Mormon Discussion podcast and negativity

[DBMormon]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

Bill, it sounds like you might be in the middle of being captured by the gravitational field of a disciplinary council (just based on your podcast activity). How do you feel about this? How does your family feel about this? Are you/they still attending church, or has this waned as well?

great question.  There is debate from the highest levels to the lowest levels of church leadership of how much of what I say is helpful vs hurtful and and if I am making data driven points or wild accusations.  My leaders up to present seem to recognize and articulate that they recognize that much of what I actually say on Facebook and my podcast is data driven.  In other words while it makes them uncomfortable and it pokes holes in false but deeply held parts of our narrative that they recognize I am often sharing a data point and asking a hard questions and there is truth in what I am saying.  I think they are hesitant to say such is not allowed or wrong to state facts and ask questions that lead us into the flaws of our deeply held beliefs.  I also know for a fact they at least at some given moment in time they have articulated that they recognized that my work is helpful to a lot of people (while also perhaps hurting some others).  One leader told me face to face that he agreed that the Church provides no safe space to work out the learning the dominant narrative isn't true and he sees podcasts and social media as the place those on the margins are utilizing for that.  In the end the Church has to decide that if truth displaces deeply held parts of the Church's narrative if they are going to value truth or is the need to protect the flawed story greater?  

Edited September 29, 2017 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

Bill, it sounds like you might be in the middle of being captured by the gravitational field of a disciplinary council (just based on your podcast activity). How do you feel about this? How does your family feel about this? Are you/they still attending church, or has this waned as well?

In terms of the second part regarding my family.  My immediate family all have to one degree or another, come to the realization on their own with no help from me, that Bushman was right when he said the dominant narrative was not true and couldn't sustain itself.  It is hard to one degree or another for them to place trust in something that chooses intentionally to not honor their questions or concerns and only wants them to see its most sanitized version of itself.

Are we still attending.  Yes.  the tension has increased and yes we each are doing Mormonism in our own way.  I still hold a recommend as I am writing this.  I am currently the finance clerk (a temple worthy calling by the way)

Edited September 29, 2017 by DBMormon

[Jeanne]

18 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

In terms of the second part regarding my family.  My immediate family all have to one degree or another, come to the realization on their own with no help from me, that Bushman was right when he said the dominant narrative was not true and couldn't sustain itself.  It is hard to one degree or another for them to place trust in something that chooses intentionally to not honor their questions or concerns and only wants them to see its most sanitized version of itself.

Are we still attending.  Yes.  the tension has increased and yes we each are doing Mormonism in our own way.  I still hold a recommend as I am writing this.  I am currently the finance clerk (a temple worthy calling by the way)

I appreciate that you answered these very personal questions.  I admire your honesty to yourself and others.

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

... So there he stands...effectively frustrating everyone!

I'm not particularly frustrated by Brother Reel.  I wonder ... does that frustrate him?  

 

[DBMormon]

18 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I appreciate that you answered these very personal questions.  I admire your honesty to yourself and others.

I criticize an institution for saying it honors questions while side stepping them at every turn.  The least I can do is is be vulnerable to the real concerns those on the margins have.

[DBMormon]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not particularly frustrated by Brother Reel.  I wonder ... does that frustrate him?  

 

no, though you and I both know I hate your use of emoticons.... lol

Edited September 29, 2017 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

In terms of the second part regarding my family.  My immediate family all have to one degree or another, come to the realization on their own with no help from me, that Bushman was right when he said the dominant narrative was not true and couldn't sustain itself.  It is hard to one degree or another for them to place trust in something that chooses intentionally to not honor their questions or concerns and only wants them to see its most sanitized version of itself.
 

Regarding the bolded part above, this from Daniel Peterson:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/07/fundamental-story-restoration-church-taught-false.html?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

[DBMormon]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Regarding the bolded part above, this from Daniel Peterson:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/07/fundamental-story-restoration-church-taught-false.html?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

I prefer what Bushman said in the actual context of what he said and when he said it.  By the way I also am not using it in the way that imposes all is lost and false.  As Patrick Mason said the truth cart was overloaded and much of it is rotten and falling out.  there is still some good fruit down there but it does need rinsed off.

