What Can Faithful Non-Members Do in the Spiritual Life and Ministry of a Ward or Stake?

[manol]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting take on D&C 38:27. I was thinking more of this… 

Moses 7:18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.
19 And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even Zion.

And,

3 Nephi 11:28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

I definitely believe in a Zion Society as the ideal!

But, is not having disputations the CAUSE of a Zion Society, or is it an EFFECT? Is agreement to the extent of “being of one heart and one mind” the CAUSE of a Zion Society, or is it an EFFECT?

I'd like to propose that these are EFFECTS, and that the CAUSE of a Zion Society is a next-level-up condition of experienced Oneness. In other words, instead of struggling to overcome our disagreements in hopes of that making us One, maybe the road to Zion is to first “become” One and then see what effect that has on our disagreements!

(I put the word “become” in quotes because I think we literally already ARE One, but such is not presently in our awareness. So imo we are to “become aware of and live in alignment with” our already-existing Oneness, rather than “become” One.)

There is a real-world practical advantage to making Oneness, rather than Agreement, the initial focus: You can choose to experience Oneness, but you cannot realistically choose to experience Agreement because you are utterly at the mercy of anyone involved who disagrees with you! So if Agreement is placed first, then Zion is a long, long ways off (barring Third-Nephi-category events). But if Oneness comes first, THAT is something an individual can experience right here and right now without needing agreement with or permission from anyone else.

In my opinion. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by manol

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Navidad,

You weren't talking to us and I think you spoke a little hastily. No offense taken. But it seems like you made an unwarranted characterization of the Catholic participation here. I don't know what the other two desire. How can you know what the three of us together desire? It seems to me like the Catholic participants have a genuine interest in the people we interact with here. I think it was unjust of you to have suggested that the Catholics here have no desire for what you call "spiritual fellowship" with our interlocutors here.

Please believe me Navidad. I am okay here. We are okay. You and I are okay. Unless you think you can really read our minds!

Thanks, God Bless,

Rory

      

Fair enough. I can't read anyone's minds. I can however read posts. I draw conclusions based on what I read and don't read. I can't remember any posts from our Catholic friends talking about desiring worship, Bible study, prayer, ministry (service), joint communion, etc.  - the stuff of spiritual fellowship with any non-Catholics on this forum. That is in no way a criticism, just an observation. You enjoy explaining Catholicism to us and interacting about LDS doctrine. I think that is wonderful. I also think it is welcomed by those here on the forum who man the ramparts on behalf of the LDS faith. I, eagerly anticipate reading your posts. I, perhaps am less welcome by some because I seek a place at the LDS table that you do not. Perhaps the place I seek is at the children's table, but still it is a form of dining together (fellowship) that is somewhat foreign to most members of the LDS church. I don't see any others (including you) seeking a place at the table with the LDS. Of course, I may be wrong there too.

In no way do I doubt your genuine interest in the people with whom you interact on this forum, including me. Perhaps my use of the term "spiritual fellowship" was not well chosen. I apologize if my comment was offensive. I appreciate you especially because of your background. It is probably much better if I simply cease trying to characterize your engagement here and stick to the challenge of trying to understand my own. Best.
 

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Pretty much everything I post has to do with logic! 😉

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)

I hope you know I was joking!

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I can’t say what the difference in experience is for members who have the Gift and live worthily to receive the constant companionship and nonmembers who constantly seek for the Holy Spirit and live worthily enough to have the Spirit inspire them.

I hope this is ok for me to say here. I think you are asserting a distinction without a difference. Your doctrine informs you that members of the LDS church have the Gift - the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit, and nonmembers have to constantly seek and live worthily enough to simply be inspired by the Holy Spirit. That really is quite a distinction that I don't see in the reality of my years of engagement with the Saints. I am in no way saying my experience of the Spirit in my life is more than. I believe it is equal to that of which I observe in the Saints in a variety of environments wherever I have interacted with them. The gift of the Holy Spirit is - well it is just that - a gift from the Father and Christ to help, guide, convict, and direct us in our earthly journey as the children of the heavenly Father. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the means by which He (the Father) gathers us all into his bosom as the children's hymn goes.

Having said that, I have also had experience interacting with the Nazarene and the broader Pentecostal community. Their experience with the Holy Spirit is way beyond that of my own. I have a hard time comprehending it in real life. Sometimes my wife and I have wondered what we are missing when we see the burning reality of the Spirit in their lives. It is something more akin to the burning bush as the physical visible presence of God on earth. It is a mystery wrapped up as an enigma in my experience. Take care and best wishes. I really enjoy your posts. Thank you for that.
 

