DiscussMormonism.com

blooruk wrote:
Wiki definition should suffice. I'm not implying extremism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

MsJack wrote:I had a talk in G-Mail chat last night with my aforementioned friend about Steve Bloor's resignation letter. I pointed out that plenty of people have posted their exit letters online without attracting the attention of FAIR apologists, and since this letter was so "unoriginal" (as most of the apologetics crowd was claiming), I couldn't understand why people were making such a big deal out of it. I told him that I thought the truth was that it really does hurt when fellow brothers and sisters leave the fold, and this one especially hurt because this person was a local leader to others, so people were looking for reasons to find fault with his exit letter.

My friend was a little annoyed because, even though the thread had been moved to private, he was still subscribed to the thread and receiving updates in his inbox showing what people were saying to and about him, but he was unable to respond himself. He complained about this elsewhere on Steve Bloor's blog.

To this Steve replied:

Steve Bloor wrote:Thanks for your comments.

I am a novice to the whole internet blogging thing.

My intentions in putting up the letter were to help people who are questioning realise they are not alone. It was meant for UK only in a limited group setting.

However, John Dehlin publicised it more widely thinking he was being helpful.

Unfortunately, due to the threat of Church disciplinary action I have to pull the blog down from public viewing.

Sorry about that.

I’m also not sure how to notify all the many kind people, including yourself, who commented in the lively debate.

All the very best Steve

My friend responded:

Well, I’m certainly sorry to hear about the tough time you are going through. And I can sympathize with your blogging plight.

I know it’s rough being caught in the crossfire between “Mormon apologists” and the ex-Mormon community. We both tend to be a little bull-headed, and so eager to pick a fight that we trample over the people caught in the middle.

If this happened to you, I am sorry. I hope things work out ultimately for the best for you and your family.

If you have any questions or concerns, you have my email address (I presume) and you can feel free to contact me. I’ll try not to go into hard core defend-the-faith mode on you. But if you’d rather sort this out yourself or elsewhere (after all, you don’t know me from Adam), I certainly understand.

Good luck to you.

I'm more convinced than ever that Mr. Bloor pulled his blog post because he was overwhelmed with the responses he was getting from both sides of the community when he never expected his post to attract so much attention. (And because he was afraid of church discipline?)

Not because he was shaking in his boots over the responses he got from folks like why me.

why me wrote:
His letter drew attention for a simple reason: his premise was faulty.

The lds church has mentioned the differing accounts of the first vision in the ensign. The former bishop claimed that the lds church hides that fact.

Second, he claims to have not known about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Fine. But the church teaches that Joseph Smith was a polygamist to seminary students. He was wrong about the lds church hiding it.

And it are these falsehoods that got my gander up since members read his letter and may be convinced by him to leave for the reasons that he stated.

And so, what is the former bishop questioning? Why the lds church is silent about the various versions of the first vision? About the lds church hiding the fact that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

blooruk wrote:
There is the argument regarding whether to teach all of the controversy regarding church history.
One only needs to look at children being raised in radical Islamic groups to realise that this would only strengthen their faith. Perhaps the church ought to do the same to prevent further loss - and breed a generation of fully informed Mormon fundamentalists.

why me wrote:
Critics have a demand: the lds church should teach its controversies. Maybe, but so should many other faiths.

Themis wrote:
So far your quote does not say Joseph was practicing polygamy, and again one paragraph means that most students will miss it or forget about it, particularly since it does not say he was practicing. An instructor would have to add details, but in seminary that is very unlikely. So it is expected that many members will not know this, and since I know you have seen many others say this it should not come as a surpirise. So yes I would call this hiding.

Themis wrote:
For most it's not a demand but a suggestion, and yes I agree with you that other religions should as well, and some do. What may be bad for the LDS is the claims they make that hinge on Joseph Smith and the church being God's one true church. Most other religions don't have this problem.

why me wrote:
The above quotation was provided by darth j. on page 8 of this thread. It seems that the students have more information in their manual than I do in the textbook. Next problem?

blooruk wrote:Although many proponents of Mormonism will disregard my sincerity and that of my Brother Stephen - whom you wish to hang for desiring to feel understood without judgment. Its unfortunate that many feel qualified to mind-read a persons deepest emotions and intentions, jumping to conclusions without attempting to really understanding the trauma of existential crisis and subsequent emotional desires and actions of a man whom I know has attempted to control the rumors - by explaining truthfully with a motive to prevent people from jumping to conclusions, and also protecting the interests of those he loves from the judgmental uninformed.

Themis wrote:
I see this all the time. They think that one reference means that all members should now know about it. While most probably do know that Joseph did have more then one wife, with the lack of teaching about it, it is not surprising that many do not. They certainly do not know the dirty details. Then we get asshole apologists who tell them they should have known. All you have done is show why many should not know about it. How many times does a professor have to tell their students it was in the text book. If they can miss information, we shouldn't expect members to get every small reference.