Mormon Doctrine alive and well

[BYUruss]

Originally Posted by creekster

It seems to me the board has become more and more acrimonious about religion over time. Indeed, I have enjoyed the religious discussions less and less and have contributed less as a result. Whether or not his is a net gain to the board is perhaps debatable, but either way I know that I am enjoying it less.

I agree with Triple D that the church is too often portrayed with negativity here, and it seems to me the frequency is increasing, so that the discussions just aren’t as interesting to me, let alone edifying. This thread is sort of an example of what I am talking about. What possible benefit comes from this sort of discussion? Whether Tex or SEIQ or Indy or Lebowski or whoever are apostates or mullahs (whatever those terms may mean among a bunch of semi-anonymous internet geeks who may or may not be posing as something they otherwise aren’t in real life) or something else altogether is really pointless. When an apostle’s name becomes shorthand among a group for error and intellectual failure then I think the group may have gone too far, to the extent it professes or seeks to be friendly to the church.

To tell you the truth, I think this is the sort of thing the prophets warn us against when they criticize the learned or intellectualism. We are all trying to find our way to God. It is a difficult path, fraught with doubt and trial and certainly error but also with repentance and redemption and faith and grace. I am not sure that so much negativity under any circumstance benefits any of us on this journey. You can call me a mullah, or an apostate, or anything else, but know that this is my opinion as I wend my own way and try to stay on path

I would argue its much worse to blindly follow rather than question and research things that seem sketchy in church history. Examples: Women forbidden to pray, blacks and the priesthood, JS marrying little girls, JS marrying women who were already married, JS sending men on missions and then marrying their wives, etc., etc. I think it's really funny that JS did some of the same stuff that Warren Jeffs did yet mullahs have no problem taking shots at him. It was different back then, they say. It was normal to marry little girls. Uhh, no it wasn't. Obviously the church doesn't want its members to find out about these things so thinking for oneself is discouraged. But hey, to each his own.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BYUruss

Obviously the church doesn't want its members to find out about these things so thinking for oneself is discouraged.

This is what I dont get. what is the basis for this statement? Why would someone possibly think the Church doesnt want anyone to think for itself?

And, if it were true, please walk me through the steps of rogue and clandestine academia you pursued to unearth these truths. If it is so secret, how did you find out about it?

[JohnnyLingo]

I would argue its much worse to blindly follow rather than question and research things that seem sketchy in church history.

creekster didn't address this at all in his post.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

JL, a few thoughts on your thoughts on my thoughts on everyone's thoughts...

I actually do think that criticizing Church leaders is not a healthy practice. I have only 2 reasons for this: first, my gut tells me so. Two, I know we are asked to refrain from evil speaking of the Lord's annointed (although I am not exactly positive how to interpret that). For my tastes, I choose not to post about something dumb a local Bishop may have said, or something annoying that a RS President said.

As for the thornier bits of our past, I dont really see anything wrong with this either. MMM happened, why pretend like it didnt? Blacks didnt always hold the priesthood. Seeking clarification on Church doctrine and investigating is one thing....but criticizing Church leaders who make no claims to perfection, esp under the guise of intellectual curiosity, seems to sway too far to the other side.

Finally, with regards to Shaking Hands, I never questioned his sincerity or faithfulness to the Church. I simply observed that, based on his tone in many of the posts I have read, I was surprised that he classified himself as faithful, active, etc.. I dont see that as being unfair. It was just an impression.

I also was not nitpicking about his scripture. He seemed to be offended at being called an apostate. I pointed out that his name, his wife's name, and his sig line all make it reasonable to interpret that this is a person who isnt going to fall in line with the other dogmatics that he seems to revile a bit....so why be surprised when the same dogmatics call him out for not fitting in, ie, being apostate? If you dont want people to form immediate impressions of your stance toward the Church, then dont begin by identifying yourself as someone who sleeps through church.

That being said, I dont really care if he sleeps through EQ or if his wife is sassy in RS. That is his business, not mine. But if you post a lot and put your opions out there, and claim to be sassy in church or whatever, dont get upset when people disagree, call you a name, or form an opinion about you.

The more important point...the one creekster made, which was the same one I was making, is that this board DOES come across as negative and hostile towards the Church. It goes beyond academic and into the realm of personal. You seem to not refute this too much, but, rather, be concerned with how much you can criticize the Church and its leaders without seeming hostile. I dont have that answer. It isnt my biz if you want to criticize the Church or its leaders. I was only noting that it takes place on this board. I wasnt calling for it to stop.

A couple of thoughts. The word "apostate" is way too strong for what you are describing. I don't know, but I would imagine that such a label is very hurtful for someone like SEIQ who has been very open about not believing many of the foundational claims of the church but who has nevertheless made the decision to follow the church's teachings and participate. That can't be an easy thing for him to do and I think he deserves more credit than to be called something that really means something entirely different that what he is. Save that label for people like Seattle and others who are out in the open about their choice to apostatize.

