Is There Really More Than One Way to Mormon?

[pogi]

On 9/26/2017 at 12:32 PM, FearlessFixxer said:

Bad ideas and actions deserve to be mocked and insulted. 

No, no they don't.   

Why?  What is the point of mocking and insulting?  If you are trying to influence a person to make corrective actions or embrace more healthy perspectives, how does insulting and mocking their beliefs further that goal?  All that does is put a person on the defensive.  It creates contention, anger, resentment; it fuels negativity and darkness in the world; it is divisive, it cuts instead of heals.  It is a dose of poison instead of a healing balm.  The last thing this world needs is more mocking and insulting.  Please, please, please stop it for the sake of humanity.  We are drowning in it daily.  It does no good, there is no virtue in it, there is no light, there is no love in it.  We all make mistakes and have bad ideas/actions - think of the golden rule here.  Is it helpful or hurtful to mock and insult your children for bad ideas and actions?  Is it corrective or does it just cause more problems?

On 9/26/2017 at 12:32 PM, FearlessFixxer said:

We do this with everything in life, why would religion be exempt. 

Yes, we all make mistakes, but I think it is important to speak for yourself here.  We do not all make it a habit of mocking and insulting other peoples beliefs and bad ideas.  I certainly have been guilty of it, but I also understand how wrong and hurtful that behavior is and try my best to avoid it.

On 9/26/2017 at 12:32 PM, FearlessFixxer said:

 For me, the key would be to not make it personal and just as much about the facts as possible and then we respect the different conclusions people come to.

I am not sure what this looks like for you.  How can mocking and insulting another persons deeply held beliefs or actions not be personal?  It is not possible.  It WILL feel personal no matter how hard you try to mock and insult using "facts" only.  The thing about "facts" is that they are only interpretations.  "There are no facts, only interpretations".   No one can claim infallible interpretation of anything because our perspectives are extremely limited in the grand scheme of things.  So, a simple understanding that we are all entirely fallible with limited perspectives should help you understand that ALL of our perspectives are probably wrong to some degree or another, so to mock and insult someone for something that we ALL are guilty of (ignorance), doesn't seem helpful at all. 

You mention that we should respect the conclusions people come to...I agree with this!  However, you are saying that we should first mock and insult people who have different perspectives and interpretations than we do. How can you then respect the thing that you just mocked and insulted if their conclusions remain unchanged after your mocking?  I don't see how mocking and insult fosters respect of other peoples conclusions.  If anything, mocking and insult narrows our field of vision, making us incapable of open-mindedness, empathy, and understanding the other person's perspective.  We are all worse off for mocking and insult tossing. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't follow.  What about John Dehlin or others is relevant to what I said in my previous post.

We have a mandate for such things.  And that mandate makes sense.  We are a community of faith.  We cohere around faith.  When we ignore apostasy, we weaken our community.

The implication is a fabrication of your own making.

I invite you to review the statements of, say, Elder Richard G. Scott, and then come back and explain how he "implies" that former members are - to use your term - "cancer."  For that matter, please present any citation to a General Authority characterizing former members as "cancer" or impliedly doing so.   

Thanks,

-Smac

Excommunication for apostasy is like separating the "wolves" from the sheep or like a surgeon cutting out a cancerous tumor. Actions my friend.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Excommunication for apostasy is like separating the "wolves" from the sheep or like a surgeon cutting out a cancerous tumor. Actions my friend.

"Apostates" are a very, very small subset of "former members."

But let's go with it.  Citations, please, to General Authorities or other representatives of the Church have characterized John Dehlin (or anyone else who has recently been excommunicated for apostasy) as a "wolf" or "a cancerous tumor."  CFR, if you please.

In any event, again, I invite you to review the statements of, say, Elder Richard G. Scott, and then come back and explain how he "implies" that former members are - to use your term - "cancer."  For that matter, please present any citation to a General Authority characterizing former members as "cancer" or impliedly doing so.   

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2017 by smac97

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

The mainstream LDS Church as opposed to one of the 100s of offshoots

Dude, you are clueless about minimum standards of the Civility....You don't come somebody else's turf and call them slang names. I'm exmormon myself, how do you think they'd treat me if i were addressing them like you? 

[jkwilliams]

On 9/26/2017 at 2:05 PM, drums12 said:

Probably not when you come out with the passive-aggressive, pretend I'm friendly but get in a sucker punch like "being outraged by Smith having sex with a ton of women behind his wife's back" OP

That seems to be a family trait. 

Seriously, though, it is certainly possible to disagree about the LDS church and its teachings and still be respectful and kind. It doesn't happen as often as it should, and there are guilty parties on both sides (not excluding yours truly). The only thing you can control is how you behave, but you can't expect everyone to feel the same way. What to you might be principled criticism might be taken as a vicious attack, so you have to learn to stop worrying about how you are treated and instead focus on how you treat other people. There will always be angry, hateful people. Just don't be one of them.

