After two decades, the church goes after Mormon Stories

[malkie]

I made a simple observation. A response of "interesting", or no response was what I expected - not a diatribe about what Res did or didn't do or say.

I have no idea where these people are as an organization, or where they want or expect to be. For all I know, they are OK with tending whatever part of the vineyard they are able to do, and don't consider size or wealth to be a measure of success.

And that may well be. But if the church is to prepare the world for Christ's Second Coming (I know in your mind I'm speaking of a hypothetical that has no obvious evidence) it's going to take a reach across the world with enough wealth to keep the work moving along. The days of the 'lilies of the field' is gone in that application/sense.

Although, as a concept, it is worth remembering. We should not dwell on wealth for wealth's sake.

Unfortunately, that is what some critics think the church is doing. I think I've said enough to counter that rather weak argument.

Regards,
MG

They have the faith to follow Jesus' admonition.

That LDS Inc. is obscenely wealthy proves nothing about preparing the world for anything - including an event that may never occur, or may occur in a far distant future (remember, you do not and cannot know when). By then this little band of faithful, obedient people may be spreading the gospel more effectively than the current LDS church.

You are applying modern corporate thinking to a spiritual organization, and apparently denying that their god can make of them whatever he needs them to be. But isn't that effectively what the LDS church believes - that, in spite of human weaknesses, your god can make you the instrument he needs you to be?

Overall, your comments are simply special pleadings for the current state of the organization you have pledged your everything to, and unnecessary denigration of a group of people who do Mormonism differently from you.

[MG 2.0]

Res Ipsa seemed to condemn moral relativism as being something that is anathema to the gospel of Jesus Christ as we compare the ancient practice of "taking no thought" and the modern practice of "taking some thought".

Why the sub tweet? I'm right here. Why are you complaining to Malkie about something I posted?

And you're shadow boxing again. I never condemned moral relativism or said it was anathema to your gospel.

I said that you are a moral relativist. And you just illustrated it again by arguing that Jesus's teachings don't apply today because things are different. Morals are relative to to the specific facts at hand. Amirite?

And he leaves it there without any discussion.

WTH? It's not like I bound your hands or anyone else's. If you want to discuss, discuss. Don't complain that I failed to read your mind and respond accordingly.

These fine people that you met took 'no thought'. Fine. But look where that gets them organizationally. They can't grow an international church that way which can move throughout the earth and survive and thrive.

Why not? Are people too stupid to recognize God's truth when they hear it? Did Jesus qualify his instructions with something like "Don't be concerned with wealth unless you can think of a reason to store up treasure on this earth? Or, say, turn the other cheek unless it results in you being taken advantage of? It really is stunning to me how easily you hand wave away the actual words and teachings of the son of God that you claim to follow.

In the modern world anyway.

It takes money/wealth to do that large scale and then keep it going. I don't see that "moral relativism' really comes into play in this.

Today's world is not the world of Jesus.

When you start making ad hoc excuses justifying your refusal to follow the teachings of your God, that's absolutely moral relativism. Remember when you were appalled at the concept of "cafeteria Jesus?" Cafeteria Jesus is exactly what you are doing.

I''m somewhat flummoxed as to why critics are always coming back to wealth/money as an evil. Straight up evil. Or that accumulated wealth to use for maintaining a worldwide church as it moves into the third world and maintains the physical facilities of a growing church is an anathema.

You're shadow boxing again. Who here has been arguing that money is evil? That's not even close to what people have been arguing. Your straw-manning is getting way out of hand. It's not that critics claim money is evil. It's that they claim it's hypocritical for a church to secretly hoard billions of dollars while claiming to be Christian. Amassing an enormous earthly treasure is antithetical to Christ's teachings, let alone hiding what it is doing from its own adherents.

I don't get it. Never have. And that this is all somehow connected to people giving of their own free will at Christmas time to Light the World. Truthfully? It sounds kind of screwed up you critics out there.

Of course you don't get it. You don't try to get it. You don't want to get it. You make up some distorted straw man in your head so that you can beat up on it instead of making the slightest effort to understand. That is screwed up. No one is criticizing people who give to charity, so why are you using them as a human shield? Your constant misrepresentation of others' posts is what is screwed up here.

Straight across moral relativism'? I don't think so.

Do you mean "straight up moral relativism?" If so, that's exactly right.

