Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[Buckeye]

For what it's worth, here's a few quotes from the DN article that touch on DB Mormon's points. I must say that, while the two accounts do not directly conflict, they don't seem to overlap much either. If DB Mormon's recitation is correct, then the DN piece left out quite a lot of key statements and chose to bland things down. I'm even more interested now to see the transcript.

 

2 hours ago, 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.

2.)  That there is valid reason to doubt.

He also said some people don't share their concerns because they worry about the stigma associated with doubt in some LDS congregations.

"My strong belief," Mason said during his presentation, "is that the most important thing we can do to empathize with and minister compassionately to those who are experiencing doubt and disaffection is make the church a more welcoming place for those who struggle. 

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

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

4.) 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

"(Fear) has led us to think and behave in ways that are not always welcoming either to outsiders or to those within our midst who have questions, different perspectives or who otherwise don't fit a certain mold," he said. What those with questions and doubts need are active, sympathetic listeners. "We're so eager to defend the church," he said during the question-and-answer part of his presentation Friday, "that we talk, talk, talk, talk, talk when people just want to be heard."

5.) 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.

6.)  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

"I believe that a more embracing Mormonism may be the most important factor in helping people more fully embrace Mormonism."

Such openness would match the vision of the faith's founder. "The gospel revealed through Joseph Smith is grand, sweeping and capacious," Mason said, "not narrow, petty and restrictive."

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

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

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

 10.)  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

All this at Fairmormon and strangely this is the very same stuff I say and get blasted for.  I also have it on good account that FairMormon's leadership has said behind the scenes this kind of Mormonism and perspective is where they want to head.  Any comments from FairMormon would be appreciated on whether you liked and agreed with Patrick perspective.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

Here's the link. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659562/LDS-scholar-calls-for-a-more-embracing-Mormonism-that-rejects-fear.html?pg=all

I especially like the DN's photograph of Dan Peterson asking for Mason's autograph after giving him a standing ovation. 

Look carefully.

The photo posted there is a file photo. It is from an occasion (last year, I think) hosted by Deseret Book to introduce Mason's book Planted. A few individuals, Dan Peterson included, were invited to come and be part of an informal discussion about the book. I believe this photo was shot as Dan and Patrick were chatting, either before or after the discussion.

I don't know whether Dan gave his FairMormon speech a standing ovation or not. As I've said, it was only a partial standing ovation, and, in fact, there were a great many in the hall who did not stand.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

2 hours ago, 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'll reserve judgment until I listen to Bro. Mason's remarks.  Context matters, I think.

Quote

2.)  That there is valid reason to doubt.

Of course there are valid reasons to doubt.  I'm surprised you see this as daring or controversial.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.  This applies to the LDS Church's truth claims.  That doesn't mean that the reasonable minds are all correct in their disparate assessments of those truth claims.  That would not make sense.

I think there are plenty of good and decent and intelligent people who have evaluated the truth claims of the LDS Church and have declined to accept them or to join the Church.  As a Latter-day Saint, I can either slander such persons as being stupid/dishonest, or I can allow that "there is valid reason to doubt" the truth claims of the LDS Church.  I choose the latter.  There are valid reasons to doubt.  There are also valid reasons to believe the LDS Church's truth claims.

Quote

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

Again, nothing remarkable here.  Belief is "plausible" as in "having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible."

I think most Latter-day Saints would find their beliefs "plausible."  Plausibility allows for faith vis-à-vis the truth claims of the LDS Church.  It also necessarily allows for doubt regarding those claims.  We Latter-day Saints opt for the former.  I don't think there are huge swaths of us to who condemn those who opt for the latter.

Quote

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

I'll reserve judgment until I listen to Bro. Mason's remarks.  Context matters, I think.

Quote

4.) 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

I'll reserve judgment until I listen to Bro. Mason's remarks.  Context matters, I think.

Quote

5.) 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.

I'll reserve judgment until I listen to Bro. Mason's remarks.  Context matters, I think.  I'm not sure what "dominant narrative" means.

I find the CES Letter an exercise in intellectual laziness.  There is no effort to study or understand.  It's just a massive copy and paste job.  So while this may have been an "inevitable response," I'm not sure it's a response that merits blaming the Church.

Quote

6.)  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

I'll reserve judgment until I listen to Bro. Mason's remarks.  Context matters, I think.  I'm not sure what "support gender equality" means.  It sounds like sociopolitical code for female ordination (that seems to be how this phrase is used most of the time in an LDS context).  