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

So, I am required to have respectful posts and comments here, but I guess that rule does not apply to everyone else?

'course not.  Having been put on limited a couple of times (currently I am serving another term) for not breaking any rule at all.  It happens.  The cost of posting here, I suppose. 

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

'course not.  Having been put on limited a couple of times (currently I am serving another term) for not breaking any rule at all.  It happens.  The cost of posting here, I suppose. 

The one lesson to be learned on this board is: No matter how much anyone provokes you, don't take the bait. If you can, respond politely and kindly. If you can't respond without anger, don't respond. The worst anyone can do is to say you're pretending to be friendly and fair. And that's of no consequence.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it is obvious that non-believers are looked at with more scrutiny here and derisive comments against the non-believer are allowed and the non-believer better behave in return.  This is a believing site and so belief is elevated and non-belief is discounted as much as possible.  We are guests here.

It's true that this is a mormon site, and as such non-mormons or ex-mormons are guests in ways that mormons might not be, but it's not true that insults against non-believers are allowed.

You haven't been on here very long, but i've been on here since 2006.  There have been a number of staunch Mormons who have been banned because they would not stop making derisive comments against non-believers and ex-members.

Another thing that people don't seem to realize is that moderator action is almost 100% dependent upon reports.  They don't read the threads, they just see the reports they get for bad behavior and handle them.  If you see someone breaking the rules (which apply to both believers and non-believers) then you have to report it.   If enough people report on the same person enough times, that's usually how they get put on limited.  

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The one lesson to be learned on this board is: No matter how much anyone provokes you, don't take the bait. If you can, respond politely and kindly. If you can't respond without anger, don't respond. The worst anyone can do is to say you're pretending to be friendly and fair. And that's of no consequence.

Good advice for many other situations in life as well.

[Kenngo1969]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

'course not.  Having been put on limited a couple of times (currently I am serving another term) for not breaking any rule at all.  It happens.  The cost of posting here, I suppose. 

You might want to consider, too, how you might be coming across to the Moderators and to others simply in terms of your tone, how you choose to frame issues, and so on.  The evolution I've seen in the tone of your posts over the years, frankly, makes me a bit sad.   You're entitled to see the Church of Jesus Christ, issues concerning it, and its members, respectively, how you see them.  But, often, what we see depends almost entirely on where we stand.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Takin it up a notchYou might want to consider, too, how you might be coming across to the Moderators and to others simply in terms of your tone, how you choose to frame issues, and so on.  The evolution I've seen in the tone of your posts over the years, frankly, makes me a bit sad.   You're entitled to see the Church of Jesus Christ, issues concerning it, and its members, respectively, how you see them.  But, often, what we see depends almost entirely on where we stand.

Oh I realize. 

http://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/46e19a01-dfa5-44be-bbfc-231e5adf8c99#SJD46xRqob.copy

Just think of that scene when you consider my tone.  I'm thinking it'll make you less sad as you do.

Edited September 28, 2017 by stemelbow

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Apostates" are a very, very small subset of "former members."

But let's go with it.  Citations, please, to General Authorities or other representatives of the Church have characterized John Dehlin (or anyone else who has recently been excommunicated for apostasy) as a "wolf" or "a cancerous tumor."  CFR, if you please.

In any event, again, I invite you to review the statements of, say, Elder Richard G. Scott, and then come back and explain how he "implies" that former members are - to use your term - "cancer."  For that matter, please present any citation to a General Authority characterizing former members as "cancer" or impliedly doing so.   

Thanks,

-Smac

The church never comes out and says anything about apostates as you clearly know. The church doesn't want to acknowledge them publically because the mere acknowledgement brings the subject apostate unwanted publicity. The church even goes so far as to claim that the excommunications are merely a local matter when higher authorities are clearly involved. John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, the September 6, all had behind the scenes G.A. participation in the courts of love. So, your request for cites is beside the point or perhaps disingenous.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

So, I am required to have respectful posts and comments here, but I guess that rule does not apply to everyone else?

You can report anyone you feel are breaking board rules.  Some days it may be awhile for mods to show up.

If you or others don't care enough to report posts, chances are mods won't be caring enough to read the threads themselves.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The church never comes out and says anything about apostates as you clearly know. 

Yes, I know.  So we can dispense with the absurd accusations about the Church characterizing former members as "cancer."

Quote

The church doesn't want to acknowledge them publically because the mere acknowledgement brings the subject apostate unwanted publicity.

Again, you are fabricating things and imputing them onto the Church.  

As a rule, the Church doesn't publicize excommunications of anyone.  There are very limited exceptions to this policy, but otherwise it is adhered to rather strictly.  I can think of all sorts of reasoned and reasonable grounds for this policy.  Pretty much all of them are out of concern for the individual.

And note that pretty much every high-profile excommunication these days is publicized unilaterally by the person under discipline.  Kate Kelly.  Denver Snuffer.  The Calderwoods.  Jeremy Runnells.  John Dehlin.  

