  We'll have your hide before long" type of stuff needs to go the way of the dinosaurs. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Flexible said:

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.

 

 

 

What could be more fundamental than belief in the resurrection of Christ, the efficacy of the Atonement, the reception of the Book of Mormon, the concept of revelation from a God, or just the belief there is a God, and the doctrine of Restorations? They are scorned and rejected by the world. Would scrutinizing these fundamentals be any less painful than fretting over the use of a seerstone? The lowest common denominator is what Jesus asks us to become.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll stand with you, brother, and go down fighting if needs must.

There's no need to fight.  Espousing flat earth type stuff might be giggled at these days, but we don't want to fight you.  We just hope you open up a bit. 

[Flexible]

My post above was responding to an earlier post from Scott about Correlation.  For some reason the system wouldn't let me quote him in my response.  Probably "user error"

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Flexible said:

My post above was responding to an earlier post from Scott about Correlation.  For some reason the system wouldn't let me quote him in my response.  Probably "user error"

Keep posting.  I think you'll get to quote stuff when you post enough.  It's a weird system.  But if you keep it up we'll also get to thumbs up your excellent posts. 

[Buckeye]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If that is his point, then I probably agree. However, his talk (if I understand it correctly) and DBM's laundry list (and other such symptoms of heartburn) appear to me to be more finger pointing than holding to the rod. 1 Nephi 14 says the Church will be small and persecuted. Who would want that?

At time the church will be small and persecuted. That's not the eternal destination, though. Many church leaders have taught that the majority of people will enter the celestial kingdom. In the end, the tent will be very big.

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, cinepro said:

"News media" indeed.

Is there any reason why you saw the need to link to the same article I Iinked to in the post to which you responded?

I said it was erroneously reported in the news media, and yes, I include our writer as one of those who made the error. Had I been covering the story that day (and had circumstances been just a bit different, I might well have been), I would not have used the term "apology" in my report. It was nowhere in the statement that Elder (now President) Eyring made that day.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Thinking about it....

When it comes to FM's official positions, my unofficial interpretation (no one should quote me as this being FM's actual position, except where I quote, this is all my own ideas and "may or may not align with Fairmormon or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...yes, that last is what I add to all my correspondence as a Fairmormon volunteer and everyone else is supposed to add some version of that disclaimer as well except for the few officers of FM when speaking in their official capacity...which I am not one of; have I made myself clear enough on this point? lol) would be we probably have very, very few official positions that FM itself holds beyond our statement we are intent on defending the Church (it is part of our mission/purpose of "providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice"***) and in the cases where the Church holds an official position and we do not, we officially will not be telling the Church whether or not that position is appropriate.  Even the stuff we post in our wiki is seen as quite changeable if we come across new info.  We intend accuracy to be one of our primary goals and that means, imo, a commitment to not be locked into most positions.  I would say having a faithful and sustaining approach in our work is official (though of course what that means is subjective) and therefore we as an organization will not be criticizing the Church.

In short, we won't be telling the Church leadership how to do or say things anytime soon...or later (unless they ask, of course).

***http://www.fairmormon.org/about-fairmormon

As to those who think having Brother Mason speak is some significant new direction of FM, I would like to point back to a talk by Neylane McBaine who spoke about changes that could be made at a grassroots level and in our language in discussing women and the Priesthood.  We have had other speakers (sorry, am in a hurry so won't at this time get other examples) and blogs that have addressed many of the things referred to in this talk for a long time (or so it seems to me).  FM has been creating an environment to talk about change in the Church for as long as it has been around, imo.  Like Bro. Smith and Bro. MFB here in this thread, I really don't see much that is new in Bro. Mason's talk.  He does, however, say things very well so that it catches attention and imagination and I am all for that.  Perhaps it is best described in my view as his talk is not a paradigm shift, but a language shift.  Something that is necessary, imo, to create and renew passion and commitment to old ideas (and for me, this is all a very old idea of eternal progression; the Church as individuals and community are always to be striving to become more like Christ, better to serve him and his flock).

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

 

But organizations can apologize for things they (or their members) did in the past. Hence the U.S. Senate could apologize for its role in slavery, even though none of the senators that issued the apology personally took part. In the same vein, President Monson could apologize for the church's role in the MMM even though he personally had nothing to do with it and even though the actions were most likely limited to local church leaders. The church took part in the atrocities. The church can apologize. 

Applying your logic that only personal actors can apologize is also at odds with the church's practice of having the MoTab sing concerts in Quincy Illinois as a thanks for the city's role in helping the saints who escaped persecution in Missouri. Why would we thank the citizens of Quincy today, when none of them personally took part in the rescue in 1838-39? The answer is that organizations - countries, cities, corporations, and even churches - live much longer than people. And its the right thing to do. If the church can formally thank Quincy, it can formally apologize for mountain meadows.