Second, I don't know what can really be said as an accurate generalization about "this board." There is clearly some hostility for some people here toward the church or toward the teachings of the church or toward personalities in church leadership. There are plenty of people who take up the other side, however, and it certainly isn't just Tex and Indy and it isn't always predictable where criticism or defense comes from around here.

I agree with creekster that the tone is generally more shrill lately, but that has a lot to do, probably has mostly to do IMO, with extreme positions getting taken by personalities around here who have not yet run out of the steam necessary to antagonize one another.

For me, I don't think that any topic is out of bounds and I think you ahve agreed with this. I don't think there is anything we can't talk about in a constructive sincere way. That many choose not to is too bad. I would hope that some of the pairings who end up with the last twenty posts of a given thread between them (notice how others lose interest?) would just take a break from one another and stop using each other as proxies for the stereotypes in the church they have such distaste for. You know who you are.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYUruss

I would argue its much worse to blindly follow rather than question and research things that seem sketchy in church history. Examples: Women forbidden to pray, blacks and the priesthood, JS marrying little girls, JS marrying women who were already married, JS sending men on missions and then marrying their wives, etc., etc. I think it's really funny that JS did some of the same stuff that Warren Jeffs did yet mullahs have no problem taking shots at him. It was different back then, they say. It was normal to marry little girls. Uhh, no it wasn't. Obviously the church doesn't want its members to find out about these things so thinking for oneself is discouraged. But hey, to each his own.

Hey, that was pretty clever posting all that stuff on Cougarboard as things your "co-worker" was bothering you about.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is what I dont get. what is the basis for this statement? Why would someone possibly think the Church doesnt want anyone to think for itself?

And, if it were true, please walk me through the steps of rogue and clandestine academia you pursued to unearth these truths. If it is so secret, how did you find out about it?

He's a freemason.

[BYUruss]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is what I dont get. what is the basis for this statement? Why would someone possibly think the Church doesnt want anyone to think for itself?

And, if it were true, please walk me through the steps of rogue and clandestine academia you pursued to unearth these truths. If it is so secret, how did you find out about it?

I grew up in Utah, have been active my whole life, got straight A's in seminary and went on a mission. Yet somehow the I didn't know JS was a polygamist until a year into my mission. It was never, ever, ever mentioned in church, seminary, the MTC, whatever. I'm not going to research it, but some quotes are clear from the 12 about "intellectualism" getting in the way of church members.

[BYUruss]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Hey, that was pretty clever posting all that stuff on Cougarboard as things your "co-worker" was bothering you about.

He's my friend and a co-worker, I've known him for years. Who cares what my relationship is with him? Obviously I don't have the answers, and had no idea women weren't allowed to pray until the 1970's. I can't ask cougarboard for help?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by BYUruss

I would argue its much worse to blindly follow rather than question and research things that seem sketchy in church history. Examples: Women forbidden to pray, blacks and the priesthood, JS marrying little girls, JS marrying women who were already married, JS sending men on missions and then marrying their wives, etc., etc. I think it's really funny that JS did some of the same stuff that Warren Jeffs did yet mullahs have no problem taking shots at him. It was different back then, they say. It was normal to marry little girls. Uhh, no it wasn't. Obviously the church doesn't want its members to find out about these things so thinking for oneself is discouraged. But hey, to each his own.

I don't agree. I think there is potential peril down either one of those paths. Yet another paradox for members of the church to grapple with. Two principles which balance each other.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You can't possibly do an honest analysis of MMM or Blacks in the Priesthood without a discussion of errors and faults by church leaders. You can't have it both ways. Most of us here who find value in these discussions and claim to be faithful will argue that an acknowledgment of leadership errors is healthy and honest. In the end I suppose it all boils down to tone and intent, which is in the eye of the beholder.



"not fitting in" = "apostate"? Good heavens, that is insane.

As for sleeping through church, who doesn't? My bishop sleeps sometimes. You are taking that far too seriously.



And I think you (and Creekster to a lesser degree) are overstating the personal nature of such criticism.

I heartily acknowledge that our church has been run, and will continue to be run, by people who have faults and commit errors. Now that we all agree on that point, why keep bringing it up?

What I have noticed is that the focus here seems to be the faults and errors. For all the negativity, I dont really see much to offset it. Maybe a post about some great thing our Church leaders have done. Something wise BY said. Something inspiring BRM has taught. Those kinds of sentiments are highly uncommon here....at least what I have read.

I take very little seriously on the internet. There is no accountability on an anonymous website, so why would anyone take any of this seriously? I agree that calling someone apostate is ridiculous. I beleive I have made this point before. Once again, I am simply noting that if you choose to identify yourself a certain way, as well as post negatively, dont be surprised if others view you in that very way.

I could be overstating everything here, which is why i am couching everything as an observation, not an empirical fact. I guess, since we cannot have it both ways, you could be understating everything and this place really is hostile and negative towards the Church.

So, what do you think of the BYU Cougars this season? I like their chances.