Question for Consig-Radio Free Mormon

[_churchistrue]

No offense, but this is a pretty dumb OP. Ok, so fundamentalists also agree that the church doesn't follow its own rules. So what? These things are unrelated. Consig is either correct about the rules, as laid out in the D&C, or he's not.

I'm kind of an LDS apologist in my own way, but I'm not interested in arguing with Consig on any of his points.

1. I've been a Consig fan for many years. I've been posting here and other places for 10+ years and have always enjoyed his posts, and I like his RFM podcasts, and I genuinely just am curious about his position.

2. The argumentative aspect of this, is like this. (which I'm pretty chill on--I'm mostly curious about his position) If we're all enlightened here, and understand this Waterman-Snuffer type way of analyzing the Church by demanding it is completely consistent according to "revelation" (whatever that is), is all kind of BS, then why are you hammering on the Church so hard for it. I understand: hammering on LGBT stance, Book of Mormon evidence, female equality, etc. I don't understand: hamming on the way the Church does succession when all of it is uninteresting procedural stuff that any organization does unless you take an extremely literalistic, fundamentalistic view like the crazy Waterman-Snuffer types.

Or from another perspective, is the proper way to argue with Consig to:
a. tell him to chill out, it doesn't matter, it's just the way the Church does stuff, it doesn't affect your Sunday experience
or
b. attempt to prove through historical analysis why the Church is very valid and using proper protocol established by the Lord through revelation and everything is consistent today

I can do a but no chance to pull off b.

[_churchistrue]

The way I have come to formulate it is this:

If Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, the current leaders aren't prophets.

And if Joseph Smith was a prophet, the current leaders sure as hell aren't prophets.

I think the distinction is important. And there are more options.

Joseph was a prophet by a certain definition/expectation and the current leaders aren't in that way but might be in a different way.
Joseph wasn't a prophet by a certain definition/expectation and the current leaders also aren't but might be in a different way.

Your formulation, I think you've knocked it out of the park. But I'm not sure it's that interesting of a concept to disprove. Those on the extremes in the Mormonism world, those on the Exmo-atheist side like it because it needles the Church. Those on the Waterman-Snufferite-fundamentalistic side like it because it shows why the Church is wrong. For the vast majority in the middle, it's kind of like "yeah, ok, so what?"

[_moksha]

He's put bite to the question, at least to me, either Mormonism has had something in terms of inspiration (the amount of which can still be debated) and the current Church is rejecting that something, or it never had something and the current Church is making things up to make it work more conveniently (mostly for the general leaders).

Or that there is something out there that can indeed be tapped into which may have been tapped into in the past and perhaps can be retapped in the future.

[_consiglieri]

This is not the first time the question has been raised as to whether RFM is a Snufferite.

Over at Ex-Mormon Reddit, I have seen some say they are just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

They will be waiting a long time, I fear.

I know that there are some LDS who have grown disillusioned with current church leadership over many of the issues I have raised, and have transferred their allegiance to The Remnant Movement.

In fact, Rock Waterman was so enthusiastic about the two-part Apostolic Coup D'état RFM episode, he had somebody transcribe the entire thing and posted it on his Pure Mormonism website.

Here:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/ ... of_24.html

And here:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/ ... eover.html

But that is pretty much where the similarities end, and those who expect me to come out of the closet any time in the near future as a "Snufferite" are destined for disappointment.

As I have described such an idea to Bill Reel before, "For me to go from being a Mormon to being a Snufferite would be like finally escaping from Alcatraz only to turn myself in at San Quentin."

[_churchistrue]

This is not the first time the question has been raised as to whether RFM is a Snufferite.

Over at Ex-Mormon Reddit, I have seen some say they are just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

They will be waiting a long time, I fear.

I know that there are some LDS who have grown disillusioned with current church leadership over many of the issues I have raised, and have transferred their allegiance to The Remnant Movement.

In fact, Rock Waterman was so enthusiastic about the two-part Apostolic Coup D'état RFM episode, he had somebody transcribe the entire thing and posted it on his Pure Mormonism website.

Here:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/ ... of_24.html

And here:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/ ... eover.html

But that is pretty much where the similarities end, and those who expect me to come out of the closet any time in the near future as a "Snufferite" are destined for disappointment.

As I have described such an idea to Bill Reel before, "For me to go from being a Mormon to being a Snufferite would be like finally escaping from Alcatraz only to turn myself in at San Quentin."

This is what I assumed. I'd love to take you to lunch and talk sometime, if you're ever in Provo with some extra time. I'm Randall Bowen on Facebook. I use that as a pseudonym. Like you, I am not public.

[_Craig Paxton]

No offense, but this is a pretty dumb OP. Ok, so fundamentalists also agree that the church doesn't follow its own rules. So what? These things are unrelated. Consig is either correct about the rules, as laid out in the D&C, or he's not.

The way I have come to formulate it is this:

If Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, the current leaders aren't prophets.

And if Joseph Smith was a prophet, the current leaders sure as hell aren't prophets.

And here is how I see things... Joseph Smith made things up and was a fraud...so the current leaders are making things up just like he did and are not what they claim to be.

[_Water Dog]

2. The argumentative aspect of this, is like this. (which I'm pretty chill on--I'm mostly curious about his position) If we're all enlightened here, and understand this Waterman-Snuffer type way of analyzing the Church by demanding it is completely consistent according to "revelation" (whatever that is), is all kind of BS, then why are you hammering on the Church so hard for it. I understand: hammering on LGBT stance, Book of Mormon evidence, female equality, etc. I don't understand: hamming on the way the Church does succession when all of it is uninteresting procedural stuff that any organization does unless you take an extremely literalistic, fundamentalistic view like the crazy Waterman-Snuffer types.

The LDS church is what's under trial, not the Snuffer schism. People who conclude the LDS church is false can head in many different directions from there. From the perspective of considering whether the church is true or not the procedure stuff seems to be very relevant. The process by which a prophet is called, and whether that process has been consistent or changed over time and whether those changes happened in a legitimate way, etc.

[_Tuna_Surprise]

Well, then, mark me down as one who definitely believes in supernatural events.

Just chiming in to say I love your podcast and never got the feeling you were goin' snuff. You can mark me down as a bona fide atheist and a non-believer in the supernatural - but I have a certain fondness for those who do believe sincerely. Not in a pray/pay/obey way that I see from so many within the church, but in the way of having experienced a connection with the divine and yearning to maintain the connection.

by the way, when I listen to your story and hear that you became Mormon at the same time your brother became a JW, all I could think about is this classic scene from the Simpsons when they thought Bart was gay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUFmOPvxZQ

[_Kishkumen]

The LDS church is what's under trial, not the Snuffer schism. People who conclude the LDS church is false can head in many different directions from there. From the perspective of considering whether the church is true or not the procedure stuff seems to be very relevant. The process by which a prophet is called, and whether that process has been consistent or changed over time and whether those changes happened in a legitimate way, etc.

I am closer to this position. If the people in power use a set of claims and rules to demand our complicity, then they better damn well know their own business and play by their alleged rules. What I don’t understand is the acknowledgment that they don’t, which is followed up by a recommendation to stick with these untrustworthy authorities.

I actually want to see more schism and less capitulation of the kind churchistrue advocates. I have more respect for Snuffer than I do for the entire Q15, and yet I would never become a Snufferite. That is the downside of walking a lonely path away from the LDS Church. And it makes me slightly more sympathetic for churchistrue in the end.

But the Church is not true. No organization of human beings is.

[_Kishkumen]

Well, then, mark me down as one who definitely believes in supernatural events.

I’ve got no problem with this.