New Paper that Addresses Historical & Doctrinal Issues

[DBMormon]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Such as?

Is there something else out there that reviews historical and doctrinal issues from multiple points of view?

crickets

[DBMormon]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well his church leaders apparently aren't afraid of him, why should others be? So I agree he's very genuine, no fakeness and spells it out like he sees it. Everyone has their points of view. Haven't met him in person, but think he is holding on by a thread, to stay in the church. And if it's by doing these things, more power to him as long as the honesty is there. 

more than a thread at least in my hand.

[DBMormon]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

And would he give them final approval over their content or would he retain the right to change what they said if it distastified him for whatever reason?

I would not give anyone creative control over my document as that would make room for someone to nefariously mess it up.  That said I would take very seriously and utilize any edits that make it more balanced, maintain the short length considering, and accuracy of data, sources, and footnotes (though I welcome more).

[DBMormon]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It says, "In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

And, "Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban."

It seems pretty clear that the denial was doctrine and policy and that the theories were the ideas of why that those were doctrines. So I think you're being at best disingenuous. 

were they defined as doctrine then and understood to be doctrine then?  1840's for instance?  If labeled doctrine then and those who suggested otherwise were threatened or shamed by Church leaders for suggesting otherwise.....  Lets be real.  It was doctrine to President George Albert Smith and he stated as much!

[DBMormon]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

FM is not attempting to do what your article is doing, imo.  I am not going to compare apples and oranges and argue which one is the best tasting meat.

So what does that mean?  you admit FairMormon is heavily biased? and not seeking to have its reader see all angles?  To promote a faithful view regardless of the strength of the position against the critics argument?  

What is Fair attempting to do in direct terms?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I would not give anyone creative control over my document as that would make room for someone to nefariously mess it up.  That said I would take very seriously and utilize any edits that make it more balanced, maintain the short length considering, and accuracy of data, sources, and footnotes (though I welcome more).

I would have to be highly trusting of the ability of the editor to correctly present my beliefs before yielding final approval to someone else (outside of grammar and such issues).

Given the history of many, imo, past and current misrepresentations of other comments by DB, I have no inclination to become involved in this project if it ever morphed into a mission statement I saw as halfway realistic. 

[DBMormon]

41 minutes ago, juliann said:

This is why it is not productive to engage with you on these type things, Bill. You completely ignore the feedback. This is not a fair and balanced document when you are misrepresenting positions. Since we are the ones holding those positions it probably should mean that what we are saying is as close to accurate as you are likely to get. 

help me see specifically where you see me misrepresenting a position.  Where for instance the average believer in the ward would call my label of orthodox silly to the beliefs I ascribe to them?

[DBMormon]

31 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It's really great that you are so open to listening and responding to feedback, Bill.  I'm impressed!  I haven't listened to your podcasts (just learned more about them today).  But I plan to now.  Thanks for your efforts to help so many who are struggling.

I really do hope some who are critical of your initial paper will help by improving on the areas they find lacking.  I feel there are several here that could do a good job and add their perspective.

I wish they would.  I would welcome their contribution.

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

help me see specifically where you see me misrepresenting a position.  Where for instance the average believer in the ward would call my label of orthodox silly to the beliefs I ascribe to them?

Have you not read the responses to you? Really? Start with Clark.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, DBMormon said:

So what does that mean?  you admit FairMormon is heavily biased? and not seeking to have its reader see all angles?  To promote a faithful view regardless of the strength of the position against the critics argument?  

What is Fair attempting to do in direct terms?

You were involved with FM for how long?

I don't see this conversation as going anywhere because you are either apparently unable to grasp for whatever reason my fundamental premise about alleged objective writing and the implications of that stance or playing games.  I take as evidence you asking me this line of questioning in this way.  That you go whole hog into posting these gotcha questions tell me this is not a conversation that I will see as productive now or in the future.

 

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It says, "In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

And, "Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban."

It seems pretty clear that the denial was doctrine and policy and that the theories were the ideas of why that those were doctrines. So I think you're being at best disingenuous. 

Those "theories" were in fact doctrine of the church--taught by its leaders. The essay can't even admit that the church leaders taught false doctrine, so you just proved exactly how narrow this particular essays can be. 

[juliann]

10 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

So what does that mean?  you admit FairMormon is heavily biased? and not seeking to have its reader see all angles?  To promote a faithful view regardless of the strength of the position against the critics argument?  

What is Fair attempting to do in direct terms?

You are familiar with the mission statement. Of course it is biased. Of course it presents a faithful view. I can't believe I'm actually being asked these questions. Why are you playing dumb? What is going on here? 

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

You were involved with FM for how long?

I don't see this conversation as going anywhere because you are either apparently unable to grasp for whatever reason my fundamental premise about alleged objective writing and the implications of that stance or playing games.  I take as evidence you asking me this line of questioning in this way.  That you go whole hog into posting these gotcha questions tell me this is not a conversation that I will see as productive now or in the future.

 

I think the point was to advertise it not engage. Dehlin used to do that, too. 