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

23 hours ago, Navidad said:

I wonder if there is a connection between this recent debate some of you are having and the subject of this thread?

Indirectly precipitated by the subject.

Is it a decline in the quality of the board to discuss the interpretation of what non-members may or may not do in a ward?

No.

I wonder how many folks here have ever even thought about non-members, non-investigators being active in a ward?

My father was in that situation for many years. 

Is the very idea of non-members desiring to be active representative of a decline in the quality of the discussions or a threat to the church?

No.

Do Mark's comments about the need for boundaries to preserve identity serve to protect?

No comprendo.

Would it be better if folks like me were more like our Catholic folks here who simply have an intellectual interest without desiring spiritual fellowship?

No.

I am trying to figure out if there is a connection between the recent comments and that which is being discussed on eight pages of this thread?

Indirectly. IMO it resulted from the ensuing discussion on authority and Church policies.

I am always trying to make connections between ideas and thoughts! I don't quite understand the value in formidable defense being the foundation for a discussion and dialogue board?

Are you familiar with the board’s history? That’s why it was created.

Doesn't formidable defense or formidable attack lessen dialogue and discussion and invite dogma?

Not necessarily. It depends on the intent and good will of the participants 

Wow! Thanks for your replies to my comments. No, I am not familiar with the history of the board. I think I heard once that it may have had something to do with FARMS or some similar group. If you care to, tell me more about the history. I don't particularly enjoy either apologetics or polemics. Having said that, sometimes I read what I write and have to do a lot of deleting. It seems I have an apologetic streak in me, hidden there somewhere! Probably comes from my heritage and enjoyment of debate as a young man.

Having said that, I grew up in a rather Fundamentalist environment, yet never remember "witnessing" to a member of the LDS church. I don't think I ever knowingly met a member of the LDS church until 1989. I started collecting books back then when I could afford them and the rest is history - LDS history! Take care and thanks again for your replies.

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, manol said:

I definitely believe in a Zion Society as the ideal!

But, is not having disputations the CAUSE of a Zion Society, or is it an EFFECT? Is agreement to the extent of “being of one heart and one mind” the CAUSE of a Zion Society, or is it an EFFECT?

I'd like to propose that these are EFFECTS, and that the CAUSE of a Zion Society is a next-level-up condition of experienced Oneness. In other words, instead of struggling to overcome our disagreements in hopes of that making us One, maybe the road to Zion is to first “become” One and then see what effect that has on our disagreements!

(I put the word “become” in quotes because I think we literally already ARE One, but such is not presently in our awareness. So imo we are to “become aware of and live in alignment with” our already-existing Oneness, rather than “become” One.)

There is a real-world practical advantage to making Oneness, rather than Agreement, the initial focus: You can choose to experience Oneness, but you cannot realistically choose to experience Agreement because you are utterly at the mercy of anyone involved who disagrees with you! So if Agreement is placed first, then Zion is a long, long ways off (barring Third-Nephi-category events). But if Oneness comes first, THAT is something an individual can experience right here and right now without needing agreement with or permission from anyone else.

In my opinion. 

Wow! Wow! Wow! I sure like the way you are presenting this. Having said that, I will know blow it by affirming that I would take that even one step farther and advocate for Oneness across the entire Christian community so that many more agreements might follow. I too believe we all are One in Christ, but our respective boundaries and dogma prevent us from experiencing or acknowledging it. We need to be more specifically loyal to our specific group than to experience the joy of Oneness, which might threaten those dividing mechanisms in our dogma that make us unique and "more" correct. That is a bridge much too far for many if not most Christians of all kinds. I spent years in public education. It was a life changing experience for me. Public education is the epitome of diverse beliefs and dogmas of a different kind. But it also requires a Oneness to be successful. I know diversity is of value, but Oneness is as well. Maybe I can write a book on Oneness in Public Education! Who would read that? 

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Wow. 

Wow, what?  Am I to assume that this was said in the same spirit of your previous posts to me here?

Edited January 4, 2023 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Support for Respect for Gay Marriage Act.

Don’t be misled into thinking support for the act equates to support for gay marriage. In fact the Church in its statement took pains to double down on its past position, declaring it “has not changed” and “will not change.” As I read it, the Church’s support for the legislation is keyed to capitulation by the sponsors to see that the act preserves religious freedom. In fact, I venture to say that had those safeguards not been put in place, there would have been no announced support by the Church for the legislation. 
 

