Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

[_maklelan]

I can hardly wait to hear Maklelan's take on this new development.

My take is that it is ill-conceived boundary maintenance and legal prophylaxis that will cause a great deal of harm.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Mak!

I can hardly wait to hear Maklelan's take on this new development.

My take is that it is ill-conceived boundary maintenance and legal prophylaxis that will cause a great deal of harm.

I can't express to you how much I appreciate and admire your stance!

You can add this to my personal CD of "Mak's Greatest Hits!"

Pretty damn courageous too!

Thank you, Brother!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I can hardly wait to hear Maklelan's take on this new development.

My take is that it is ill-conceived boundary maintenance and legal prophylaxis that will cause a great deal of harm.

That's a pretty safe assumption to make now going on 5 days after the policy implementation (more or less). A Utah lawyer is now processing over 2,000 resignation requests since this policy change. Around 6 or 7 prominent NOM'ish & inactive Mormons here are resigning. Even solid TBM Mormons are reacting poorly to the policy such as my in-laws are currently expressing.

- Doc

[_RockSlider]

I can hardly wait to hear Maklelan's take on this new development.

My take is that it is ill-conceived boundary maintenance and legal prophylaxis that will cause a great deal of harm.

One would not expect Jesus to instruct/confirm ill-conceived policies that would cause a great deal of harm, correct?

[_maklelan]

One would not expect Jesus to instruct/confirm ill-conceived policies that would cause a great deal of harm, correct?

One would expect an adult on this forum who knows me to not pretend to project such a laughably uninformed conceptualization of the sources of Church policy onto me.

[_RockSlider]

One would not expect Jesus to instruct/confirm ill-conceived policies that would cause a great deal of harm, correct?

One would expect an adult on this forum who knows me to not pretend to project such a laughably uninformed conceptualization of the sources of Church policy onto me.

So its laughable to suggest Jesus is the source of Church policy, correct?

[_maklelan]

So its laughable to suggest Jesus is the source of Church policy, correct?

It's laughable to insist it must unilaterally be assumed to be the case. It's further laughable to try to defend such juvenile rhetoric. Save yourself the trouble and stop trying to fit me into this artificial pigeonhole you think will make criticism more convenient and easy.

[_Kishkumen]

My take is that it is ill-conceived boundary maintenance and legal prophylaxis that will cause a great deal of harm.

I think we should allow mak's statement to stand as it is. It is pretty clear from his words where he sees this policy coming from. There is no need, I feel, to paint him into a corner.

I am happy to say that this new policy has nothing to do with Christ. I don't expect or need mak to do so in order to feel reassured that his heart is in the right place and understand that his take on the policy is both solid and laudable.

Let's give our LDS friends who are shocked and dismayed about this policy the room to process it for themselves without pushing them too hard.

[_maklelan]

That's a pretty safe assumption to make now going on 5 days after the policy implementation (more or less).

I said the exact same thing multiple times on multiple social media platforms on Thursday and every day since then. I've met with and discussed the issue with dozens of Latter-day Saints spanning the entire spectrum of activity and inactivity. Any other nuggets of wisdom?

[_RockSlider]

What I'm trying to understand is if one (not just you) does not believe Christ could not be behind a policy like this, how can they continue in it.

Or maybe I really have no clue of this intellectual new Mormonism ... does it not require Jesus to be at the head?