Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Flexible said:

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. 

I think that in an effort to ensure the purity of the doctrine, Correlation will filter out unauthoritative speculation. If that makes the Church dull, oppressive and insipid, then so be it.

I'm thinking that an alert correlation effort in years past might have spared us from some of the theories about the reason for the priesthood ban that have now proven to be such an embarrassment.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

 

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?

There seems to be an idea about that Mason was saying new stuff. He is the Chair of the Mormon Studies Program in Claremont. He has spoken at countless conferences promoting his new book. I think if people were more familiar with FM talks it wouldn't be quite so shocking. Mason merely did more of it, concentrating it in one talk rather than bits here and there in multiple talks. Deseret News had many choices of speakers to cover. They didn't avoid him. Maybe Church News will cover him, too. That should tell you this really isn't as "new" as you think. If you want shocking you should have attended the Church History conference about women. I've never heard such frank discussion in a church setting.... and critique of the missing women in church history. So I think a lot of the surprised reaction I am seeing is a result of people not being familiar with what is going on now. 

I can't think of any organization that does not give disclaimers about speakers. First, there really isn't an FM "position" other than we support the Church, warts and all. If the Church has established an unequivocal position, such as the new gay policy, of course FM wouldn't defy that. But since FM is made up of real people, there are those who disagree with many things. 

All anyone has to do to make the point FM doesn't micromanage conference content is the contrast between Mason saying secularism is not the enemy and Hancock saying it is. There couldn't have been two more disparate talks. 

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

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. 

 

No, you're not getting my point.

If an entity is not to blame for a thing, the entity cannot appropriately apologize for it, though it can express regret. And the Church as an institution is not to blame for Mountain Meadows, the perpetrators are. Contrary to your assertion, the Church did not take part in the atrocities; errant members of the Church on site did.

Taken to its absurd conclusion, your logic would have the Church bear blame for any crime committed by any of its members.

Quote

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.

I was at that concert that evening. It was very memorable.

But I took it to be the choir and Church leaders joining with the Quincy citizens of today in remembering and honoring those who lived back then for their humanitarian kindness and hospitality. Whatever figure of speech might have been employed ("thanking the city," etc.) that, in the final analysis is what happened.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

3 hours 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.

Board nannying doesn't come across well when you engage in the same harsh rhetoric you complain about in others. Just sayin'. 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

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

As it turns out, I am not getting the donations receipts, but only the bookstore purchases (and will shortly be remedying that).  I don't and won't have a clue about donations given through the link.    

You come across as the typical intelligent and well informed subscribing member, so I am not the least surprised.  

Edited August 17, 2016 by Calm

[consiglieri]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 9:53 AM, DBMormon said:

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

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

I appreciate much of what Patrick has to say. 

But with point number one, I see a tendency in Patrick I have observed in the Givens, as well.

From my point of view, "we" haven't defined Prophets incorrectly.

Rather, the prophets have defined themselves incorrectly.

And then the same prophets have admonished members to do the same through countless conference talks, church study manuals, and even Primary songs.

In other words, it's not like the members just came up with an "incorrect" definition of prophets on their own.

They had a little help along the way. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

There seems to be an idea about that Mason was saying new stuff. He is the Chair of the Mormon Studies Program in Claremont. He has spoken at countless conferences promoting his new book. I think if people were more familiar with FM talks it wouldn't be quite so shocking. Mason merely did more of it, concentrating it in one talk rather than bits here and there in multiple talks. Deseret News had many choices of speakers to cover. They didn't avoid him. Maybe Church News will cover him, too. That should tell you this really isn't as "new" as you think. If you want shocking you should have attended the Church History conference about women. I've never heard such frank discussion in a church setting.... and critique of the missing women in church history. So I think a lot of the surprised reaction I am seeing is a result of people not being familiar with what is going on now. 

I can't think of any organization that does not give disclaimers about speakers. First, there really isn't an FM "position" other than we support the Church, warts and all. If the Church has established an unequivocal position, such as the new gay policy, of course FM wouldn't defy that. But since FM is made up of real people, there are those who disagree with many things. 