And it’s news to me that temples are now stocking soda with caffeine. In the temple where I serve we have vending machines in a small break room open only to staff and ordinance workers. It’s still caffeine free (except for chocolate milk, which has never been an issue in the Church). We don’t have a cafeteria for patrons, but I understand those have been discontinued wherever they were once located. 
 

The other things you enumerate can mostly be chalked up to program and administrative changes, which have always been with us. Those of us who recall the days before the “three-hour block” of Sunday meetings should recognize this. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Scott Lloyd

[manol]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wow! Wow! Wow! I sure like the way you are presenting this.

Glad it's making some sense. 

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Having said that, I will know blow it by affirming that I would take that even one step farther and advocate for Oneness across the entire Christian community so that many more agreements might follow.  I too believe we all are One in Christ, but our respective boundaries and dogma prevent us from experiencing or acknowledging it.

Agreed!  And to be more specific, I too believe we are One in Christ.

And if this Oneness is fundamental to our created nature then it is independent of our current beliefs and boundaries.  So going back to my simple analogy, the belief systems of individual Fingers may be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu, and Thumb may be atheist, but they share Oneness at the unseen level of Hand. 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Maybe I can write a book on Oneness in Public Education! Who would read that? 

Didn't John Dewey already write all those, you commie pinko!

Just kidding! 😱🥰🤩

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I personally don’t see the board as improving or devolving. It has changed over the years. Some of that is simply because the make up of posters has changed. Some of it is because the church itself has changed and many members have changed with it.

Change is not good or bad in and of itself. Some people are fine with the changes. Others don’t like them that much. Those feelings also aren’t right or wrong in and of themselves. They are just the realities of different people’s personalities.

It’s the “I don’t like the changes the board has gone through and therefore the changes are wrong” crowd that seem a bit self righteous to me.

As if they are the standard for what the board (and the members who post here) should be and believe.

With all respect, this post also has its own hints of self-righteousness IMO. I’m trying to understand why it’s ok for everyone to express their opinions except those who have a more traditional or orthodox view of things.

The board change I have witnessed is from it once being a vigorous defender and expositor of the faith with incredibly qualified and respected participants to now often just being another sounding board for the latest supposed outrages in our history, policies, and doctrines. That’s not something I celebrate. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Wow, what?  Am I to assume that this was said in the same spirit of your previous posts to me here?

Not at all. Perhaps you could engage the questions?

Wow that you said  “you can leave.” Not too inclusive, that one.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, manol said:

I definitely believe in a Zion Society as the ideal!

But, is not having disputations the CAUSE of a Zion Society, or is it an EFFECT? Is agreement to the extent of “being of one heart and one mind” the CAUSE of a Zion Society, or is it an EFFECT?

I'd like to propose that these are EFFECTS, and that the CAUSE of a Zion Society is a next-level-up condition of experienced Oneness. In other words, instead of struggling to overcome our disagreements in hopes of that making us One, maybe the road to Zion is to first “become” One and then see what effect that has on our disagreements!

(I put the word “become” in quotes because I think we literally already ARE One, but such is not presently in our awareness. So imo we are to “become aware of and live in alignment with” our already-existing Oneness, rather than “become” One.)

There is a real-world practical advantage to making Oneness, rather than Agreement, the initial focus: You can choose to experience Oneness, but you cannot realistically choose to experience Agreement because you are utterly at the mercy of anyone involved who disagrees with you! So if Agreement is placed first, then Zion is a long, long ways off (barring Third-Nephi-category events). But if Oneness comes first, THAT is something an individual can experience right here and right now without needing agreement with or permission from anyone else.

In my opinion. 

Interesting, but a bit esoteric for my tastes. Since the ”one heart and one mind” describes the prophet Enoch and his people, I would rather investigate how he accomplished this great thing.  Moses 7 is the place to look. It is a remarkable piece of scripture. Here is how it happened…

Quote

10 And the Lord said unto me: Go to this people, and say unto them—Repent, lest I come out and smite them with a curse, and they die.
11 And he gave unto me a commandment that I should baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, which is full of grace and truth, and of the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son.
12 And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent;
13 And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled…so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him…
the Lord came and dwelt with his people, and they dwelt in righteousness.
17 The fear of the Lord was upon all nations, so great was the glory of the Lord, which was upon his people. And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish.