He's probably right about needing to be more loving and inclusive.  But that's an endless accusation.  We can always be more loving and inclusive.

Quote

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

I'll reserve judgment until I listen to Bro. Mason's remarks.

Quote

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

I'll reserve judgment until I listen to Bro. Mason's remarks.

Quote

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

I'll reserve judgment until I listen to Bro. Mason's remarks.

Quote

10.)  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

I'll reserve judgment until I listen to Bro. Mason's remarks.

Quote

All this at Fairmormon and strangely this is the very same stuff I say and get blasted for.  

Again, I'll need to listen to Bro. Mason's remarks.  

I probably need to sort out how Bro. Mason (and you) approach the truth claims of the LDS Church.  I cannot speak authoritatively speak on this subject, as I have not paid much attention to either of you.  My general impression is that you do not seem to encourage people to have faith in the truth claims of the LDS Church.  Or if you do, you place that encouragement on equal footing with encouragement to not having faith in the truth claims of the Church, or encouragement to re-define those claims in ways that contravene the nature and intent of those claims, but make them a bit more sociopolitically palatable (the "Inspired Fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon is an excellent example of this).  I don't think this is what God wants us to do.  The Restored Gospel is not supposed to be something we keep at arm's length.  We are supposed to embrace it.  Live it.  Share it.  Endorse it.  It is not simply one of many equally valid and valuable options.  It is ultimately, the only option that provides the means of salvation to the children of God.

I have tremendous respect for those members of the Church who want to refine and improve their understanding of the Restored Gospel so that it becomes more accurate and more in alignment with revealed light and knowledge.  In contrast, I disagree with those who want to revise their (and other people's) understanding of of the Restored Gospel so that it becomes more popular, particularly when such an exercise involves a self-appointed person who publicly sets himself/herself up as a voice of authority alternate and superior to that of The Brethren.  

The Gospel of Jesus Christ will always have elements of it that are unpopular, even amongst the faithful.  Having faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of mankind is not particularly popular.  We get lots of ridicule for it.  And so there are some amongst us (I'm speaking of Christians generally, not just the Latter-day Saints) who seek to revise or re-define Jesus Christ into something more sociopolitically palatable/popular.  They make him into just an ancient version of today's self-help gurus.  I cannot accept that.  I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  I will continue in that belief despite the scorn heaped upon us for it.

Getting more specific, having faith in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is also not particularly popular.  A prophet?  In 19th-century update New York?  And he saw a vision of God and Jesus Christ?  And he had other visions as well?  An angel?  Gold plates?  A record of some of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas?  Translation by divine inspiration?

These are the things we believe.  They surely are susceptible to being made to sound preposterous (as is every other belief system, including atheism, but I digress...).  But we believe them (or should do) because they are plausible, because we have studied them, prayed about them, and received a spiritual witness about them.  We thereafter should boldly proclaim them.  With respect, the impression I get is that many of your fellow Latter-day Saints do not view you as an advocate for the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  (NOTE: I am only "personalizing" this portion to you because you injected yourself into the subject of the thread ("All this at Fairmormon and strangely this is the very same stuff I say and get blasted for")).

I should emphasize here that we can and should allow that reasonable minds can disagree about the Restored Gospel.  The day will come when "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess" that Jesus is the Christ.  But we are not there yet.  The Plan of Salvation is not coercive, which means that we are given opportunity to both believe and not believe.  We as Latter-day Saints should do all we can to encourage the former, but we must also accept and respect those who go with the latter.  Again, the impression I get is that many of your fellow Latter-day Saints do not view you as an advocate of faith in and acceptance of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

However, I think one thing the Latter-day Saints cannot do is revise and re-define the Restored Gospel in ways that undermine the truth claims of the Church, that undermine faith in the Restored Gospel as revealed through Joseph Smith, that treat the Church as a sociopolitical construct rather than the divinely-mandated institution it claims to be, or that set up self-appointed critics and gainsayers as voices of authority alternative to and superior to that of the leaders of the Church.

I am fortunate in that I have a number of close acquaintances who are both extremely well-versed in the doctrines and practices and policies of the Church, and are also well-informed regarding the practical, real-world condition of the Church.  These men and women have very pragmatic, very realistic perspectives on what the Church is doing well, what it needs to tweak and improve a bit, and ways the Church needs to improve in significant ways.  I talk to these people quite frequently.  It is occasionally jarring to hear what they have to say, but I nevertheless appreciate having such resources of the plain, unvarnished truth.  I appreciate and love these people because, at the end of the day, they believe.  They have testimonies of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  They have faith that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that we are His children, that He has a Plan for us, that this Plan includes having messengers on the earth, prophets and apostles, to whom light and knowledge and authority has been given, that The Book of Mormon is a part of this ongoing revelatory outpouring, that Joseph Smith was the first Presiding High Priest of this dispensation, and that this authority continues to this day and is held by Thomas S. Monson.  They believe the Church is what it claims to be.  I know them and trust them.  They are working hard to improve the Church and make it better. 

