DiscussMormonism.com

Sanctorian wrote:

churchistrue wrote: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.

I disagree. I think it can work. If I get called in by a stake president, I think with some slight tweaks, I'll be OK. If not, then the next person can take the ball and run with it. I think there's too much momentum to stop this. There are a lot of Mormons who want to stay Mormon. And there's no reason the church should stop them. Eventually, this is the destiny of Mormonism. You can't keep a lid on all these historical issues indefinitely.

churchistrue wrote:

I disagree. I think it can work. If I get called in by a stake president, I think with some slight tweaks, I'll be OK. If not, then the next person can take the ball and run with it. I think there's too much momentum to stop this. There are a lot of Mormons who want to stay Mormon. And there's no reason the church should stop them. Eventually, this is the destiny of Mormonism. You can't keep a lid on all these historical issues indefinitely.

I agree 100% that the church will eventually get there. The evidence is too overwhelming that it has to get there to survive in any meaningful manner.

Sanctorian wrote:You get to determine what is dishonest with regards to self-identity?

I don't have to when you openly acknowledge it.

Sanctorian wrote: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?

You claimed to not identify as Mormon.

maklelan wrote:

Sanctorian wrote:You get to determine what is dishonest with regards to self-identity?

I don't have to when you openly acknowledge it.

Sanctorian wrote: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?

You claimed to not identify as Mormon.

Where? Show me where I said I wasn't a Mormon.

maklelan wrote:it's not the prerogative of those who do not identify as part of that community to dictate what is and is not prototypical or central.

Why? People not part of a community can have valid insight into things that are prototypical or central to a community, and people on the inside can be mistaken about what what is prototypical or central to their community.

Sanctorian wrote:Where? Show me where I said I wasn't a Mormon.

I already did. In your new thread you state that you are part of a group of people that no longer self-identifies as Mormon.

maklelan wrote: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.

I followed Dehlin's podcasts for a long time and I never really got the impression that wanted to lead people out of the church. He has kind of flip-flopped at times but I always thought that the trend was for him to encourage people to stay if anything if he encouraged any action at all. He certainly led a lot of discussions of issues that lead a lot of people out but I remember being very frustrated that he wanted to encourage people to stay in an organization that was so obviously full of fraud and abuse. It is funny how our perspectives can be so different on this.

But this is why it is so hard to have a 'new' Mormonism. I mean, it is okay for Dehlin to discuss difficult topics for years and years but then suddenly he gets a new stake president and it is something that merits punishments like the destruction of his eternal family, etc. The arbitrary application of rules is very confusing to people who walk the line. I think that it is quite possible that churchistrue could have a SP that could come down hard on him in the future if his luck is bad. My luck was bad with my bishop. He suddenly turned into Mr. Hyde and angrily told me that Joseph only ever had one wife when I came to him with questions about polygamy. I have no doubt that if I had discussed my issues of uncontroversial historical facts with someone and it caused them to doubt that he would have pressed for church discipline. He's just that kind of guy. And there aren't good processes to reign in people like that in the church right now.

The truth is, I was looking for a way to be a non-believing self-identifying Mormon but I really did feel pushed out by the newsroom's reiteration that a major factor in Dehlin's excommunication was his public statements that the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are fraud. Well, the fact is that there is a lot of evidence that points to that conclusion and a lot of people are going to look at that evidence and come to what they see as an obvious conclusion that they *are* fraud.

I could have been one of the 'new' Mormons with my own way of making it work but the church made it clear that it doesn't want people like me to stick around when they exed Dehlin (and made accompanying clarifying statements from the newsroom).

Tim the Enchanter wrote:Why? People not part of a community can have valid insight into things that are prototypical or central to a community, and people on the inside can be mistaken about what what is prototypical or central to their community.

A community is constituted by its members. They determine what is central, and those things are continually negotiated and renegotiated by those members. What in-group members perceive to be central reifies what is central. A non-member can observe and can offer a description about demonstrable trends and patterns, but they don't have authority over an in-group member's conceptualization of the community.

maklelan wrote:

Sanctorian wrote:Where? Show me where I said I wasn't a Mormon.

I already did. In your new thread you state that you are part of a group of people that no longer self-identifies as Mormon.

Not true. I said I do self identify as Mormon and made a public declaration I am a Mormon.

fetchface wrote:I followed Dehlin's podcasts for a long time and I never really got the impression that wanted to lead people out of the church.

Nor did I. I nowhere said he tried to lead people out of the Church. I said he marshaled a following directly against the authority of Church leadership.

fetchface wrote:He has kind of flip-flopped at times but I always thought that the trend was for him to encourage people to stay if anything if he encouraged any action at all. He certainly led a lot of discussions of issues that lead a lot of people out but I remember being very frustrated that he wanted to encourage people to stay in an organization that was so obviously full of fraud and abuse. It is funny how our perspectives can be so different on this.

But this is why it is so hard to have a 'new' Mormonism. I mean, it is okay for Dehlin to discuss difficult topics for years and years but then suddenly he gets a new stake president and it is something that merits punishments like the destruction of his eternal family, etc. The arbitrary application of rules is very confusing to people who walk the line.

I agree that bishop roulette is not ideal, but I think it's also true that secretly recording the meetings and then flagrantly mischaracterizing the reasons for the discipline put a bit of the burden on Dehlin himself. I don't think it was the best decision to excommunicate him, but I also don't think he was just an innocent little lamb trying to chase that rainbow of conscientiousness and integrity.

fetchface wrote:I think that it is quite possible that churchistrue could have a SP that could come down hard on him in the future if his luck is bad. My luck was bad with my bishop. He suddenly turned into Mr. Hyde and angrily told me that Joseph only ever had one wife when I came to him with questions about polygamy. I have no doubt that if I had discussed my issues of uncontroversial historical facts with someone and it caused them to doubt that he would have pressed for church discipline. He's just that kind of guy. And there aren't good processes to reign in people like that in the church right now.

The truth is, I was looking for a way to be a non-believing self-identifying Mormon but I really did feel pushed out by the newsroom's reiteration that a major factor in Dehlin's excommunication was his public statements that the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are fraud. Well, the fact is that there is a lot of evidence that points to that conclusion and a lot of people are going to look at that evidence and come to what they see as an obvious conclusion that they *are* fraud.

But there are many who have addressed the non-historicity of the Book of Abraham without any concern from leadership. There are ways to do it without being aggressive and rhetorical and getting in trouble.

fetchface wrote:I could have been one of the 'new' Mormons with my own way of making it work but the church made it clear that it doesn't want people like me to stick around when they exed Dehlin (and made accompanying clarifying statements from the newsroom).

You don't think the Church was justified in making clarifying statements after Dehlin published multiple transcriptions of secretly recorded meetings and demonstrably misrepresented the motivations of the stake president?