DiscussMormonism.com

malkie wrote:Thanks, mak - I hereby take back half of the nasty things I've said about you here

Oh, you'll regret that.

malkie wrote:(as far as I remember, this is not a big concession since I haven't said anything nasty about you - and I don't plan to start )

I can't remember anything like that, and I appreciate that. Apologies if I have come across too rude or curt because of the general atmosphere of these discussions.

malkie wrote:by the way, mak, I think you said at one point recently that you were participating here just now on assignment from COB.

Did you ever expand on that statement?

If not, would you be prepared to do so now?

It was a joke. The COB couldn't care less about this website.

maklelan wrote:

you are no different than me or a lot of ex-mos. We each have a tipping point on realizing the church can never be the ideal we want it to be due to some inherent limitations. Speaking for myself, I could easily be a cultural Mormon if the church supported my ideals. But I couldn't see the church making the changes fast enough that I could no longer support this version of the church.

Mak, I'll define it for you so you can stop assuming you know my self-identity. Ex-mo - had my name removed from the records of the church. John Dehlin was excommunicated and yet he still identifies as Mormon. Same with lots of ex-mo members. There are some on this board that have self-identified that are inactive or no longer members. Since I have had my name removed, I have paid fast offerings, attended church, held callings, participated in church activities and most recently sat next to my child during their baptism. Being ex-mo does not disqualify you for identity as you have already stated that membership in the LDS Salt Lake church does not define someones identity as a Mormon.

You're the one that wants to come in here and define for everyone what their self-identity is. A fact I already proved you are being dishonest about including this very post. I listened to YOUR qualifications over the last couple of days and determined through YOUR qualifications that in MY life that I still identify as Mormon even though I'm no longer on the records. A qualification YOU stated does not define identity.

YOU claim you want to come in here and educate people to the misrepresentations of Mormonism. I agreed with your assessment of the qualifications and self-identified. What you don't like is now that I self-identify as Mormon under YOUR standards, I have an authoritative voice to explain Mormonism. It's not rhetoric or dishonesty. The only person doing any of that is you.

maklelan wrote:

malkie wrote:Thanks, mak - I hereby take back half of the nasty things I've said about you here

Oh, you'll regret that.

malkie wrote:(as far as I remember, this is not a big concession since I haven't said anything nasty about you - and I don't plan to start )

I can't remember anything like that, and I appreciate that. Apologies if I have come across too rude or curt because of the general atmosphere of these discussions.

No apologies needed for me.

Actually I kind of like your terseness - most of the time. It takes a great struggle for some of us to express ourselves concisely, but it seems to be fairly effortless for you, especially considering that you are "fighting" on several fronts at once.

I think it's a great pity, as others have said, that you are somewhat used as a punching bag here.

maklelan wrote:

malkie wrote:by the way, mak, I think you said at one point recently that you were participating here just now on assignment from COB.

Did you ever expand on that statement?

If not, would you be prepared to do so now?

It was a joke. The COB couldn't care less about this website.

Not possible!

Is it? (rhetorical question )

maklelan wrote:

malkie wrote:by the way, mak, I think you said at one point recently that you were participating here just now on assignment from COB.

Did you ever expand on that statement?

If not, would you be prepared to do so now?

It was a joke. The COB couldn't care less about this website.

Do you know what websites do concern COB? MormonThink?

There must be some that concern COB for Uchtdorf to begin conference with a lambasting of looking for information on the 'net. Which ones might those be?

maklelan wrote:

malkie wrote:by the way, mak, I think you said at one point recently that you were participating here just now on assignment from COB.

Did you ever expand on that statement?

If not, would you be prepared to do so now?

It was a joke. The COB couldn't care less about this website.

Exhibit 1 in the defence of mak against the charge of not having a sense of humour.

maklelan wrote:They were not excommunicated for "invalid views." They were excommunicated for marshaling a large following directly against the authority of the Church's leadership.

