What is the point of the new Mormon philosophy of MG?

[_Lloyd Dobler]

...Terryl Givens...Crucible of Doubt.]

Me: ...I’ve read a lot of his work...it doesn’t make sense to me. And it is nothing like the gospel you hear in church.

For the sake of those that may not have read Crucible of Doubt it might be helpful if you could create a list of things that the Givens are teaching/sharing in their book that don't make sense to you. I'm reading the book, Kindle version, right now and honestly haven't run across anything significant that doesn't "make sense".

Interested in seeing your list. Page numbers and/or chapters might be helpful. There are a lot of people out there reading this book. If it really doesn't make sense or is "nothing like the gospel you hear in church", that ought to be brought into the light of day.

Regards,
MG

Yeah, because Crucible of Doubt is just sweeping the country. Tell me MG, are more people reading the Crucible of Doubt or Letter to a CES director? Now you are asking Tim to do the heavy lifting for you with another list request. Why don't YOU make the list MG? I mean your the one reading the freaking book, you make the list. You know full well all of the areas and ideas where Terryl is trying to move the tbm mindset toward the new Mormon philosophy.

You make the list and than Tim respond. It seems only fair. Stop giving people homework assignments and step up and make a list of all of the ideas where this new Mormon philosophy is going to game change the tbm mindset and make the church a better place.

[_Aero]

All of this talk about the future leaders of the LDS church when I thought God was leading the church. Is the church led by these men or God?

I just have to wonder if the future of the LDS church that MG portrays is the right way for the church to be, why didn't God institute it that way in the first place? Why is that direction coming mostly from the lay members of the church rather than God directed leadership?

[_Tim the Enchanter]

...Terryl Givens...Crucible of Doubt.]

Me: ...I’ve read a lot of his work...it doesn’t make sense to me. And it is nothing like the gospel you hear in church.

For the sake of those that may not have read Crucible of Doubt it might be helpful if you could create a list of things that the Givens are teaching/sharing in their book that don't make sense to you. I'm reading the book, Kindle version, right now and honestly haven't run across anything significant that doesn't "make sense".

Interested in seeing your list. Page numbers and/or chapters might be helpful. There are a lot of people out there reading this book. If it really doesn't make sense or is "nothing like the gospel you hear in church", that ought to be brought into the light of day.

Regards,
MG

The stake president didn't mention Crucible of Doubt specifically, though I suspect that's what he was referencing. When I said I've read some of his work, I wasn't referring to Crucible of Doubt. I haven't read it. I was referring to things like his Letter to a Doubter, his Reddit AMA, and I'm sure a few other things of his that I've read here and there.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

mentalgymnast, as another example of the way the church operates, in the last General Conference, Lynn Robbins said this:

“Which way do you face?” President Boyd K. Packer surprised me with this puzzling question while we were traveling together on my very first assignment as a new Seventy. Without an explanation to put the question in context, I was baffled. “A Seventy,” he continued, “does not represent the people to the prophet but the prophet to the people. Never forget which way you face!” It was a powerful lesson.

This is the way the church works. Bishops don't represent the ward members to the stake. Stake presidents don't represent the stake to the area. Area presidents' don't represent the area to the 15. The 15 doesn't represent the church to God. It's the reverse. The church claims that God speaks His will through the 15. The 15 convey God's will to the Area, who convey God's will to the Stake, who convey God's will God to the Bishop, who convey God's will to the ward.

[_Frodo]

There seems to be a lot of discussion using the words paradigms and assumptions. It is interesting to me that although I no longer believe in the church it seems on an initial evaluation that it just might be a workable solution to regain someones faith in the church. Unfortunately on closer inspection where the rubber meets the road it just does not work for me.

Here is an example. DNA and population sizes are big problems for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Adding a preexisting population to the text would somewhat help. So to add these others all I need to do is change those pesky assumption and paradigms. The problem though is that almost every piece of evidence does not support these others. Is it really reasonable for me to turn, twist and contort the evidence to try and fix this problem?

Since the evidence lies heavily against the historicity of the Book of Mormon why not just go with the evidence?

Would those who are willing to change assumptions and paradigms be as willing do do so with regards to other belief systems?

To me it just seems like platitudes and wishful thinking that this type of mental change can really work, unless of course to have a great desire to maintain current belief in spite of the evidence.

[_mentalgymnast]

Why don't YOU make the list MG? I mean your the one reading the freaking book, you make the list.