I know I keep harping on this but, again, I'm seeing black and white thinking without the ability to be flexible based upon time, space, needs, culture, technology, or what have you.

It's not black and white thinking to compare and contrast the teachings of the claimed son of God with the conduct of those who claim to be his followers. The problem is that Jesus's teachings are not full of the kind of nuance you are inventing out of thin air. He didn't qualify his instructions to his followers with stuff like "unless, you know, you need to hoard wealth as a hedge against the future." It's just not there. By your reasoning, there is no objective morality because the moral thing to do depends entirely on the set of facts and circumstances present at any given time. That's what makes you a closet moral relativist.

We are not living in the time of Jesus, but we can follow Him as we take care of those that are in need and taken advantage of. Can the LDS Church do a better job? Sure! It's an organization administered by human beings. Put them in the mix and you will never have things as 'perfect' as you might like.

Yes, human beings who decided to secretly hoard an enormous pot of gold while claiming not to be wealthy. That's a far cry from people being only human. That was a deliberate choice.

Those that nit pick and complain might do better to come inside the tent and help run the show from within. We could use some more talented and smart Saints.

By your own many, many descriptions, critics don't meet your definitions of talented or smart. But the notion that one can't criticize an organization unless one is willing to run the organization is just silly. Why in the world would I volunteer to work for an organization that I believe is not what it purports to be? By your logic, you shouldn't be able to criticize critics without becoming one.

Come back. Even you atheists. (just teasin' ya'). Of course it would take an adjustment with your own finances and sacrificing a bit.

So far, you haven't given me any good reason to sacrifice my personal integrity.

Regards,
MG

I see a lot of waffling and side stepping in this post. Reframing mostly. There is not much to latch hold of and respond to. Two posts on each side of a scale. They kinda', in a sense, counterbalance each other.

A juxtaposition of views.

You're going to stick with the Jesus of the New Testament within His cultural context come heck or high water. I think that is unreasonable and have given my reasons why. I suppose we'll have to leave it there.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Why the sub tweet? I'm right here. Why are you complaining to Malkie about something I posted?

And you're shadow boxing again. I never condemned moral relativism or said it was anathema to your gospel.

I said that you are a moral relativist. And you just illustrated it again by arguing that Jesus's teachings don't apply today because things are different. Morals are relative to to the specific facts at hand. Amirite?



WTH? It's not like I bound your hands or anyone else's. If you want to discuss, discuss. Don't complain that I failed to read your mind and respond accordingly.



Why not? Are people too stupid to recognize God's truth when they hear it? Did Jesus qualify his instructions with something like "Don't be concerned with wealth unless you can think of a reason to store up treasure on this earth? Or, say, turn the other cheek unless it results in you being taken advantage of? It really is stunning to me how easily you hand wave away the actual words and teachings of the son of God that you claim to follow.



When you start making ad hoc excuses justifying your refusal to follow the teachings of your God, that's absolutely moral relativism. Remember when you were appalled at the concept of "cafeteria Jesus?" Cafeteria Jesus is exactly what you are doing.



You're shadow boxing again. Who here has been arguing that money is evil? That's not even close to what people have been arguing. Your straw-manning is getting way out of hand. It's not that critics claim money is evil. It's that they claim it's hypocritical for a church to secretly hoard billions of dollars while claiming to be Christian. Amassing an enormous earthly treasure is antithetical to Christ's teachings, let alone hiding what it is doing from its own adherents.



Of course you don't get it. You don't try to get it. You don't want to get it. You make up some distorted straw man in your head so that you can beat up on it instead of making the slightest effort to understand. That is screwed up. No one is criticizing people who give to charity, so why are you using them as a human shield? Your constant misrepresentation of others' posts is what is screwed up here.



Do you mean "straight up moral relativism?" If so, that's exactly right.



It's not black and white thinking to compare and contrast the teachings of the claimed son of God with the conduct of those who claim to be his followers. The problem is that Jesus's teachings are not full of the kind of nuance you are inventing out of thin air. He didn't qualify his instructions to his followers with stuff like "unless, you know, you need to hoard wealth as a hedge against the future." It's just not there. By your reasoning, there is no objective morality because the moral thing to do depends entirely on the set of facts and circumstances present at any given time. That's what makes you a closet moral relativist.