 

[Atheist Mormon]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I believe that is Bill's goal as well.

I agree xcept he thinks (Jesus is a fictional character, which I believe also).

[DBMormon]

3 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I agree xcept he thinks (Jesus is a fictional character, which I believe also).

false
Actually I think Yeshua Ben Yosef was real

Edited September 29, 2017 by DBMormon

[Atheist Mormon]

2 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

false
Actually I think Yeshua Ben Yosef was real

Fine, I can't claim veracity of this anyway......

[Kenngo1969]

45 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not particularly frustrated by Brother Reel.  I wonder ... does that frustrate him?  

 

 

35 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

no, though you and I both know I hate your use of emoticons.... lol

Sorry!  [Visualize Sheepish Emoticon Here ...]

(Is that better?) [Wink!]

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I prefer what Bushman said in the actual context of what he said and when he said it.  By the way I also am not using it in the way that imposes all is lost and false.  As Patrick Mason said the truth cart was overloaded and much of it is rotten and falling out.  there is still some good fruit down there but it does need rinsed off.

 

The link to Daniel Peterson's blog quotes Bushman directly. I accept him as being the most qualified to state "the actual context of what he said and when he said it."

Edited September 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[thatjimguy]

The problem with having a weekly podcast about the church is the same as ESPN talking about sports every day. You have to come up with something or you don't have a show. 

[strappinglad]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

that description sounds a lot like Jesus

A famous quote from a presidential debate years ago comes to mind.

[drums12]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

great question.  There is debate from the highest levels to the lowest levels of church leadership of how much of what I say is helpful vs hurtful and and if I am making data driven points or wild accusations.  My leaders up to present seem to recognize and articulate that they recognize that much of what I actually say on Facebook and my podcast is data driven.  In other words while it makes them uncomfortable and it pokes holes in false but deeply held parts of our narrative that they recognize I am often sharing a data point and asking a hard questions and there is truth in what I am saying.  I think they are hesitant to say such is not allowed or wrong to state facts and ask questions that lead us into the flaws of our deeply held beliefs.  I also know for a fact they at least at some given moment in time they have articulated that they recognized that my work is helpful to a lot of people (while also perhaps hurting some others).  One leader told me face to face that he agreed that the Church provides no safe space to work out the learning the dominant narrative isn't true and he sees podcasts and social media as the place those on the margins are utilizing for that.  In the end the Church has to decide that if truth displaces deeply held parts of the Church's narrative if they are going to value truth or is the need to protect the flawed story greater?  

Surely you jest.   Do you really think the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, as well as the Seventy, are debating about your podcasts and facebook comments?  

[DBMormon]

23 minutes ago, drums12 said:

Surely you jest.   Do you really think the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, as well as the Seventy, are debating about your podcasts and facebook comments?  

My stake president told in as much.  They asked him to sit with me and to apprise the situation so no jesting.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

   As Patrick Mason said the truth cart was overloaded and much of it is rotten and falling out.  there is still some good fruit down there but it does need rinsed off.

 

This is why so many people don't consider you a trustworthy source. What Mason actually said....and said at a FairMormon conference to a standing ovation....(as in, not nearly as shocking as you need it to be.) He never said much was rotten or that much was falling out.  Nor did he say anything like your strangely worded good fruit that needed to be washed off. 

Quote

 

One of the problems we have in Mormonism is that we have loaded too much into the Truth Cart. And then when anything in the cart starts to rot a bit, or look unseemly upon further inspection, some have a tendency to overturn the entire cart or seek a refund for the whole lot. We have loaded so much into the Truth Cart largely because we have wanted to have the same kind of certainty about our religious claims—down to rather obscure doctrinal issues—as we do about scientific claims. . . .