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

help me see specifically where you see me misrepresenting a position.  Where for instance the average believer in the ward would call my label of orthodox silly to the beliefs I ascribe to them?

I think you describe the extreme (and I do know members that fit this description), but maybe temper it some because I think there are less and less believers who are so staunch or so "black and white" (I hope you know what I mean).  I get that it's difficult to put everyone into just a few categories, but it was necessary for your format.  There's just a whole spectrum of levels of belief.  Like I said earlier, I found myself in different groups depending on the section I was reading.  It was good to read the different beliefs and realize where I was with many of them too.

Edited May 2, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

deleted as nonproductive

Edited May 2, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

You were involved with FM for how long?

I don't see this conversation as going anywhere because you are either apparently unable to grasp for whatever reason my fundamental premise about alleged objective writing and the implications of that stance or playing games.  I take as evidence you asking me this line of questioning in this way.  That you go whole hog into posting these gotcha questions tell me this is not a conversation that I will see as productive now or in the future.

 

Yet those gotcha questions happen on this board frequently, I've been the recipient of them.

[Tacenda]

58 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It's really great that you are so open to listening and responding to feedback, Bill.  I'm impressed!  I haven't listened to your podcasts (just learned more about them today).  But I plan to now.  Thanks for your efforts to help so many who are struggling.

I really do hope some who are critical of your initial paper will help by improving on the areas they find lacking.  I feel there are several here that could do a good job and add their perspective.

He's had his go around on this board for a very long time. And IMO, he's been treated poorly on more than a few occasions. 

[DBMormon]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

past and current misrepresentations of other comments by DB

 I have always liked you and while I feel the apologetic answers, of a group you are part of,  don't hold up in real time debate; I don't let that cloud my personal admiration of you and your character.  If we met in person I would buy you lunch and express my sincere like of you and feel we would see eye to eye more than some here would suppose.  I simply don't see most apologetic answers on the big issues as reasonable once they have to stand against the critical argument in real time.  It need not be personal.  I doubt you could find one comment from me regarding you that appears in the least to be an attack on your character.  Nor do I feel any need to do so.   I wish these boards did not take away our human-ness.  I am sorry for any offense I have given.  

I often feel that the ground we hold becomes so personal that rather than acknowledge any kink in the armor of our sacred ground we must in fact do something else.  and yes I mean me as well.  Sadly I wonder how we could ever bury our weapons of war and give a safe space for real vulnerability where none of us need to defend a position but instead would rather hear why our brother or sister in Christ hurt.  Why they are in anguish.  Why they are in tears.  Why their faith is crumbling right before their eyes despite their soul pleading otherwise 

misrepresentation abounds in all directions on this board and elsewhere.... but as for my sword
"And this they did, it being in their view a testimony'

[DBMormon]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He's had his go around on this board for a very long time. And IMO, he's been treated poorly on more than a few occasions. 

since the beginning when in the midst of my own dark night of the soul.  Thank you for always being honest regardless of whether defending me or disagreeing with me.  you are a noble soul.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I welcome the feedback.  I have taken no offense.  I simply find it odd that there was no positive feedback that this is as fair and balanced a document as exists on the tough issues.  Seems an easy thing to acknowledge even while touting its flaws.  I want people to support their loved ones in a faith deconstruction and I want the people deconstructing to find safer space to stay and if changes can be made that make the document more helpful than I am all for it.  

Bill, I don't think you are that insecure that you need to be complimented.  I believe you try to do your best.  On the other hand, I personally don't read much material like this at any time.  I don't have a good reference or standard with which to compare it to whatever else may be out there. The last several books I have read may give you a flavor of where I spend my time:  "The Contemplative Journey" by Father Robert Keating, " Aristotle, On Man in the Universe" edited by Louise Ropes Loomis, and "Words of Radiance" by Brandon Sanderson.  I could list hundreds of other books and they will all be in this vein:  spiritual, history, and escapist fiction.

I just don't have any interest in the kind of topics you address. I am responsible for my journey with our Father in Heaven. He is my God and the only being, or entity, that is between me and him is Jesus Christ.  I don't really buy into the story that it is "their" fault - everything out there that individuals blame for their faith crisis.  The relationship with God is highly personal and I deduce from that position that if there is a fault it is mine; I am the only human involved.  This is a bedrock principle for me.  I do understand how some may be challenged by history - this history of Jesus Christ, the history of the early Church, the history of the Restoration, even the history of the Old Testament.  However, all of that is just information that I use to learn of God.  I don't seek what offends me, but I focus on that which opens my mind and helps be come to know our Father better.  

Until an individual is prepared to look themselves in the mirror and be honest, to take responsibility for their own choices, and either choose to follow Christ or not, and accept the consequences then they simply are not ready to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.  Every problem you have described in your piece has all the value of smoke to me.  At the end of the day I ask my self, "Am I a disciple of Jesus Christ?"  My answer directs my actions regardless of what other people, leaders, past leaders, dead prophets, or any mystery I don't understand says, has said, or done. 

I see no need to make mountains out of molehills - they are not the real problem; they are just excuses people use for their choices.  The choice is only will I be a disciple of Jesus Christ?