All anyone has to do to make the point FM doesn't micromanage conference content is the contrast between Mason saying secularism is not the enemy and Hancock saying it is. There couldn't have been two more disparate talks. 

The transcription of Hancock's speech is not up yet on the FairMormon site. But here's my news report of it.

I'm guessing some of the folks posting on this thread are not going to like it. Will it disillusion them about the supposed "new direction" that FairMormon is allegedly taking? After all, Hancock got as much billing at the conference as Mason, Hardy and Isom did.

 

[Calm]

 

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

We do not (it is possible that some members may feel other members do in their personal opinions though that is not something I personally see, just a lot of variation among members in beliefs and causes...but we are all united at defending the Church faithfully...or they get sadly removed as has happened, though now that I think of it those few who have gone that way have removed themselves first in almost all cases, we have hung on to many long after they have given up on us).

Edited August 17, 2016 by Calm

[Eek!]

13 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I appreciate much of what Patrick has to say. 

But with point number one, I see a tendency in Patrick I have observed in the Givens, as well.

From my point of view, "we" haven't defined Prophets incorrectly.

Rather, the prophets have defined themselves incorrectly.

And then the same prophets have admonished members to do the same through countless conference talks, church study manuals, and even Primary songs.

In other words, it's not like the members just came up with an "incorrect" definition of prophets on their own.

They had a little help along the way. 

 

^Like^

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, DBMormon said:

............................................................ 

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

I gave you a rep point for quoting Mason (with whom I agree), even though I don't agree with your version of what he said.  Also, I'm glad that you had him on your show.  When you say that "we defined them wrongly," I hope you realize that you need to speak for yourself, or for whomever you are directing that critique at (please name them), because I personally define prophets accurately, and I know that Hugh Nibley always did -- see his The World and the Prophets, Collected Works III (1954/1987), online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/the-world-and-the-prophets/ .  That was a series broadcast Sunday evenings over KSL Radio in 1954 (available nationwide, and with the approval of the Brethren), so no one can complain that the Mormon people didn't have an opportunity to hear an accurate rendition of what prophets are all about.  Can't help it if there are so many silly billies out there who can't get it right.  That will always be a problem.

[Robert F. Smith]

24 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I appreciate much of what Patrick has to say. 

But with point number one, I see a tendency in Patrick I have observed in the Givens, as well.

From my point of view, "we" haven't defined Prophets incorrectly.

Rather, the prophets have defined themselves incorrectly.

And then the same prophets have admonished members to do the same through countless conference talks, church study manuals, and even Primary songs.

In other words, it's not like the members just came up with an "incorrect" definition of prophets on their own.

They had a little help along the way. 

Hogwash, Counselor.  However, specific examples might convince me that we treat our prophets differently than say Moses, Samuel, Elijah, and other OT prophets -- at the behest of modern prophets (namely Joseph, Brigham, et al.).  Could you delineate the stark differences you see which bring you to condemn modern prophets for defining themselves incorrectly?  Would very much appreciate a substantive case from you.

And do you see this as another indication of the fallibility of modern prophets?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Point taken.

[juliann]

7 hours ago, DBMormon said:

 

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

 

 

What I am having great difficulty with is why, why, why would anyone change this one sentence quote to "we need to redefine prophets" and then expect to have a meaningful discussion about something the speaker didn't say. It's just sloppy.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 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.

O.K., Mark,

So what future do you see for Mormonism in, say, a hundred years?  Is progressive revelation evolutionary, or is revelation profressively evolutionary? And do you see any problem for the faith, if Jesus doesn't return within a reasonable time span?  And, if he does return in glory, does that cut short any revelatory evolution?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

I'm trying to imagine the New Dawn Restoration where uttering the phrases "The Prophet Joseph Smith" or "The Book of Mormon" must be accompanied by inculpatory modifiers.

 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours 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.

 

Mingling with Gods he can plan for his brethren.......

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm trying to imagine the New Dawn Restoration where uttering the phrases "The Prophet Joseph Smith" or "The Book of Mormon" must be accompanied by inculpatory modifiers.

 

Or testifying of the Book of Mormon as inspiring fiction.

Just doesn't have the same power, does it?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 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? 