Over the years the church leadership and laity have also done our religion no favors by putting more in the cart than the cart could possibly bear. . . . Many of the things which trouble people are things that we probably should never have been all that dogmatic about in the first place. I find that a little humility about our doctrine, especially given the contingencies of its historical development, goes a long way in remaining satisfied with the whole. . . .

 

I think what follows is much more relevant to what you are doing. What Mason demonstrated so well is that we can talk frankly about our own problems. And he didn't have to misrepresent anyone else to do it.

 

Quote

The CES Letter [formally, “Letter to a CES Director,” which he cited as one of the online sources he had read] is emblematic of this all-or-nothing approach to religion. . . . The letter is nearly a perfect inverse of the version of Mormonism it is reacting to. Jeremy Runnels may have written the letter, but it was actually an inevitability—someone, sometime, somewhere was going to write that letter, because it was the obvious response to a certain style, tone, and mode of Mormonism that culminated in the highly doctrinaire, no-retreat-no-surrender positions taken by certain church leaders and members especially in the second half of the twentieth century. I would actually agree with the CES letter’s basic notion, that the Mormonism it is responding to is unsustainable. Where I disagree is that I don’t think the Mormonism it is responding to is actually the real, only, or inevitable Mormonism. Certainly, that was some people’s Mormonism, but it’s not my Mormonism, and I don’t think it’s the Mormonism that is going to endure in future decades and centuries.

 

[CV75]

@DBMormon, does your podcast program / organization have a mission statement; if so, please post it?

[readstoomuch]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Regarding the bolded part above, this from Daniel Peterson:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/07/fundamental-story-restoration-church-taught-false.html?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

Thank you very much for this Scott.  I thought there was another side to this story and almost commented myself.  Since I wasn't sure of or have proof of the alternative narrative, I hadn`t.  There is also that thing called work.  That brings up some more thoughts.  I sat by Richard Bushman at a FAIR conference years ago.  This was just after Rough Stone Rolling came out.  He is a very kind, honest, and substantial man.  We had a conversation and listened to a talk about plural marriage.  He and I were discussing Joseph`s younger wives.  Wives might be a misnomer since for a number of them it seems to have been a sealing that wasn`t consummated.  There is a constant and unending conversation on this on many destinations.  Between Joseph`s young "wives" and LGBT issues, almost every thread eventually seems to end up there (a little hyperbole).  Just taking the youngest one, Helen Mar Kimball is a very complicated conversation.  For example it starts with Heber C Kimball asking Joseph Smith to be sealed to her.  Most if not all are willing to admit that consummation did not seem to happen.  Of course no one knows for sure.  She stayed faithful.  She gave birth to future apostle Orson Whitney.  Reading what personal writings she left is quite faith promoting.  My perception is that she remained a true believer all of her days.  In fact a faith-promoting believer to me.  So, this conversation can easily go sideways and is complicated.  This great man was able to have this discussion and still make me feel positively about our shared faith.  

Now let`s take a recent illustration of Joseph Smith`s wives on MormonDIscussionPodcasts Facebook group.  It reminds me of the shop in Nauvoo that has 48 dolls next to Joseph Smith.  The 48 number coming from Fawn Brodie`s inaccurate, scurrilous and hyper sexualized writings.  I don`t think the illustration on MDP Facebook group is meant to do anything but shock.  Just like the shop in Nauvoo. Sure for many the mere fact of Joseph  Smith and polygamy is new and shocking.  The explanation and discussion about it is problematic and complicated.  Early polygamy was secretive, controversial, poorly documented and in the end hard to prove whatever conclusion you want to come to (good or bad).  The comments about the illustration are typically all negative and all but throw Joseph Smith under the bus.  I have spent months (spread out over 35 years) studying polygamy.  I`m no Brian Hales, but I did spend a summer reviewing and looking for Fawn Brodie`s footnotes for example. It is hard work and for a number of years I just assumed there was wrongdoing, especially on Joseph Smiths part.  Then while studying the Quorum of the Anointed I started following the number of meetings with the group.  There was a large amount of energy and time involved in implementing the temple endowment.  That and other items convinced me that early polygamy was about the rituals and sealings.  I know sex was involved, but certainly less than is implied by a graphic of Joseph Smith`s wives.  Very complicated discussion, but imo, for Joseph Smith the sealing ordinance was the reason it was implemented and not for pure lust.  