18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.
19 And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even Zion.
20 And it came to pass that Enoch talked with the Lord; and he said unto the Lord: Surely Zion shall dwell in safety forever. But the Lord said unto Enoch: Zion have I blessed….

Another Church that accomplished this was the that of the Nephites after they were visited by Jesus. This is how it happened in 4 Nephi…after receiving the instructions he gave in 3 Nephi 11:28…

Quote

1 ..lbehold the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.
2 …the people were all converted unto the Lord…and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.
3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift…
12 …they did walk after the commandments which they had received from their Lord and their God, continuing in fasting and prayer, and in meeting together oft both to pray and to hear the word of the Lord.
13 And it came to pass that there was no contention among all the people, in all the land…
15 And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.
16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.
17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.
18 And how blessed were they! For the Lord did bless them in all their doings; yea, even they were blessed and prospered …and there was no contention in all the land.

There seems to be a pattern here.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

something to do with FARMS or some similar group

FAIR…

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org
 

But too many started seeing the organization primarily in view of what happened on the board even though the majority of posters were not FAIR members (I know this because I am one and was even in charge of the membership stuff for awhile) and so the organization passed it on to Nemesis, who has done a fantastic job with it over the years.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

latest supposed outrages in our history, policies, and doctrines.

Perhaps you should look at who starts the threads you appear to dislike.  It is not usually the critics or those I am guessing you see as progressive, though both start quite a few (Pogi started 3 such threads in December, maybe 2 or 3 the rest of the year I am guessing from the titles and numbers of posts; California Boy started one in June 2020 and 3 more in 2017, HappyJack has 3 in 3 years, Seeking has 4 since 2015).  You can check yourself by going to posters’ profiles and clicking on “see activity” on the right side and then “topics” on the left side of the profile.

I don’t know what group I fall into, but in case anyone is curious looks like I start a few controversial threads a year, most my threads are more social or FYI and don’t get a lot of responses…which is fine, though if my posts were ignored my ego might be hurting a bit…but there is no lack there, I get a bounty of responses.   
 

So everyone can see where to look in a profile, here’s mine for an example:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/249-calm/content/?type=forums_topic&change_section=1

 It should hardly be surprising though when critics, former members, and less traditional members/believers respond to these opening posts from the more traditionally leaning posters.  This “traditional” is not meant to be the slightest dismissive label as I see tradition as an important and valuable quality, but if you have one you prefer, I will be happy to change it if it works for the group I am thinking of…which includes Smac (who, btw, posted about a dozen such threads since beginning of December), Scott (posts such a topic about once a month), Ken (saw one or two recently on thread list), yourself (rarely start such threads, but saw two in fall), and quite a few others with Smac being the most prolific thread starter on the board, I believe.  I personally have no problem with the choice of topics he posts on even when I disagree with his conclusions or how he presents the info as I think there is value in discussing them for a variety of reasons, including the effect on the Church in general.  I greatly appreciate his efforts, keeps me informed as Smac’s threads are often the first place I see these topics, which I like to keep aware of because of my involvement with FAIR in case we get questions about any of them.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Calm

[manol]

20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting, but a bit esoteric for my tastes.

I understand and respect that.  Thank you for disagreeing so agreeably!

I don't think our differing views of how Zion Societies come about are mutually exclusive.  Alignment with the First and Second Great Commandments and a profound (if not precisely defined) Oneness are areas where I think our paradigms overlap.

Edited January 5, 2023 by manol

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not at all. Perhaps you could respond to the questions?

Wow that you said  “you can leave.” No

I don't find it astonishing to acknowledge that you are free to leave if you "can't abide" (aka tolerate) my posts and personal expression of faith on these boards.  If I am making you uncomfortable, then either learn to "abide" my presence or leave, but I am not going to be mocked out of here.  Pretty straight forward.

In regards to your question, the "movement" (I am not speaking of any organized formal movement, but a general trend I am noticing as I interact with other Saints) has always existed in Mormonism, influenced by many of the teachings of Joseph Smith:

Quote

I believe that a religion is instituted of God and that men are amenable to him and to him only for the exercise of it.

Quote

When we see virtuous qualities in men, we should always acknowledge them, let their understanding be what it may in relation to creeds and doctrine. For all men are, or ought to be, free, possessing unalienable rights and the high and noble qualifications of the laws of nature and of self-preservation; to think and act, and say as they please, while they maintain a due respect to the rights and privileges of all other creatures, infringing upon none. This doctrine I do most heartily subscribe to and practice.