Quote

The church even goes so far as to claim that the excommunications are merely a local matter when higher authorities are clearly involved.

CFR, please.

Quote

John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, the September 6, all had behind the scenes G.A. participation in the courts of love. 

CFR, please.

Quote

So, your request for cites is beside the point or perhaps disingenous.

Right.  You make a baseless and slanderous assertion, refuse to respond to a CFR about it, but I'm being "disingenuous."  

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2017 by smac97

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

So, I am required to have respectful posts and comments here, but I guess that rule does not apply to everyone else?

I don't see how what I said was disrespectful. I apologize if it seems that way.

if you want to be Mormon, be Mormon. And everything that entails. Don't be something else while wanting to call yourself Mormon and expect anyone who has studied the Book of Mormon to be caught in the deception.

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Excommunication for apostasy is like separating the "wolves" from the sheep or like a surgeon cutting out a cancerous tumor. Actions my friend.

and yet that says much more about how you see things than anyone in the church.

so why do you think apostasy is a cancer?

Edited September 28, 2017 by Avatar4321

[Pete Ahlstrom]

Just now, Avatar4321 said:

and yet that says much more about how you see things than anyone in the church.

so why do you[/] think apostasy is a cancer?

Apostasy is merely disagreeing with the church and letting others know about it. It's not a problem until the so called apostate gets a sufficient following to cause problems for the leadership.

[Avatar4321]

27 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The church never comes out and says anything about apostates as you clearly know. The church doesn't want to acknowledge them publically because the mere acknowledgement brings the subject apostate unwanted publicity. The church even goes so far as to claim that the excommunications are merely a local matter when higher authorities are clearly involved. John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, the September 6, all had behind the scenes G.A. participation in the courts of love. So, your request for cites is beside the point or perhaps disingenous.

so do they call them a cancer or refuse to acknowledge them? Can't really do both

[Avatar4321]

13 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Apostasy is merely disagreeing with the church and letting others know about it. It's not a problem until the so called apostate gets a sufficient following to cause problems for the leadership.

no. Apostasy is more than that. It's open rebellion. It's openly fighting against the work

[Kenngo1969]

12 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Apostasy is merely disagreeing with the church and letting others know about it. It's not a problem until the so called apostate gets a sufficient following to cause problems for the leadership.

If you were to join the Elks, or the Moose, or the Kiwanis, or your local health club, and then you were to very publicly, far, and wide, air the grievances you have with the organization, if the organization's leadership were to caution you about the likelihood you would remain in good standing if you choose to continue your public crusade, I don't think it would be unreasonable for the organization's powers-that-be to warn you that action may be taken against your membership.  Yet, somehow, many believe things are supposed to be different if we're talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Frankly, that perceived double-standard is mystifying to me.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Apostasy is merely disagreeing with the church and letting others know about it. It's not a problem until the so called apostate gets a sufficient following to cause problems for the leadership.

It's more than just disagreeing. You have to formally (as in publicly) reject or abandon church doctrine.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Apostasy is merely disagreeing with the church and letting others know about it. It's not a problem until the so called apostate gets a sufficient following to cause problems for the leadership.

You're speaking of open apostasy. Individuals can also be in a state of silent rebellion, or no longer believe the Church is true and keep it to themselves. In these cases, the Lord knows such people are apostates and many of the blessings that might otherwise have been theirs will be withheld as a consequence. Howbeit they will likely be punished less severely than known apostates because they are not openly trying to drag others down with them.

[Jeanne]

Huh...I still have a thought that keeps running through my head.  If there wasn't many ways to be mormon...sacrament meetings would be fairly empty.  All levels of faith there..and some that would be quite surprising.  I don't see why we all can't just get along...labels are nothing..people are more complex than that.

[Avatar4321]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Huh...I still have a thought that keeps running through my head.  If there wasn't many ways to be mormon...sacrament meetings would be fairly empty.  All levels of faith there..and some that would be quite surprising.  I don't see why we all can't just get along...labels are nothing..people are more complex than that.

faith being the key word. Anti faith is a whole different matter

[drums12]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The church never comes out and says anything about apostates as you clearly know. The church doesn't want to acknowledge them publically because the mere acknowledgement brings the subject apostate unwanted publicity. The church even goes so far as to claim that the excommunications are merely a local matter when higher authorities are clearly involved. John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, the September 6, all had behind the scenes G.A. participation in the courts of love. So, your request for cites is beside the point or perhaps disingenous.

So you say.  But other than your bald assertion and the speculation rampant in the bloggernacle and Mormon Stories/Mormon Expressions circles, what first hand knowledge do you have?  I don't doubt that general authorities have been involved in some disciplinary councils when they perhaps shouldn't have been, but the ex-Mormon crowd uncritically imbibes whatever fits their worldview, much as they claim believing Mormons do.