I want more truthful history.  There is a bunch of effort in that direction.  I am impressed and that is hard to do.  That has been a real saddle sore for me with the Church, but I have tried to build faith.  All I am feeling right now is anger and negativity from MDP.  That is why I felt like I had to post.  Bill feels like he must do what he has and I had to comment.  Yes, I try to ignore MDP information.  It still seems to come though, even when blocked.  

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I welcome an IQ test where the loser cancels their internet and never posts on this board again.   lol

Do you own any Quinn books?  Which?

[DBMormon]

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Do you own any Quinn books?  Which?

Magic world view

origins of power

extensions of power

same sex dynamics

New mormon history

dr Quinn medicine woman: the anthology 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

Thank you very much for this Scott.  I thought there was another side to this story and almost commented myself. <snip>

I want more truthful history.  There is a bunch of effort in that direction.  I am impressed and that is hard to do.  That has been a real saddle sore for me with the Church, but I have tried to build faith.  All I am feeling right now is anger and negativity from MDP.  That is why I felt like I had to post.  Bill feels like he must do what he has and I had to comment.  Yes, I try to ignore MDP information.  It still seems to come though, even when blocked.  

This all reminds me of the 30-second elevator pitch. Applying it to preaching the Gospel, it is an extremely legitimate and effective way to describe the Church, her mission, and how she can benefit us. Of course our materials are somewhat more detailed than that but still communicate pretty much the essentials of one needs to know about how Joseph Smith obtained his testimony and his commission so we can do the same and obtain a testimony of Christ and His Church and the other key principles. Not so much anything that is not directly about that. Of course there is so much more"out there in this great big world of ours" than that to learn, including so much more that isn't worth learning for a variety of reasons, in wisdom and in order. With a testimony and the Holt Spirit, saints can navigate their challenges in this regard. I think the Church responds to the demands at hand in our day without taking too much responsibility away from the individual consistent with her doctrines on self-reliance, with improvements in the lesson materials and historical information as sacred resources can be availed for that purpose.

I think @Scott Lloyd's link about the "narrative" speaks to this. I think the challenge is to develop or refine the "30-second elevator narrative" so that it can preempt the non-essential distractions that are bound to come  up. It used to be that a testimony and the Holy Spirit were enough, but now the narrative has to teach the hearer how to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves." It seems to me the frustrated faithful need to realize that includes being "harmless as doves" toward the Church.

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, DBMormon said:

........................ Bushman was right when he said the dominant narrative was not true and couldn't sustain itself.  .............................

I have no problem with your questioning this or that LDS notion or imagined notion (as defined by you), and I generally find deep flaws in your approach to history of the Restoration, while also finding that you take Richard Bushman's comments out of the overall context in which he made them.  The problems which your inaccurate version of the LDS experience present, ought (ironically) be placed over against the very accurate work of Dr. Lavina Fielding Anderson (PhD), for which she was unchurched, and from which there is nothing to repent of -- how odd that she should find herself in that quandary, as a constantly faithful adherent of the LDS faith.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no problem with your questioning this or that LDS notion or imagined notion (as defined by you), and I generally find deep flaws in your approach to history of the Restoration, while also finding that you take Richard Bushman's comments out of the overall context in which he made them.  The problems which your inaccurate version of the LDS experience present, ought (ironically) be placed over against the very accurate work of Dr. Lavina Fielding Anderson (PhD), for which she was unchurched, and from which there is nothing to repent of -- how odd that she should find herself in that quandary, as a constantly faithful adherent of the LDS faith.

Robert, what do you think of the dominant narrative the church has put forward since the church's inception? Are there any problems with it? Is it just fine the way it has always been?