Quote

I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine. It looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day-Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn’t prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.

Quote

If I esteem mankind to be in error shall I bear them down? No! I will lift them up—and in his own way if I cannot persuade him my way is better. I will ask no man to believe as I do.

Quote

 

the inalienable right of man being to think as he pleases, worship as he pleases, etc., being the first law of everything that is sacred

 

Quote

Anything that would tolerate man in the worship of his God under his own vine and fig tree would be tolerated of God.

Quote

D&C 84:

45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.

D&C 88:  

Quote

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

Tolerance, liberty of belief, not being trammeled in your belief, giving fellowship to those who disagree with the prophet, being free to speak your mind without fear of oppressive judgment and mocking, as Joseph did. 

One school of thought within Mormonism (which has always existed) is follow your conscience (the light of Christ/Holy Sprit) above all else. 

The other school of thought states to follow the prophet above your conscience and what you believe the spirit whispers to you. 

I am seeing the first school of thought (I am loosely calling a "movement") starting to be more freely expressed in the church.  I am noticing a liberty of expression and belief and dialogue that I have never witnessed in the 80's and 90's growing up.  There seems to be a general liberating spirit in that regard that heralds back to the teachings of Joseph Smith.  Yes, I see the leadership in the Church leading the way in many regards.  We don't see historians being excommunicated for publishing information which might paint the church or prophets in a negative light.  Richard Bushman would have never been allowed to publish what he did a few decades earlier.  Times they are a changin'.  I welcome it with open arms.  It feels so liberating.   I am seeing engagement with people in faith crisis in constructive ways.  Some in leadership even expressing questioning and faith crisis as a good and natural thing which can bring strength.  "Don't let a good faith crisis go to waste" comes to mind.  People are starting to see the danger and disillusionment caused by presenting the leadership as unquestionable in their positions and teachings.  That spirit still lingers today, unfortunately even within high up leadership ("It's a stupid question").  

The other school of thought has always existed in the church.  It seems to have dominated the culture for much of the church, but it is starting to subside little by little.  It is manifested in teachings such as this by President Romney:

Quote

I assure you, however, that the spirit of the Lord will never direct a person to take a position in opposition to the counsel of the Presidency of His Church. Such could not be….

This is the likely philosophy and school of thought behind what inspired the video of the Area Presidency stating "it's a stupid question".

You can see from the responses in this thread that such a position is no longer popular.  I don't think the church would official support such a position, yet that mentality and culture endures to this day, leading many into disillusionment and lost faith.   It is a dangerous philosophy.  It is cultic in nature. 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by pogi

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Didn't John Dewey already write all those, you commie pinko!

Just kidding! 😱🥰🤩

Actually it was more the writings of Moises Saenz who got his doctorate under Dewey and became the Secretary of Education for Mexico. His brother Aaron Saenz almost became president of Mexico. He would have been president but both brothers were Presbyterians. Mexico in no way in 1929 was ready for a Presbyterian president. So, Calles promoted Pascual Ortiz Rubio instead and that was a disaster! If only they had taken the Protestant! I am sure you must agree!

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

am making you uncomfortable, then either learn to "abide" my presence or leave

Another option is to put a poster on ignore.  You might still see comments in another’s posts, but I have found seeing comments in the context of being answered by another usually removes quite a bit of the need to respond myself, plus it just feels more distanced so there is less of an imperative to respond, which in turns for me at least it is less likely I jump to conclusions before thinking about what is said.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Another option is to put a poster on ignore.  You might still see comments in another’s posts, but I have found seeing comments in the context of being answered by another usually removes quite a bit of the need to respond myself, plus it just feels more distanced so there is less of an imperative to respond.

Yes, I personally don't subscribe to the idea of ignoring other perspectives, even if they make me uncomfortable.  I try to go out of my way to not get sucked into positive feed-back loops that only serve to reinforce my beliefs and perspectives.   But you are right, if Bernard truly can't abide my perspective, then he is free to ignore me too. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Richard Bushman would have never been allowed to publish what he did a few decades earlier. 

Do you see Arrington’s stuff as more faith promoting than Bushman’s?

Quote

We don't see historians being excommunicated for publishing information which might paint the church or prophets in a negative light.

Who are you thinking of?  I know of one who was ostracized, but not disciplined (Brooks), some excommunicated who promoted false doctrine as well as putting out information about dissent in the Church, etc, so I don’t think one can positively claim it was the info that put the Church in a bad light that led to the excommunication.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I try to go out of my way to not get sucked into positive feed-back loops that only serve to reinforce my beliefs and perspectives. 