The list would contain things that "don't make sense" paraphrasing Tim's comments. Although he has now clarified that he hasn't read Crucible of Doubt. I've already mentioned that as I have been reading the book I haven't run across anything of significance that doesn't make sense to me so far. So I'd have a hard time making a list.

Maybe as I get further into the book I may come across stuff that doesn't make sense...we'll see.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

All of this talk about the future leaders of the LDS church when I thought God was leading the church. Is the church led by these men or God?

Ultimately I think that we would have to look at the church as being run on the principle of common consent. The ins and outs of how that principle works "on the ground" can become rather complex and convoluted when you think about all the possible variables involved.

I just have to wonder if the future of the LDS church that MG portrays is the right way for the church to be, why didn't God institute it that way in the first place? Why is that direction coming mostly from the lay members of the church rather than God directed leadership?

Again, I think it comes around to the concept of common consent...and compromise/change at times. There are dynamics involved in decision making, history writing, doctrinal development...and the rolling out of the same, complete and unadulterated honesty, etc., etc., that are all connected/dependent on the relative and ever changing/evolving positions of people (including socio-political trends, etc.), leaders (and their idiosyncrasies), and God (who adapts to the agency and choices of humans).

I don't think God can force the human mind. He can guide and correct, but not force people to be something other than what they choose to be. Common consent is always at play...even if it is behind the scenes.

The future of the church is a composite of the lay membership, the leaders, and God's interaction with these groups which have a natural tension in play with one another. Most people don't like to be told what to do by other people. And if those people make claims to be directed and/or influenced by God, that complicates things. Especially when we have so many examples of humans doing stupid things when claiming God's "voice" in their minds/lives.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

mentalgymnast, as another example of the way the church operates, in the last General Conference, Lynn Robbins said this:

“Which way do you face?” President Boyd K. Packer surprised me with this puzzling question while we were traveling together on my very first assignment as a new Seventy. Without an explanation to put the question in context, I was baffled. “A Seventy,” he continued, “does not represent the people to the prophet but the prophet to the people. Never forget which way you face!” It was a powerful lesson.

This is the way the church works. Bishops don't represent the ward members to the stake. Stake presidents don't represent the stake to the area. Area presidents' don't represent the area to the 15. The 15 doesn't represent the church to God. It's the reverse. The church claims that God speaks His will through the 15. The 15 convey God's will to the Area, who convey God's will to the Stake, who convey God's will God to the Bishop, who convey God's will to the ward.

Years ago I remember a GC talk that had to do with revelation not only moving top down...SL to the members...but bottom up, from the members up to the SL leadership. Remember that one? So I think it goes both ways. But you're right, when push comes to shove the final implementation standards come from SL Central. But this talk caused me to consider, at least the possibility, that the brethren in SL are susceptible to input that comes through the communication line through the rank and file of the church. OW seems to show that some folks in leadership hear what's going on out in the hinterlands and/or suburbs of the church.

Regards.
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Since the evidence lies heavily against the historicity of the Book of Mormon why not just go with the evidence?

Because the evidence can be presented both ways either in support of the Book of Mormon or not. Nothing seems to be set in concrete one way or the other. Thus the need to be open to various modes and means of approaching the 'truth' of the matter(s). Assumptions and paradigm (new ways of looking at things) changes play an important part as one learns new information and assimilates that information into pre-existing assumptions and/or paradigms that had been in place or in play. It's the nature of evolutionary change in almost everything we observe/experience. Very little stays static.

Regards,
MG

[_Bazooka]

Since the evidence lies heavily against the historicity of the Book of Mormon why not just go with the evidence?

Because the evidence can be presented both ways either in support of the Book of Mormon or not. Nothing seems to be set in concrete one way or the other. Thus the need to be open to various modes and means of approaching the 'truth' of the matter(s). Assumptions and paradigm (new ways of looking at things) changes play an important part as one learns new information and assimilates that information into pre-existing assumptions and/or paradigms that had been in place or in play. It's the nature of evolutionary change in almost everything we observe/experience. Very little stays static.

Regards,
MG

I think you'd have to agree that the observable evidence is not strongly in favour of the Book of Mormon's historicity, it's strongly against.
I'm not saying you cannot make a case for it being historic in nature. But the observable evidence would lead a reasonable person to conclude that, on this measure alone, the book is unlikely to be what it claims to be.