Is FAIR/MAD Hypocritical?

[_Yoda]

"Is FAIR/MAD hypocritical?"


Is the sky blue?

;)

[_Alter Idem]

There is a new thread over on FAIR which gives us a little more insight into the apologetic psyche. I don't really follow MAD much, but the owner of the board is distraught over a group of LDS on the board sympathetic to polygamy. ...

Now that MAD has banned all the critics, in the space for opposition left open, it would appear a number of Mormons have gathered, Chapel Mormons, possibly, who hold beliefs in Mormon doctrines like polygamy that Internet Mormons find embarrasing. Now, do you all remember as I do, not so long ago the moderators at FAIR making a big to-do about how MAD is a forum by Mormons, FOR Mormons, and that the critics are on thin ice from the get-go? This owner of the board explicitly refers to these LDS who believe in the eventual return of polygamy as TBMs. Acknowledging their place in the church. Yet now, the lie is revealed, for FAIR/MAD is not a place "for Mormons", because these TBMs are now being told to leave MAD alone and get their own board. As we all already knew, MAD is a place for Internet Mormons and apologetics. In fact, these "TBMs" are being castigated as worse than critics!

A further irony, is that a key charge being leveled at these TBMs, is that they "denigrated statements from modern prophets and apostles." Wait?! What happened to every member a prophet? What happened to the "prophets of the pew," free to get their own inspiration from the Holy Ghost to determine doctrine? It would seem that the apologists hold some hefty double standards! Only apologists are allowed to say, "He was speaking as a man! It was only his opinion!"

I'm one who has agreed with Juliann on this..I've participated in a number of polygamy threads and the problem is not "chapel Mormons"...Chapel Mormons do not accept the John Taylor 1886 revelation as genuine. Chapel Mormons don't claim that the 1890 Manifesto was not revelation but due to political pressure. Chapel Mormons also don't believe and promote to others that LDS must be married in polygamy to achieve the highest portion of the Celestial kingdom. We've had in the past few months a number of posters who espouse these ideas..they claim to be mainstream LDS, but they are espousing heresy. When I first saw Juliann's post, I know exactly why she was concerned because I'd felt the same concern when discussing this topic and began to wonder if some of the other posters could actually be practicing polygamists. I'm still not sure--I'll take their word that they are not..but I'm suspicious.

I don't mind polygamists posting, but I like to know where people stand. Then I know how to categorize their remarks. I have no problem with LDS claiming they think polygamy might return--to each his own...but I have a real problem with posters claiming to be mainstream LDS and then promoting fundamentalist teachings as if they are LDS doctrine.

[_truth dancer]

Hi A.I.,

The thing is, these people who you and Juliann have issues with believe YOU are the ones who are not accepting the gospel in its fullness. They believe YOU are the ones not accepting of the true teachings of Jesus Christ and the LDS church. In their minds YOU are the ones rejecting truth. Perhaps you are not as righteous? Not as faithful? Too close minded? Too hard hearted? Not quite ready for the meat? Not advanced enough to receive further light and knowledge. Or something.

Ya know?

So, we go back to the old problem, how does anyone in the LDS church know what is or is not doctrine?

Everyone seems to think they have it right but the opinions are vast.

People claim to pray about a teaching/doctrine, receive revelation and inspiration, and have the answers, yet the answers from the HG are completely at odds with each other. Is it the HG who has a problem or the people who claim to "know"?


~dancer~

[_Gadianton]

But why deny them of their own personal revelation? May I quote your friend?

When the so-called LDS conservatives assert their more liberal approach to scripture and prophetic utterances, "it is not surprising that [so-called] liberals accuse "Mormon apologists" almost of cheating."14 This is revealed by surprisingly inapt asides such as these in otherwise admirable endeavors:

Ah yes, when the so-called "polygamists" assert their more liberal approach to scripture and prophetic utterances, it's a really problem for fundies like you and Juliann. lol. I feel like Alice in Wonderland when I read that thread. lol.

[_Alter Idem]

From LDS.org;

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. At certain times and for His specific purposes, God, through His prophets, has directed the practice of plural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time. In obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff in 1890. Since that time, plural marriage has not been approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church.

More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley has reiterated that plural marriage is “against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows [the practice of a man having more than one wife], the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage” (“What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 72).

This is the position of the mainstream LDS church. We do not teach that polygamy is needed to enter the highest portion of the Celestial Kingdom. If those guys want to insist otherwise, they are out of harmony with the LDS church and promoting heresy. If they'd been born 150 years ago, it would be fine. But in a church with continuing revelation and a living Prophet, things can and do change.

[_truth dancer]

Hi A.I.,

I understand your position, OTOH, defenders of polygamy will point out that even if GBH states polygamy is currently against the law of God, it is clearly believed as a divine order of God, practiced eternally, embraced by God, and considered essential to either practice or believe in, in order to live in the CKHL.

Clearly LDS doctrine claims men can have multiple women in heaven, while women cannot.

I've heard apologists claim that GBH, is just giving the milk before meat version of doctrine, or not casting pearls before swine, or just being diplomatic to the media, etc. etc.

These same people claim that LDS.org doesn't Trump revealed official doctrine, or official statements by LDS prophets like Joseph Smith and BY.

Again, seems apologists on both sides of this issue claim THEY are the ones who understand the true doctrine.

Personally, reading that thread on MAD makes me dizzy. ;-) Too bad the LDS church just doesn't truly eliminate polygamy from its doctrine and make the necessary changes needed to move forward without all the nonsense.


~dancer~

[_beastie]

MAD really needs to figure out what it's about. Is it really about exchanges between groups that may have opposing viewpoints, or is it really a platform to present what its founders have decided should represent the "real" LDS church? Its problems - with critics and now pro-polygamists - may be related to that the founders "say" it's about exchanges between groups with opposing viewpoints, albeit slanted to favor their LDS viewpoint, but then "act" as it it's really a platform to represent the "real" LDS church.

If it's a platform, then get rid of critics and pro-polygamists altogether. If it's about exchange, albeit slanted, then quit griping about the existence of those with counter viewpoints and quit trying to get them off the board. As long as MAD doesn't have a clear image of what it's about in the first place, they will continue to be accused of being hypocrites, and continue to deserve that label.

[_Dr. Shades]

Does anyone remember the so-called "wide umbrella of beliefs" that Mormonism welcomes, according to Juliann & co.?

[_truth dancer]

Does anyone remember the so-called "wide umbrella of beliefs" that Mormonism welcomes, according to Juliann & co.?

The "church" in my opinion, doesn't care what members think or believe so long as they keep their mouths shut.

OTOH, believers seem to believe their particular interpretation of doctrine is the one most clearly in line with the truth, while all others who believe dis-similarly are not quite as righteous, not quite ready to accept the truth, not as smart, not keeping up with further light and knowledge, or something along these lines.

It is odd.


~dancer~

[_Trevor]

OTOH, believers seem to believe their particular interpretation of doctrine is the one most clearly in line with the truth, while all others who believe dis-similarly are not quite as righteous, not quite ready to accept the truth, not as smart, not keeping up with further light and knowledge, or something along these lines.

Welcome to humanity.