If and when I have time I will give your writings a bit more attention.  I would like to think that you fit within the description of those in the preceding paragraph, rather than the one above it.  But again, the impression I have is that many of your fellow Latter-day Saints do not view you as a defender of or advocate for the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by smac97

[Buckeye]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Totally get it.  We would love to give everything away for free, but conference expenses are huge.

I agree with Stemelbow. Thanks to all the FAIR folks that work to make these conferences happen. You guys bring in a lot of important voices that need to be heard ... even that lousy carpet-salesman a few years back. 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

For what it's worth, here's a few quotes from the DN article that touch on DB Mormon's points. I must say that, while the two accounts do not directly conflict, they don't seem to overlap much either. If DB Mormon's recitation is correct, then the DN piece left out quite a lot of key statements and chose to bland things down. I'm even more interested now to see the transcript.

 

Couldn't one just as easily conclude that the newspaper article was a more accurate, professional and contextual reflection of what was said and that Reel likely sensationalized and spun a few statements to fit his own agenda?

Sheesh.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Look carefully.

The photo posted there is a file photo. It is from an occasion (last year, I think) hosted by Deseret Book to introduce Mason's book Planted. A few individuals, Dan Peterson included, were invited to come and be part of an informal discussion about the book. I believe this photo was shot as Dan was getting Patrick to sign his (Dan's) copy of the book.

I don't know whether Dan gave his FairMormon speech a standing ovation or not. As I've said, it was only a partial standing ovation, and, in fact, there were a great many in the hall who did not stand.

Good grief Scott. I'll have to make my jokes more clear in the future. Apparently my use of emoticons is not working.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

haaa.  You have made a lot of accusations in this thread when I have stated your mistaken.  I have to wonder if you will apologize for such assumptions?

I am still don't have enough info to know what I should be apologing for and what I don't need to.  For example, are you attempting to correct the error by paying for the material you are using or do you intend to continue to benefit from stolen material without respect to the organization that produced it?

[DBMormon]

Just dropped a donation in the FairMormon bucket.  So now we can now allow a conversation of the points made since I have "paid" as suggested here to listen to the audio? The entire streaming was $29.99 and I over paid for this one specific talk.  So lets return to the thread.

Thanks

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

In the meantime, it would also not kill you to wait a while before painting DB Mormon's recitation of points as straw men.  Just saying. 

I didn't paint them as straw men. I said that if they are not accurate, then responding to them would amount to responding to straw men.

 

[Trevor]

1 minute ago, DBMormon said:

Just dropped a donation in the FairMormon bucket.  So now we can now allow a conversation of the points made since I have "paid" as suggested here to listen to the audio? The entire streaming was $29.99 and I over paid for this one specific talk.  So lets return to the thread.

Thanks

That's like buying a movie ticket after hosting the torrent overnight.

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Couldn't one just as easily conclude that the newspaper article was a more accurate reflection of what was said and that Reel likely sensationalized and spun a few statments to fit his own agenda?

Sheesh.

Absolutely. That's why I'm even more interested in seeing the transcript. For now, my gut says that its more likely that the DN cut out the more controversial statements than that DB Mormon made them up wholecloth. 

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Just dropped a donation in the FairMormon bucket.  So now we can now allow a conversation of the points made since I have "paid" as suggested here to listen to the audio? The entire streaming was $29.99 and I over paid for this one specific talk.  So lets return to the thread.

Thanks

No good! Show us the receipt. 

- Thomas

[Daniel2]

Is there a link to where we can pay the appropriate price to legally access the talk behind whatever firewall is in place....?  If so, can someone share it?

Daniel

[juliann]

26 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

haaa.  You have made a lot of accusations in this thread when I have stated your mistaken.  I have to wonder if you will apologize for such assumptions?

Have you apologized for pirating?

[DBMormon]

11 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I agree with Stemelbow. Thanks to all the FAIR folks that work to make these conferences happen. You guys bring in a lot of important voices that need to be heard ... even that lousy carpet-salesman a few years back. 

[Trevor]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Is there a link to where we can pay the appropriate price to legally access the talk behind whatever firewall is in place....?  If so, can someone share it?