1.  LDS doctrine and policies are pretty clear and readily available.  Which ones are you having a problem with?

2.  Maybe the "A" was too easy and the course work not rigorous enough.  My reason for saying that and for recommending science and philosophy courses is because you show no sign of understanding those matters.  You might also want to pay closer attention to what Mark Bukowski has to say on this board -- he is right on the money.

3.  Once again, if you sincerely want to understand the Holy Spirit and to get in touch with him, you need to take a closer look at yourself.  Or as Bapu used to say, you need to turn the searchlight inward.  That is why I recommended learning the meditative discipline of an Eastern religion.  You need to become familiar with the basics.  You might also profit from considering the teachings on that question from the late Elder Richard G. Scott:

Scott, Richard G., “To Acquire Spiritual Guidance,” LDS General Conference, Oct2009, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng ; Ensign, 39/11 (Nov 2009).

Scott, Richard G., "How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life," 182nd LDS General Conference, April 2012, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/how-to-obtain-revelation-and-inspiration-for-your-personal-life?lang=eng&query=scott,+(name%3a"Richard+G.+Scott") ;   Ensign, 42/5 (May 2012):45-47.

Christensen, Kevin, "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience," Feb 26, 2011, online at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22100469/model_of_experience.pdf . 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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.

How is this not usurping the role and power of the President of the Church?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Flexible said:

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. 

The materials to do just this are readily available at the touch of a keyboard or iPad. Perhaps Sunday School, YM, YW, Primary, and RS/Priesthood lessons are the place we get the milky basics and then move on from there to the steak and lobster as we are so inclined. No one says we can't.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Could you please give me an example of spouting flat earth type stuff? Or shouting disagreers out?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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.

Within the context of this discussion, I think you know what I meant, no?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

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.

 

So if President Monson offers an official apology for MMM, everyone will love the Church and baptisms will skyrocket?

[cinepro]

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hogwash, Counselor.  However, specific examples might convince me that we treat our prophets differently than say Moses, Samuel, Elijah, and other OT prophets -- at the behest of modern prophets (namely Joseph, Brigham, et al.).  Could you delineate the stark differences you see which bring you to condemn modern prophets for defining themselves incorrectly?  Would very much appreciate a substantive case from you.

And do you see this as another indication of the fallibility of modern prophets?

It's not that hard to understand.

Can you point out anywhere on the Church website (any talk, article, lesson...anywhere) where LDS are taught that current leaders are fallible, that they might teach or publish something that isn't true, and what to do when the member realizes that such a mistake has been made?

Because as far as I can tell, the Church only teaches theoretical fallibility (i.e. "long-dead Prophets may have been mistaken about stuff, so look to the current less fallible leaders to correct them") and not actual, functional fallibility (i.e. "Current leaders are fallible, so keep an eye out for mistakes and here's what to do if the Prophet does say something that isn't true from the pulpit.")

(I'll also point out that the Church also seems to use the word "fallible" as a non sequitur when it comes to leaders, as if acknowledging "fallibility" means that they burn the toast sometimes or might make mistakes in other areas not related to teaching or leading the Church.  It's never used in a way that acknowledges they might teach something that isn't true from the pulpit.)

Edited August 17, 2016 by cinepro

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I gave you a rep point for quoting Mason (with whom I agree), even though I don't agree with your version of what he said.  Also, I'm glad that you had him on your show.  When you say that "we defined them wrongly," I hope you realize that you need to speak for yourself, or for whomever you are directing that critique at (please name them), because I personally define prophets accurately, and I know that Hugh Nibley always did -- see his The World and the Prophets, Collected Works III (1954/1987), online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/the-world-and-the-prophets/ .  That was a series broadcast Sunday evenings over KSL Radio in 1954 (available nationwide, and with the approval of the Brethren), so no one can complain that the Mormon people didn't have an opportunity to hear an accurate rendition of what prophets are all about.  Can't help it if there are so many silly billies out there who can't get it right.  That will always be a problem.

The World and the Prophets is my favorite Nibley. I thoroughly second your recommendation for any and all to read it. The prophets have always had a mandate, but it always gets them in trouble which often comes from their own followers.