Yes, human beings who decided to secretly hoard an enormous pot of gold while claiming not to be wealthy. That's a far cry from people being only human. That was a deliberate choice.



By your own many, many descriptions, critics don't meet your definitions of talented or smart. But the notion that one can't criticize an organization unless one is willing to run the organization is just silly. Why in the world would I volunteer to work for an organization that I believe is not what it purports to be? By your logic, you shouldn't be able to criticize critics without becoming one.



So far, you haven't given me any good reason to sacrifice my personal integrity.

I see a lot of waffling and side stepping in this post. Reframing mostly. There is not much to latch hold of and respond to. Two posts on each side of a scale. They kinda', in a sense, counterbalance each other.

A juxtaposition of views.

You're going to stick with the Jesus of the New Testament within His cultural context come heck or high water. I think that is unreasonable and have given my reasons why. I suppose we'll have to leave it there.

Regards,
MG

I've read Res’s response to you a couple of times, for clarification and to be clear, but has failed to find examples of what say are waffling, side stepping, and reframing. Please can you give an example from the post that you consider “waffling”. Please can you give an example from the post that you consider “side stepping”. Please can you give an example from the post that you consider “reframing”.

I can see why you would want to close the conversation off and run away rather than explain and support your ongoing baseless assertions, and rather than respond to proper insightful questions. But that’s not me saying anything about you as a person.

[Black Moclips]

I wonder if changing it to "Book of Mormon Stories" would help (that my teacher tells to me.)

[Res Ipsa]

Why the sub tweet? I'm right here. Why are you complaining to Malkie about something I posted?

And you're shadow boxing again. I never condemned moral relativism or said it was anathema to your gospel.

I said that you are a moral relativist. And you just illustrated it again by arguing that Jesus's teachings don't apply today because things are different. Morals are relative to to the specific facts at hand. Amirite?



WTH? It's not like I bound your hands or anyone else's. If you want to discuss, discuss. Don't complain that I failed to read your mind and respond accordingly.



Why not? Are people too stupid to recognize God's truth when they hear it? Did Jesus qualify his instructions with something like "Don't be concerned with wealth unless you can think of a reason to store up treasure on this earth? Or, say, turn the other cheek unless it results in you being taken advantage of? It really is stunning to me how easily you hand wave away the actual words and teachings of the son of God that you claim to follow.



When you start making ad hoc excuses justifying your refusal to follow the teachings of your God, that's absolutely moral relativism. Remember when you were appalled at the concept of "cafeteria Jesus?" Cafeteria Jesus is exactly what you are doing.



You're shadow boxing again. Who here has been arguing that money is evil? That's not even close to what people have been arguing. Your straw-manning is getting way out of hand. It's not that critics claim money is evil. It's that they claim it's hypocritical for a church to secretly hoard billions of dollars while claiming to be Christian. Amassing an enormous earthly treasure is antithetical to Christ's teachings, let alone hiding what it is doing from its own adherents.



Of course you don't get it. You don't try to get it. You don't want to get it. You make up some distorted straw man in your head so that you can beat up on it instead of making the slightest effort to understand. That is screwed up. No one is criticizing people who give to charity, so why are you using them as a human shield? Your constant misrepresentation of others' posts is what is screwed up here.



Do you mean "straight up moral relativism?" If so, that's exactly right.



It's not black and white thinking to compare and contrast the teachings of the claimed son of God with the conduct of those who claim to be his followers. The problem is that Jesus's teachings are not full of the kind of nuance you are inventing out of thin air. He didn't qualify his instructions to his followers with stuff like "unless, you know, you need to hoard wealth as a hedge against the future." It's just not there. By your reasoning, there is no objective morality because the moral thing to do depends entirely on the set of facts and circumstances present at any given time. That's what makes you a closet moral relativist.



Yes, human beings who decided to secretly hoard an enormous pot of gold while claiming not to be wealthy. That's a far cry from people being only human. That was a deliberate choice.



By your own many, many descriptions, critics don't meet your definitions of talented or smart. But the notion that one can't criticize an organization unless one is willing to run the organization is just silly. Why in the world would I volunteer to work for an organization that I believe is not what it purports to be? By your logic, you shouldn't be able to criticize critics without becoming one.



So far, you haven't given me any good reason to sacrifice my personal integrity.

I see a lot of waffling and side stepping in this post. Reframing mostly. There is not much to latch hold of and respond to. Two posts on each side of a scale. They kinda', in a sense, counterbalance each other.