There are others, such as the Givens', who have marshalled a large following outside the authority structure of the church. The difference is that the Givens' views are considered valid (even if the authority doesn't explicitly endorse their views)), while John Dehlin's and KK's weren't.

maklelan wrote:Dead prophets have no bearing at all on this.

Sure they do. Every year since 1997, the church has used manuals made up entirely of the words of dead prophets in Relief Society and Priesthood. This makes their words part of the discussion of modern-day Mormonism.

maklelan wrote:He speaks from a position of administrative authority, but Mormonism is not delineated by the LDS Church, nor is his conceptualization of Mormonism any more or less authoritative than anyone else's.

Find me one quote by anyone, in any general conference in church history, which supports your contention that the prophet speaks in an administrative capacity only and his concept of Mormonism is no more or less valid than anyone else's.

This calendar year, I've listened to the 14 Fundamentals taught in Priesthood, straight from the manual, with all the fervent emphasis on the prophetic superiority as you can imagine.

If the church didn't believe that it was the beginning and end of Mormonism in God's eyes, they would accept the ordinances performed by other Mormon sects. They don't. They claim to be the only supplier of essential, saving ordinances on earth, and consider other Mormon sects to be apostate.

maklelan wrote:True, they can observe things correctly or incorrectly, but observation is different from authoritative declaration.

While observers cannot authoritatively bind the church to any position as if they had power-of-attorney to do so, they can accurately (or inaccurately) observe and speak about the church. If an outsider says that the church position is that baptism by one holding authority is an essential saving ordinance, they are accurately stating the position of the church. Whether they have the authority to speak for the church or not is irrelevant. What matters is accuracy, not who is in or out.

sock puppet wrote:Do you know what websites do concern COB? MormonThink?

There must be some that concern COB for Uchtdorf to begin conference with a lambasting of looking for information on the 'net. Which ones might those be?

Those that spread inaccurate and malicious information. Not so much message boards as websites that collect and present information on Mormonism specifically to try to attack it.

Tim the Enchanter wrote:There are others, such as the Givens', who have marshalled a large following outside the authority structure of the church. The difference is that the Givens' views are considered valid (even if the authority doesn't explicitly endorse their views)), while John Dehlin's and KK's weren't.

Are they marshalling a large following directly against the Church's leadership and their authority?

Tim the Enchanter wrote:Sure they do. Every year since 1997, the church has used manuals made up entirely of the words of dead prophets in Relief Society and Priesthood. This makes their words part of the discussion of modern-day Mormonism.

No, it makes the interpretation of their words part of the discussion, which can only be done by living people. Dead prophets have nothing to do with this.

Tim the Enchanter wrote:Find me one quote by anyone, in any general conference in church history, which supports your contention that the prophet speaks in an administrative capacity only and his concept of Mormonism is no more or less valid than anyone else's.

I don't think you understand how this works.

Tim the Enchanter wrote:This calendar year, I've listened to the 14 Fundamentals taught in Priesthood, straight from the manual, with all the fervent emphasis on the prophetic superiority as you can imagine.

If the church didn't believe that it was the beginning and end of Mormonism in God's eyes, they would accept the ordinances performed by other Mormon sects. They don't. They claim to be the only supplier of essential, saving ordinances on earth, and consider other Mormon sects to be apostate.

And I don't agree with that.

Tim the Enchanter wrote:While observers cannot authoritatively bind the church to any position as if they had power-of-attorney to do so, they can accurately (or inaccurately) observe and speak about the church.

As I have stated multiple times, they are absolutely free to observe and describe. It is not their prerogative to declare what any member think or do or is required to think or do.

Tim the Enchanter wrote:If an outsider says that the church position is that baptism by one holding authority is an essential saving ordinance, they are accurately stating the position of the church. Whether they have the authority to speak for the church or not is irrelevant. What matters is accuracy, not who is in or out.

And the LDS Church does not exhaust the category "Mormon," as I have clearly stated.