Daniel

https://conference.fairmormon.org/product/streaming-thursday-and-friday

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, Trevor said:

That's like buying a movie ticket after hosting the torrent overnight.

 

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Have you apologized for pirating?

 

Like I said, DB. You're not going to win, even by overpaying. Better to take the approach of Elder Oaks.

[juliann]

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

Is there a link to where we can pay the appropriate price to legally access the talk behind whatever firewall is in place....?  If so, can someone share it?

Daniel

https://conference.fairmormon.org/

Free transcripts will be provided. They will go up as the speaker provides them, and if they don't, we transcribe them. 

[DBMormon]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Have you apologized for pirating?

yes I have apologized for mistakenly posting the link I thought was from Fair that actually wasn't.  But obviously you missed that.

[DBMormon]

4 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

No good! Show us the receipt. 

- Thomas

Fairmormon can verify a donation came through in the last few minutes from my email.  

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Just dropped a donation in the FairMormon bucket.  So now we can now allow a conversation of the points made since I have "paid" as suggested here to listen to the audio? The entire streaming was $29.99 and I over paid for this one specific talk.  So lets return to the thread.

Thanks

There's still the matter of whether your rendition is reliable.

I still say it's better to wait until the entire transcript is accessible at fairmormon.org

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Just dropped a donation in the FairMormon bucket.  So now we can now allow a conversation of the points made since I have "paid" as suggested here to listen to the audio? The entire streaming was $29.99 and I over paid for this one specific talk.  So lets return to the thread.

Thanks

Thank you!  It is appreciated. You will enjoy Hardy's just as much. 

[DBMormon]

13 minutes ago, Trevor said:

That's like buying a movie ticket after hosting the torrent overnight.

Since it was an honest mistake, it is the best I can do.  

If the torrent hosting was a complete unknowing accident.... then yes

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by DBMormon

[Daniel2]

4 minutes ago, Trevor said:

https://conference.fairmormon.org/product/streaming-thursday-and-friday

Thanks, Trevor

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, 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.

2.)  That there is valid reason to doubt.

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

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

4.) 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

5.) 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.

6.)  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

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

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

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

 10.)  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

All this at Fairmormon and strangely this is the very same stuff I say and get blasted for.  I also have it on good account that FairMormon's leadership has said behind the scenes this kind of Mormonism and perspective is where they want to head.  Any comments from FairMormon would be appreciated on whether you liked and agreed with Patrick perspective.

Sorry, Bill, but your summary of what Prof Mason said is a typical example of spin-doctoring, and has no relationship to what you have been saying.  Moreover, you need to provide the actual website where his lecture is available, even if it costs money, so that people can verify what you are claiming.  Here is my correct summary of his presentation, which I already presented at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67797-fairmormon-conference/

 

Quote

Patrick Mason (Claremont Graduate Univ.) gave a wonderful presentation on Aug 5, and he is the author of Planted: Belief & Belonging in an Age of Doubt.

The internet:  Online sources have been a shock to some people -- much of it toxic material with no real foundation, making claims which are not critically examined, and leading some to immediate emotional decisions which are difficult to recover from -- with only post-Mormon support groups able to be of any help at all.  One's intellectual, spiritual, and moral integrity is at stake.

The slick and amateurish Runnells CES Letter was predictable and inevitable, but the LDS faith it describes and responds to is not authentic LDS faith.  Indeed, the phony version of the LDS faith Runnells describes does not deserve to survive anyway.

LDS faith seems to be "a package deal" to many, so that any part being problematic destroys the whole.  Past folklore on Joseph Smith not being a money-digger or on the nonsense about Blacks not having priesthood because they were fence-sitters in the pre-existence is part of "Church culture," and most members are unaware of the Gospel Topics Essays which refute all that.

Modern storms of scrutiny can seem overwhelming, but we need to put aside the "house of cards" mentality, be open and embracing, and less defensive (based on past persecutioin).  Indeed, our pain & suffering can be a source of empathy & charity (as in our recent refugee efforts).

We need to attract people to the LDS "movement," and not simply to some narrow, petty, and restrictive church.  Joseph Smith himself was dynamic and avant garde.  Juvenalization of the LDS faith is not appropriate.

Secularism is our friend, without which we cannot survive and flourish.  We must not blame outsiders for our problems.  Religion declines when it becomes irrelevant, dull, and insipid, and it cannot survive as an heirloom.  Low nutrition religion is of no value.  We need to be humble.

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by Robert F. Smith