Witch Burning in Progress at Meridian Magazine

[_Aristotle Smith]

The only thing that interests me about this is that it seems to me that the Chapel Mormons (who make up the majority of Meridian's readership) are starting to find out that Internet Mormons exist. For the most part, Chapel Mormons have been blissfully unaware of the existence of Internet Mormons, mainly because Internet Mormons do a great job impersonating Chapel Mormons on Sunday. Seeing Internet Mormons in their real habitat, when they let it all hang out, is going to be a real eye-opener for Chapel Mormons.

[_Jason Bourne]

Don't be so hard on yourself. You've certainly become faithless and being an anonymous poster doesn't help your character much (please don't give me your hackneyed refrain: "you're not my bishop"), but there's always help for the lost.

Oh yes I forgot the anonymous part. And totally lacking character as well. Not really much hope for me Bot. But who knows. If Don Bradley can come back maybe I can too. I am not in the atheist camp yet.

My guess is the people like Brooks, John Dehlin and others would have had some form of Church discipline heaped upon them 20 years ago.

I do not like Dehlin in the least. Don't include him with Brooks. She's intelligent, a rock star but to me a boring rock star. He is not an academic, not a thinker. He is unqualified to be doing what he is doing with his Mormon Stories but since he is filling a niche he will have to do.

Well we will have to disagree. I like John. And I have met him personally. But yea Brooks is brighter but then I think she is brighter than many people. But my point was really is there room in the Church for such. I do think 20 years ago they would have been given the boot.

So the question I have is this. Can the Church accept and even embrace such open diversity? If yes what will it make the Church look like 20 years from now?

Of course it does; it has before.

Can you enlighten me on when the Church has even accepted such open diversity in its ranks. Well other than perhaps with the very few Gene England types? And even he was tossed under the bus.

Come ye out of your personal cesspool and rejoin the Saints.

I am still a member much to the chagrin of some here.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

... and being an anonymous poster doesn't help your character much ....

Nice to see your obsession continues ...

Don't include him with Brooks. She's intelligent, a rock star but to me a boring rock star.

I think she's great.

[Dehlin] is not an academic, not a thinker. He is unqualified to be doing what he is doing with his Mormon Stories but since he is filling a niche he will have to do.

I love some of his interviews, and, in my opinion, he's filling a very important Mormon niche.

Come ye out of your personal cesspool and rejoin the Saints.

A TBM's use of the term "cesspool" is always relative.

[_Droopy]

The Meridian review seemed mostly to consist of complaining that this unorthodox Mormon didn't stick with orthodox ways to explain her faith.

Based on what I've see thus far, she appears to have few "orthodox" views at all. To what does she subscribe that would count as "orthodox" LDS doctrine? I'm not saying there's nothing, in some broad brush way, to connect her to LDS teachings, but to be "faithful," in an LDS context, one must accept the entire fundamental system, and be willing, beyond this, to "live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God." To understand the full extent, and depth, of the differences between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints and "Reform" Mormonism, can be seen below. This is gist for an entire thread in the Celestial, which I will probably pursue as time (and psychological health) permits.

http://www.reformmormonism.org/lib/comparison.htm

[_Fence Sitter]

This in the comments section shows that Bott's views are still held by some, regarding the black issue. Note that the comment was from a "Gramajane"

Also that my extended study and personal experiences with the priesthood being held in reserve for some people of color--- while we served them with blessings from it and they were not required to serve us,

[Guest]

And here I thought fundamentalists like Droopy and BC Space were the minority among Mormons, but after reading the comments in that article, it looks like they might be the majority. Oh well, Joanna Brooks will eventually be pushed completely out of the church. It would seem a woman of her caliber - intelligent, successful, independent, outspoken, and confident - would be embraced and held up as an example for young women. They can't keep pushing their best and brightest out of the fold.

[_Droopy]

Clearly her views are not orthodox LDS in many aspects. Yet she seems to love being a Mormon and is also committed to the Church.

