It would be beneficial to some of us if we could interview apostles and prophets in a manner where, like unto the school of the prophets, they would pontificate and espouse concepts without worrying if they were wrong, in fact, dare to be right or wrong.

It seems that the efforts of current PR are to fit all findings into one neat little box, excluding all others. Of course, even this characterization is oversimplified. However, it probably is more effective in controlling a large dispersed membership that expecting all to handle the subject matter academically.

For the most part, the bulk of membership, that remains active and contributes, is mostly happy to have some general guidelines, even if they are of fundamentalist nature, because that's what adds value to them. And perhaps that's the value for the current leadership. The rhetoric is really irrelevant, just the value added to most rank and file members. If borderlanders don't find as much value in that, then in a way that's too bad, because if we borderlanders can't divine our own value, then we're not as smart as we think we are. Our challenge in finding value is that neither leadership nor the general membership and especially not the fundamentalists will provide value in our associations, we must find it ourselves or be living a life without meaning. Borderlanders are not better or smarter, but we have difficulty in finding value and there are none to assist us.

I don't think it's intrinsically either cynical or lamentable to assert that the 21st century LDS church is quite different from its 19th century version. It is what it is.

It is lamentable, however, IMO that there seems to be less room for disagreement than 150 years ago. But that's old hat and I don't lose any sleep over it (anymore).

This may have something to do with the fact that the foundation doctrines are now firmly established, no? Consider how much our understanding of the gospel has evolved since those times.

Is the quote taken out of context? Well, it certainly could use more context.

But is it truly disagreement or rather an issue of I'm right and you're wrong? And what of the nature of disagreement -to what end does disagreement serve; what is the relevance?

We are talking about thousands verses millions in terms of membership. Woman are people in our current society whereas, according to world culture and society of the time, Woman were property. So much has changed. Why then do we not expect the disagreeing voice to change?

There is room for disagreement or rather what I would call opportunity ... within the context of todays church.

Maybe. That's an interesting point.

IMO, an interesting argument for the LDS church really being the restored church of Jesus is rooted in how it has so closely mirrored the actions of the early Christian church. Like its Christian forebear, the LDS church went through a period of widespread doctrinal disputation, factional strife, etc. after the death of its founder, transferred the seat of its power to a place far removed from its original setting, and eventually overcame its outlaw status vis-a-vis the secular authorities to assume a position of considerable social and political power.

Of course, the LDS church also believes that the early Christian church quickly fell into apostasy . . .

Well, the LDS Church never got co-opted by a Pagan dynasty (although the apostasy was already pretty much complete before Constantine got his greasy mitts on it).

I'm glad you see it this way. I don't blame the LDS leaders (although they could be more clear), but the rank-and-file membership that wants any notion of disagreement eliminated.

The June 1945 "Ward Teacher’s Message" in the Improvement Era church magazine cautioned that Satan “wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak out against their own leaders and ‘do their own thinking.’” Furthermore, the Message asserted, “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan – it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.” (Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354.)

Six months after the publication of this "Ward Teacher’s Message," in response to a query on the matter by a Salt Lake City Unitarian Reverend named Raymond Cope, LDS President George Albert Smith wrote that the message had not been approved by the leaders of the church, that General Authorities had been embarrassed by the misstep and “does not express the true position of the Church.” He continued, “Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel.” (Smith’s emphasis. See Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19, no. 1 (Spring 1986), pp. 35-39 for reprints of the "Ward Teacher’s Message," Rev. Cope’s letter, and President Smith’s response.)

Despite LDS leaders' counsel, there are many members who seem to want a ban on any type of dissenting opinion.

No way. Most of the demands for people to conform their views are on matters that are not "must believes" for Mormons. The "foundational doctrines" are a very short list. Fundamentalists want to make it a longer list.

Evolved? No. Correlated? Yes.

I feel like there's still quite a bit of room for disagreement in the church. GBH has said that he doesn't like to make pronouncements, and he really hasn't much. Other than a very few foundational doctrines, most of what constitutes the Borg are actually cultural inventions or interpretations that have become so popular that most people confuse it for doctrine.