However, if one gets into a mindset where one is always assuming a poster is going to take a particular approach and it’s one that pushes buttons at the time, I think it useful to take a semi vacation  from their posts or use a “degree” or two of separation approach as in read their posts only in the context of others’ responses for awhile to remove your own need to respond or at least damp it down some.  There are negative feed back loops we can create for ourselves.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If only they had taken the Protestant! I am sure you must agree!

I have enough problems keeping up with US politics!

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't find it astonishing to acknowledge that you are free to leave if you "can't abide" (aka tolerate) my posts and personal expression of faith on these boards.  If I am making you uncomfortable, then either learn to "abide" my presence or leave, but I am not going to be mocked out of here.  Pretty straight forward.

In regards to your question, the "movement" (I am not speaking of any organized formal movement, but a general trend I am noticing as I interact with other Saints) has always existed in Mormonism, influenced by many of the teachings of Joseph Smith:

D&C 88:  

Tolerance, liberty of belief, not being trammeled in your belief, giving fellowship to those who disagree with the prophet, being free to speak your mind without fear of oppressive judgment and mocking, as Joseph did. 

One school of thought within Mormonism (which has always existed) is follow your conscience (the light of Christ/Holy Sprit) above all else. 

The other school of thought states to follow the prophet above your conscience and what you believe the spirit whispers to you. 

I am seeing the first school of thought (I am loosely calling a "movement") starting to be more freely expressed in the church.  I am noticing a liberty of expression and belief and dialogue that I have never witnessed in the 80's and 90's growing up.  There seems to be a general liberating spirit in that regard that heralds back to the teachings of Joseph Smith.  Yes, I see the leadership in the Church leading the way in many regards.  We don't see historians being excommunicated for publishing information which might paint the church or prophets in a negative light.  Richard Bushman would have never been allowed to publish what he did a few decades earlier.  Times they are a changin'.  I welcome it with open arms.  It feels so liberating.   I am seeing engagement with people in faith crisis in constructive ways.  Some in leadership even expressing questioning and faith crisis as a good and natural thing which can bring strength.  "Don't let a good faith crisis go to waste" comes to mind.  People are starting to see the danger and disillusionment caused by presenting the leadership as unquestionable in their positions and teachings.  That spirit still lingers today, unfortunately even within high up leadership ("It's a stupid question").  

The other school of thought has always existed in the church.  It seems to have dominated the culture for much of the church, but it is starting to subside little by little.  It is manifested in teachings such as this by President Romney:

This is the likely philosophy and school of thought behind what inspired the video of the Area Presidency stating "it's a stupid question".

You can see from the responses in this thread that such a position is no longer popular.  I don't think the church would official support such a position, yet that mentality and culture endures to this day, leading many into disillusionment and lost faith.   It is a dangerous philosophy.  It is cultic in nature. 

 

As long as you can answer every temple recommend question "correctly" before God, angels and witnesses, you are as "Fully LDS" as anyone CAN be, and that is between you, your bishop, and God.

I have born the weight of those judgments and they can be very heavy.

Edited January 5, 2023 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you see Arrington’s stuff as more faith promoting than Bushman’s?

Who are you thinking of?  I know of one who was ostracized, but not disciplined (Brooks), some excommunicated who promoted false doctrine as well as putting out information about dissent in the Church, etc, so I don’t think one can positively claim it was the info that put the Church in a bad light that led to the excommunication.

I haven't read enough of Arrington to answer that. 

What is your opinion on the September Six?   

Lynne Kanavel Whitesides, Avraham Gileadi, Paul Toscano, Maxine Hanks, Lavina Fielding Anderson and D. Michael Quinn

Given the private nature of excommunication, the reasons for excommunication are not always certain and we can only go off of other accounts.   

To excommunicate someone for publishing a criticism, history that the church disagrees with or doesn't want published, seems contrary to the teachings of Joseph Smith to me.

I actually talked to my dad about this recently and he stated that a historian was excommunicated in our Stake when he was bishop for publishing history that the church didn't agree with and didn't want published.  I will have to ask him his name. 

I don't think that disciplinary measures would be taken today for some of this stuff. 

My memory is failing me, but I seem to recall a historian was excommunicated for publishing the history of blacks and the priesthood (a history which is published by some in the church today without disciplinary measures).  But I don't trust my memory enough on this one unless someone can back me up. 
 

Edited January 5, 2023 by pogi