What do you mean she's "committed to the Church?" If she doesn't accept most of its core teachings and doctrines, how can she be "committed to the Church" which exists only as a repository and organized vehicle for their dissemination and the authority to preach the gospel, organize and maintain the Church, and administer the ordinances?

Of course the question really is can one be liberal in their views and even critical of some things LDS and still be an active participating member. There are some on this board who would clearly say nope.

Sure. Even a complete and total apostate from the faith such as Harmony can be a "participating member." A Satanist could be a participating member. The question is "faithful" Latter day Saint, and that's a different question altogether.

Personally I like Brooks but then I am just an evil, mind darkened blighted 75% apostate hypocrite.

Oh, now we've got a clear percentage? Well, "most" sounds pretty close to 75%.

My guess is the people like Brooks, John Dehlin and others would have had some form of Church discipline heaped upon them 20 years ago.

So have I had some church discipline "heaped on me" years ago. Guess what, Jason?

But things have changed. The Church really is at a major cross roads I think. With the information age, social media, access to information that previously was not available and so it it very difficult for the Church to silence or deal with such individuals in a way that might separate them from the Church.

Yup, just the standard Chapel/Internet/Signature Books social-psychological boilerplate. Do you feel more sophisticated now for having utilized the presently fashionable secularist/liberal explanation for apostasy from the gospel?

So the question I have is this. Can the Church accept and even embrace such open diversity?

Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way.

If yes what will it make the Church look like 20 years from now?

Like the mainline Protestant denominations, the Unitarians, and the Reorganized Church.

If no, what will that mean?

The church will continue to swim upstream, teaching the truths of the gospel, raising a warning voice regarding the consequences of rejecting it, and being as politically incorrect as possible.

Will the Church retrench even more?

There's nothing to retrench. Its never moved an inch.

If yes will is bleed more members out the door?

Don't forget to turn out the light as you go. If one really doesn't want to live by, obey, and conform ones life to the standards, teachings, and requirements of the gospel, no one can, or would dream, of forcing you to stay.

[_Chap]

This in the comments section shows that Bott's views are still held by some, regarding the black issue. Note that the comment was from a "Gramajane"

Also that my extended study and personal experiences with the priesthood being held in reserve for some people of color--- while we served them with blessings from it and [b]they were not required to serve us[/b],

Yeah, those people ....

I love that expression 'held in reserve'. It works in so many contexts:

"The right to register to vote was held in reserve for people of color."

"The right to stay in the same hotel as white people was held in reserve for people of color."

The right to choose their own seats in a bus was held in reserve for people of color."

How ungrateful they were, when all the time 'we' were 'holding things in reserve' for 'them'.

Those people!


(by the way:

Straight is the gate ...

Nope. It would be nonsensical for a gate to be 'straight'. In obsolete English it could however be 'strait' (="narrow, tight"). Like a certain kind of jacket, yah know?)

[_Droopy]

So Droopy's response to my questions will an obvious no. No room for liberal non down the line thinkers. So Droopy I am interested in what you think the Church will look like 20 years from now if it takes your hard line view and purges the Brooks, Dehlins out of the Church.

Straight is the gate and narrow is the way. Few there be that go therein. That is the doctrine of the gospel and of Christ. Anything outside that straight gate, narrow way, and beyond the rod of iron is suspect, at best, or washed up on the shores of Babylon, and needs be left alone, as much as possible, given human frailty and our propensity to let go of the iron rod and go wandering off "on strange roads."

[_Droopy]

The only thing that interests me about this is that it seems to me that the Chapel Mormons (who make up the majority of Meridian's readership) are starting to find out that Internet Mormons exist. For the most part, Chapel Mormons have been blissfully unaware of the existence of Internet Mormons, mainly because Internet Mormons do a great job impersonating Chapel Mormons on Sunday. Seeing Internet Mormons in their real habitat, when they let it all hang out, is going to be a real eye-opener for Chapel Mormons.

The one thing really unpleasant about the regurgitation of yesterday's macaroni and cheese is the clean-up. I'm just not up to it.