A juxtaposition of views.

You're going to stick with the Jesus of the New Testament within His cultural context come heck or high water. I think that is unreasonable and have given my reasons why. I suppose we'll have to leave it there.

Regards,
MG

Translation: I can’t think of a response, so I’ll call it a tie and run away.

You don’t see waffling and side stepping, or you would be able to point it out. It’s the kind of smoke you blow when your hypocrisy is called out.

I’m happy to bookmark this thread to pull out the next time you claimed to follow objective morality or natter on about “eternal truths.”

[I Have Questions]

An interesting update by the Trib

at least four different podcasts, all critical of the faith, have received emails in recent months from attorneys representing the church. The letters request that their hosts nix “Mormon” from their branding or abandon attempts to trademark their show names containing the term.

Those impacted include John Dehlin’s “Mormon Stories,” a giant in the world of church-critical podcasting that has been operating under its current name for 20 years.

Asked why church lawyers are targeting Dehlin and other critical voices now, the Utah-based faith provided a general statement explaining that it, “like thousands of organizations, holds registered trademarks to prevent confusion about what is and isn’t official church content or content otherwise affiliated with or approved by the church.”

It continued: “When we identify trademark or copyright infringement, our typical first step is to contact the individual privately to request they update their materials, with the goal of resolving the matter amicably. We apply this approach consistently, with church members and nonmembers alike.”

Dehlin and others argue, however, that the term “Mormon” should be fair game, especially given church leaders’ efforts to distance the institution from the moniker, as well as its usage by more than Latter-day Saints.

To date, The Salt Lake Tribune has not received any similar requests regarding its news-based “Mormon Land” podcast and Mormon Land newsletter of the same name.

So, one wonders, why hasn’t Oaks and his team of lawyers gone after the Salt Lake Tribune for their use of the exact same infringement of trademark that they are seeking to enforce on John Dehlin?

[Res Ipsa]

I wonder if the lawyer-prophet is ushering in Mormonism’s Lawfare era.

[I Have Questions]

I wonder if the lawyer-prophet is ushering in Mormonism’s Lawfare era.

I’ve started to see Mormonism not as a consistent religion regardless of who is at the helm, but more like a political dictatorship, whose policies fluctuate in line with regime change. We are in a period of Oaksism, after a period of Nelsonism. Those are two distinct and different religious sects, operating under the umbrella of “Mormonism”. The compete U-Turn on temples is a good example of what happens when the sect’s dictator dies and his successor takes the reins. Which undermines the notion that God or Jesus is at the helm. If they were, the temple building/announcement programme would have remained consistent regardless of earthly leadership change. That it changed immediately upon the new man taking office, confirms the point - men are running the SLC LDS Church operation, not God.

[Equality]

I wonder if the lawyer-prophet is ushering in Mormonism’s Lawfare era.

I’ve started to see Mormonism not as a consistent religion regardless of who is at the helm, but more like a political dictatorship, whose policies fluctuate in line with regime change. We are in a period of Oaksism, after a period of Nelsonism. Those are two distinct and different religious sects, operating under the umbrella of “Mormonism”. The compete U-Turn on temples is a good example of what happens when the sect’s dictator dies and his successor takes the reins. Which undermines the notion that God or Jesus is at the helm. If they were, the temple building/announcement programme would have remained consistent regardless of earthly leadership change. That it changed immediately upon the new man taking office, confirms the point - men are running the SLC LDS Church operation, not God.

Maybe Mormon god is bipolar

[I Have Questions]

I’ve started to see Mormonism not as a consistent religion regardless of who is at the helm, but more like a political dictatorship, whose policies fluctuate in line with regime change. We are in a period of Oaksism, after a period of Nelsonism. Those are two distinct and different religious sects, operating under the umbrella of “Mormonism”. The compete U-Turn on temples is a good example of what happens when the sect’s dictator dies and his successor takes the reins. Which undermines the notion that God or Jesus is at the helm. If they were, the temple building/announcement programme would have remained consistent regardless of earthly leadership change. That it changed immediately upon the new man taking office, confirms the point - men are running the SLC LDS Church operation, not God.

Maybe Mormon god is bipolar

Mormon God is certainly flakey enough to mirror whatever pet viewpoints His latest incumbent has the hots for.