Problems facing New Mormonism

[_Themis]

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.

Probably not this site specifically. Most probably don't even know it exists. While I think they don't like misinformation, I also don't think they don't like correct information that doesn't support the church being what they claim. I think as a collection of sites critical of church truth claims they are concerned. If they are not, then they are not paying attention. Most if not all may not understand the damage to LDS beliefs apologetic sites are because they reveal certain information that doesn't make the church or early leaders look very good. Many apologists just don't realize their justifications dealing with problems brought up by critical sources don't work on many believing members.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

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

The only reason the Givens' aren't considered to be against the Church's leadership and authority is because their views are considered valid enough. John Dehlin's and KK's views weren't.

Your original statement that all views about Mormonism are valid is a very absolute statement to make. Have you never heard anyone corrected for making an incorrect statement at church? This happens when someone's view is incorrect. When I was on a mission, the mission president corrected missionaries when they said something that was doctrinally incorrect. He admitted when he was wrong after he told us something that was doctrinally incorrect and later realized his error. The whole reason why there is a notion that church leaders are to correct incorrect doctrinal pronouncements from the pulpit is because there is an understanding that there is a correct way to think about 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.

There is no meaningful difference between discussing "dead prophets" (which you claim have nothing to do with this) and discussing "the interpretation of their words" (which you say is part of the discussion). When someone brings up a quote from a dead prophet, they bring it up to discuss the interpretation of what he said.

I don't think you understand how this works.

Here is my understanding: The Priesthood runs the church under the inspiration of the Spirit and, in their capacity as leaders, represent the mind and will of the Lord because the keys of the priesthood reside only within the CoJCoLDS.

The things spoken by the 15 and other General Authorities at General Conference, and the manuals prepared under their direction, etc, represents the views they, and hence God (because they are God's mouthpiece), want the members (really, the whole world) to embrace. Hence, if God wanted the members/world to embrace the idea that a prophet served an administrative function, but his views on Mormonism were no more valid than anyone else's, then this message would be out there somewhere in conference reports or lesson manuals, or somewhere else that came from the church leaders directly. Where is this message, or what is it I don't understand about the church I was committed to in word and deed in for 30+ years?

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.

But they do. And they are the one's who claim to define what Mormonism is.

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.

It's not about who has the prerogative to tell anyone what they are required to think or do. It's about getting things right.

When my mission president told us that kids who die before the age of 8 would need to be baptized at some point to inherit the celestial kingdom, a missionary said "I don't think that's right." The mission president, to his great credit, didn't say "all views are valid, it's not your prerogative to tell me what is required for me to think." Instead, he said, "I believe I'm right, but I'll look into it to make sure." The next time we saw the mission president he said to us, "I was wrong. I taught you false doctrine. I said kids who die before 8 would need to be baptized and Elder So-and-so questioned me about that. I looked into it and discovered that Elder So-and-so was correct. The true doctrine is that kids who die before the age of 8 will never need to be baptized to inherit the celestial kingdom."

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

But they say they do, and they are the ones we are talking about. This message board is called MormonDiscussions, not MaklelanDiscussions (though sometimes I wonder).

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think what we're really facing here is a Sorites paradox of sorts. If you keep removing parts of Mormonism, at what point is it still Mormonism? Then again, going back to the idea of a foundational Mormonism, we'd have to agree to define what is Mormonism.

- Doc

[_I have a question]

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.

The Church's own website has spread inaccurate (arguably malicious as it kept truth from members which may have influenced their membership) information. The recent disclosure via 'the essays' have shocked members far and wide. Not mainly because of what they were told, but the realistation that it has been kept from them for generations. I've yet to see the Church apologize for that.

[_ludwigm]

I've yet to see the Church apologize for that.

Or apologize for anything - in the main sense of that word.
An expression of remorse; and not a rhetorical defense of a position.

TheChurch will never do it.