DiscussMormonism.com

What do you all think of this modern-day LDS Martin Luther?

http://mormonreformation.blogspot.com/

I think it's great that someone compiled all these points in a single web page. I've bookmarked it and will send it around.

The internet strikes again. The hierarchy should be shaking in their boots.

I like the idea. But, I have no hope. The Mormon people are beyond feeling.

They are not ready for change and reformation.

Mormon Think wrote:What do you all think of this modern-day LDS Martin Luther?

Martin Luther might have had more success if instead of posting 95 theses he had concentrated on five or six. It couldn't hurt for this appeal for reformation of the LDS Church too. I started reading the 95 theses listed and I thought, do I really have time to read all 95 of these? Frankly I don't.

Although I find it amusing that people are thinking of reforming the LDS Church. Either God established the LDS Church as an organization that would never need reformation or He didn't. If He did, then the 95 theses are pointless. If He didn't, then the LDS Church is still not an organization that needs reforming; in such a case it would be an organization that needed abandoning. The whole appeal of the LDS Church is that it is led by men who God has chosen to lead His own personal organization. If they are as completely out of touch with what is good and right as the 95 theses would have us believe, why be a part of the LDS Church at all? I can tell you right now that if I knew the LDS Church was as out of touch with God's will as they imply I wouldn't be a part of it.

cwald wrote:I like the idea. But, I have no hope. The Mormon people are beyond feeling.

They are not ready for change and reformation.

I think the LDS Church is plenty ready for change. It underwent significant change just last October in the aftermath of General Conference. Reformation, on the other hand, not so much.

I don't like the idea, I think it is counterproductive and silly. It simply won't work.

How is posting theses any different than being simply exmo? The church will never be changed by protest, but rather, but by active participants who can show a more reasonable way than the intransigence of one extreme or the antithesis. I believe the church will be changed by the Bishop Bill Reels and Bishop Kloostermans who are willing to stand up and be faithful while being inclusive of those who struggle with faith or who are vilified by the church. The church will be changed by the Joanna Brooks of the world who can articulate an inclusive path of being faithful to both a Mormon and jewish tradition in a mixed home. the Church will be changed by the Dieter Uchtdorfs of the world, who weren't raised in a Utah bubble, but rather have seen the world and can understand that inclusiveness and harmony forge a middle way between fundamentalist belief and atheism. And yes, the church will be changed by each and every cwald and wayfarer who stays to love and serve while obviously not being true-blue believers -- if we can withstand the pricks we have to kick against. Not an easy path.

I don't hold out much hope, but I don't see another way that gets us there. The church truly is at a crossroads -- a tipping point. non-biological growth is zero, and the internet makes it impossible to continue to lie and deceive about the flaws of history and the ridiculousness of commandments of flawed men parlayed as doctrine. It can fall back to the defensive posture it has taken for the past fifty years, in which case it will shrink and be the fringe religion to the believers. or it can offer a viable alternative model -- one based upon a fearless embracing of all truth, including that of its own history, in an effort to redeeming itself from itself. To paraphrase and apply what Lincoln once said, "we must disenthrall ourselves, and then we will save our church."

I'm thinking the list on the blog isn't going to cut it.

TBMs are programmed to have a zero-tolerance for reading anti-lit. The first point about the rock in the hat is alright, but the next several points about the Book of Mormon having no evidence just reveal the paper as "anti-lit", prime the TBM brain to throw the paper away, and tells the TBM nothing new. TBMs know anti-Mormons believe there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon, but TBMs know there is evidence for the Book of Mormon, so off to the trash and no effect.

The first few points need to go for the throat. They need to sum up Joseph Smith's relations with girls or explain the temple-masonic robe connection. TBMs will assume it's all lies, but it will be new, shocking, and specific information. They will instinctively know that they can learn more about it online, and this knowledge will eat at them as they refuse to give Satan center stage. "Get behind me, Satan", they will say. They will likely assume that the Church has a good response to whatever the problem is. But some of these problems are so shocking for the average generational member, that the mere accusation will unsettle for years to come.

It would be similar to being told specific information about a spouse cheating. From there, the question is, do you really want to know? Sure, you can assume there is a good explanation, and maybe there really is a good explanation. But, it's more than just taking say, a 10% chance that you're wrong to get the relief that you know you're right. It's the fear of the context from whence the accusation comes. Jane from the office with hubby? Even if no cheating happened, there might be a long history of lunches with Jane, late nights at the office with Jane, and while the explanations may ultimately prove "innocence," there's no turning back. Reality is much different than it was prior to getting the tip.

Martin Luther might have had more success if instead of posting 95 theses he had concentrated on five or six

I think Martin Luther had one theses and 95 sentences.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/95_Theses

The authors of the Mormon version may end up taking some crap for that...

The purpose of this event is two-fold:

1. Educate the membership on hidden and revised aspects of Church doctrine and history.

2. Influence Church leaders to officially address topics that have long been dodged and dismissed.

So the purpose of this event isn't to call for Mormonism to reform into something else?

And what exactly would this reformed Mormonism look like? This list posits problems, but contains no suggestion of solutions.

I don't see that this approach has anything to do with Martin Luther other than vaguely mimicking his 95 theses on an extremely superficial level, and I don't think it will have much effect. Even if this gets posted on ward doors, Mormons will just look at it as "anti-Mormon" material (and honestly, they wouldn't be wrong) and disregard it.

I came up with 96 Theses in October 2006 (when I was a "New Order Mormon" and thought such a thing might make a difference).
http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equality_time/2006/10/the_96_theses_c.html

And here is my explanation for why I thought (at the time) the exercise worthwhile:
http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equality_time/2006/10/martin_luther_n.html

When I did my 96 Theses, I had no intention of posting them on ward buildings or at church HQ (though people offered to do that for me). I think the Internet itself serves the purpose that nailing something on a church door served in the 16th century.