Problems facing New Mormonism

[_Sanctorian]

I only represent myself, but I can share my views that seem to be in line with what Mak is expressing.

I'm publicizing a new paradigm of viewing Mormonism. For more detail see http://www.churchistrue.com/paradigms and many other pages I have on my site there.

The main objective is to identify a way of engaging Mormonism where one can participate fully while rejecting the historical claims that are becoming more and more difficult to defend as each year passes.

There are some tough questions, but this is logic I've been formulating for several years. I believe I have adequate answers for all the questions that have been raised in this thread.

A couple of the main questions:

How do you garner support without gaining a following and risking apostasy?
I think you can probably only do this if you have an aversion to gaining a following. I started publicizing this about a month ago, and I have more plans in the future to share and publicize my view. But I'm not interested in gaining a following and don't have any ego about this. If a church leader quashes me, so be it. I'll choose church affiliation over publicizing my views. What I'm careful about is a) not criticizing the brethren or saying they are wrong b) expressing my ideas as my own and not that they are exclusively right and others are wrong c) emphasizing loyalty to the brethren and faithfulness to the church.

How do you get someone to participate, why does one donate tithes, why does someone serve?
This is a very challenging question, but I believe I have good logic for this. The testimony or the positive value has to come in the benefits and joy and enrichment that comes in living the Christian/Mormon life today. http://www.churchistrue.com/saving-faith/ I'm in the position now for people to share their personal stories with me. I know of a bishop serving faithfully right now and loving his service, whose specific views are atheistic in nature but sees value in the practice of Mormonism. I myself pay tithing, send my kids on missions, serve in church, etc,. I think there are many people like that.

If recent history is any indication of future events, this won't last and you'll be asked to take it down or face disciplinary action.

The direction and attitude of leadership are pretty clear in these instances. It's ok to have doubts, it's not ok to talk about those doubts and infect those that don't currently have doubts. If they catch you talking about it, they'll try and cut you off.

[_maklelan]

If recent history is any indication of future events, this won't last and you'll be asked to take it down or face disciplinary action.

What recent history? Surely you're not talking about Dehlin and Kelly. They marshaled large followings directly and publicly against the authority of Church leadership. That's quite a different thing from having a website where you explain your understanding of how the Church can reconcile certain claims with contemporary worldviews.

The direction and attitude of leadership are pretty clear in these instances. It's ok to have doubts, it's not ok to talk about those doubts and infect those that don't currently have doubts.

That's quite the caricature of their attitude.

If they catch you talking about it, they'll try and cut you off.

That's simply not true.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The direction and attitude of leadership are pretty clear in these instances. It's ok to have doubts, it's not ok to talk about those doubts and infect those that don't currently have doubts. If they catch you talking about it, they'll try and cut you off.

Perhaps his qualifying his public statements about not wanting a following will save him? I just got done perusing his website and he's very heretical in relation to the Church. He doesn't strike me as very different from a John Dehlin in his nuanced views. I suppose there is room for people like him, as long as they keep their musings at a lower decibel setting...

Regardless, this comes back to the Church's objective truth stance versus a subjective truthy stance. They don't really go together in any meaningful manner.

- Doc

[_Sanctorian]

If they catch you talking about it, they'll try and cut you off.

That's simply not true.

Wait a minute, were you in the meeting I had with my stake president when he said if he caught me talking to ANYONE about my doubts he would hold a disciplinary counsel right then and there?

I know you'll chalk this up to some misinformed Stake President who needs additional training, but get real Mak, it happens. And I don't have a blog or any public forum in which I was actively advocating something other than the standard message of the church. Don't tell me its not true. It's just never happened to you remember? And since we all get to have our own version of Mormonism, in my version, it happens and is true.

[_maklelan]

Wait a minute, were you in the meeting I had with my stake president when he said if he caught me talking to ANYONE about my doubts he would hold a disciplinary counsel right then and there?

That's out of line with Church standards.

I know you'll chalk this up to some misinformed Stake President who needs additional training, but get real Mak, it happens.

I don't doubt it happens, but you didn't say, "It happens," you said that it's the clear direction and attitude of leadership. It may be so for your stake president, he does not dictate the consensus of leadership, whether you're talking about local or central.

And I don't have a blog or any public forum in which I was actively advocating something other than the standard message of the church. Don't tell me its not true. It's just never happened to you remember? And since we all get to have our own version of Mormonism, in my version, it happens and is true.

Not saying it never happened, I'm just saying direction and attitude your described is not representative of leadership broadly, whether in the CAB or locally.

[_Sanctorian]

Wait a minute, were you in the meeting I had with my stake president when he said if he caught me talking to ANYONE about my doubts he would hold a disciplinary counsel right then and there?

That's out of line with Church standards.

I know you'll chalk this up to some misinformed Stake President who needs additional training, but get real Mak, it happens.

I don't doubt it happens, but you didn't say, "It happens," you said that it's the clear direction and attitude of leadership. It may be so for your stake president, he does not dictate the consensus of leadership, whether you're talking about local or central.

And I don't have a blog or any public forum in which I was actively advocating something other than the standard message of the church. Don't tell me its not true. It's just never happened to you remember? And since we all get to have our own version of Mormonism, in my version, it happens and is true.

Not saying it never happened, I'm just saying direction and attitude your described is not representative of leadership broadly, whether in the CAB or locally.

That's your opinion. I self-identify as a Mormon and my experience suggests otherwise.

[_maklelan]

That's your opinion. I self-identify as a Mormon and my experience suggests otherwise.

You don't really think self-identity can be openly dishonest, do you?

[_Sanctorian]

That's your opinion. I self-identify as a Mormon and my experience suggests otherwise.

You don't really think self-identity can be openly dishonest, do you?

How is that dishonest? I was raised Mormon, married to a Mormon, have kids that are Mormon, I'm extremely Mormon.

[_maklelan]

How is that dishonest?

Because you don't actually and sincerely identify as Mormon, you're just doing it for rhetorical effect. The thread you started pretty openly acknowledges that:

There has been a push by some that us as a collective don't know what Mormonism is and can no longer understand it because we no longer self-identify as Mormons and the only way to truly understand Mormonism is to self-identify with it.

I declare publicly that I self-identify as a Mormon.

I was raised Mormon, married to a Mormon, have kids that are Mormon, I'm extremely Mormon.

[_Sanctorian]

How is that dishonest?

Because you don't actually and sincerely identify as Mormon, you're just doing it for rhetorical effect. The thread you started pretty openly acknowledges that:

There has been a push by some that us as a collective don't know what Mormonism is and can no longer understand it because we no longer self-identify as Mormons and the only way to truly understand Mormonism is to self-identify with it.

I declare publicly that I self-identify as a Mormon.

I was raised Mormon, married to a Mormon, have kids that are Mormon, I'm extremely Mormon.

You get to determine what is dishonest with regards to self-identity? If someone asks me if I'm Mormon, I'll say yes and then I'll have a beer. In your version of Mormonism, anything goes and all rules and previous versions of Mormonism can be challenged. That is not dishonesty. You just don't like that I can self-identify as a Mormon that doesn't fit your world-view. You can't have it both ways Mak.

Here's the thing Mak, I even attend church and donate to fast offerings. I even had a calling last year as men's basketball coach. THEY SET ME APART. How exactly am I not a Mormon?