From My Informant: Stormy Weather Ahead for Brant Gardner?

[_Droopy]

Loran, define them how you may, but there is more than enough room within Mormonism for those who see the world differently than you do, including, I would add, for Joanna Brooks.

True as this may be as to disagreement with me personally, it still remains that there is not room in the Church for false doctrine and incorrect principles. The gospel is still a straight gate, and a narrow way. It is a wall that no thief may scale and enter. It is the ladder hung with sharp weapons that Perpetua had to negotiate in her upward journey (eventually using the head of the dragon as a rung of that ladder) I may not, in the end, be able to "endure to the end" as I wish. Or I may. In either case, there is not room in the Church for an annex to the Great and Spacious Building. There is no possible syncretism here, and that is, after all, what Joanna Brooks and the "New Order" or "Reform" Mormonism she represents is engaged in attempting to construct.

There's no need to attribute evil to either me or the school.

I don't recall having done that.

[_Droopy]

Looks like someone's toes got stepped on. Not enough "Reform" Mormons at BYU? Drain running slow? Sink clogged? Not enough political correctness in the church's flagship university?

Too much glory.

Not enough intelligence.

And those who let the Iron Rod leave their grip will ultimately end with neither.

[_Gadianton]

is massively overlong and has a lot of secular asides to explain metaphysical events. He tries to use secular means to explain a lot of what Joseph Smith did in the translation process. Not quite the sort of thing that would resonate with the normal apologetic crowd.

The #1 unwritten rule is that advanced degrees in some kind of related field outweigh any evidence. A thousand video clips of saucers on youtube is worth less than a single physicist who believes UFOs exist, but is vague on details. Assent alone implies that not only someone accomplished believes, but the belief implies consistency with the subject expertise of the believer, and a great deal of work if not the bulk of it is done before any particulars are on the table. A Phd in a real academic setting is allowed to speak, a Phd in an apologetic setting has the final word.

The #2 unwritten rule is that claims should be unfalsifiable but also jargon rich and scholarly sounding. Note here I mean "sounding" to penetrate beneath rhetoric alone, and reflect an understanding of and belief in as many credible ideas as possible. Criticism of the academy in the right way is allowed as real scholars often consider themselves "rebels" and criticize their institutions.

A video clip of aliens is a huge testimony builder, but also a testimony destroyer when debunked. A technical exposition on the plausibility of space travel or even alien encounters with as vague of reference as possible to Roswell etc., might go a long way to establish credibility, but is less likely to win hardcore converts. The fantasy apologists create work the market between these extremes in a complex game to win market share. The apologists looking to "boom" are highly critical of easy evidence. Brant is among those, as he admits to debunking amateur apologists on MST. But if Bot is right, then Brant strays from safety a bit and spices things up. Now, spicing up the subject matter isn't necessarily bad, it could be a ploy that pays off, especially in the short run to win attention without substantial liability. But it's risky in the long run.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Thank you for offering up your take, Dr. Robbers. That's definitely an interesting point re: having degrees, though if that is the case, I rather wonder why David Bokovoy seems to be getting shafted lately. Also--about MST, isn't Matthew Roper's testimony on there? And John "The Hatchet" Tvedtnes? Maybe repeated demonstrations of hostility and viciousness can serve as a substitute for having a PhD? You may be on to something here, Dean.

[_harmony]

Too much glory.

Not enough intelligence.

Perhaps... or maybe just not enough common sense?

[_harmony]

There is no possible syncretism here, and that is, after all, what Joanna Brooks and the "New Order" or "Reform" Mormonism she represents is engaged in attempting to construct.

And yet, due to continuing revelation and continuing personal revelation, the church is always a work in progress. To dogmatically assert that nothing will ever change is to deliberately wear blinders.

The church is a dynamic organization, where change is not only the norm, it is expected. Were it not so, we'd still be practicing polygamy.

Good grief.

[_Droopy]

And yet, due to continuing revelation and continuing personal revelation, the church is always a work in progress. To dogmatically assert that nothing will ever change is to deliberately wear blinders.

The church is a dynamic organization, where change is not only the norm, it is expected. Were it not so, we'd still be practicing polygamy.

Ironically, not having continued the practice of plural marriage is a manifestation of precisely the continuing revelation you think you support (or which you are using as a foil against me at the present time, as it may be). As far as the Church is concerned, plural marriage is still a true and eternal principle. You are correct that we do not practice such at this time, but that changes nothing as to its truth as a gospel principle.

Personal revelation does not alter church doctrine or alter the course of the Church as the Lord's authorized institution on earth for the teaching of his doctrine and organization of his Saints. Were that the case, the Church would be a democratic organization (and would probably have ceased to exist as a viable organization representing Jesus Christ long ago), which it is not. The Church moves forward according to the revelations of God to his living oracle, and his Special Witnesses, not from the membership to them. If this places those like Sister Brooks in the position again of following the Brethren, rather than leading them, so be it.

While it is true that the Church does change and grow as time moves on, it is also the case that, if the Church is the true church of Jesus Christ as it claims, and if its established teachings regarding the nature of such change are also true, then that change will only occur within already settled perimeters. In other words, no future revelation will ever contradict already established doctrine, even if various practices come and go as needed and relevant.

If Joanna Brooks is waiting on the periphery of the Church for the Church to, at some future point, accept open homosexuality, ordain openly homosexual church leaders, solemnize homosexual unions in its buildings and Temples; accept aspects of feminist ideology, multiculturalism, "social justice" theory, or any other aspects of Korihorist doctrine that has arisen, time and again, throughout time and amongst different peoples, in various forms, and which has taken a unique modern form since the late sixties within the West, then she and others like her will be waiting a very, very long time. So long, I fear, that the doors of the wedding feast will be closed while such foolish versions are still looking for oil for their politically correct lamps.

And that would be a great loss and tragedy.

[_harmony]

While it is true that the Church does change and grow as time moves on, it is also the case that, if the Church is the true church of Jesus Christ as it claims, and if its established teachings regarding the nature of such change are also true, then that change will only occur within already settled perimeters. In other words, no future revelation will ever contradict already established doctrine, even if various practices come and go as needed and relevant.

Too late, Droopy. It already has. Do I need to reference Brigham for you to figure it out?

If Joanna Brooks is waiting on the periphery of the Church for the Church to, at some future point, accept open homosexuality, ordain openly homosexual church leaders, solemnize homosexual unions in its buildings and Temples; accept aspects of feminist ideology, multiculturalism, "social justice" theory, or any other aspects of Korihorist doctrine that has arisen, time and again, throughout time and amongst different peoples, in various forms, and which has taken a unique modern form since the late sixties within the West, then she and others like her will be waiting a very, very long time. So long, I fear, that the doors of the wedding feast will be closed while such foolish versions are still looking for oil for their politically correct lamps.

I think what scares you the most is that she may be right.

[_Droopy]

While it is true that the Church does change and grow as time moves on, it is also the case that, if the Church is the true church of Jesus Christ as it claims, and if its established teachings regarding the nature of such change are also true, then that change will only occur within already settled perimeters. In other words, no future revelation will ever contradict already established doctrine, even if various practices come and go as needed and relevant.

Too late, Droopy. It already has. Do I need to reference Brigham for you to figure it out?

As I've not been shy of making clear in years past, your knowledge of LDS doctrine and priesthood government - and what constitutes actual doctrine and what does not - is so woefully thin as to render much of what you say in this or any other forum moot. The above is a continuation of this tradition.

If Joanna Brooks is waiting on the periphery of the Church for the Church to, at some future point, accept open homosexuality, ordain openly homosexual church leaders, solemnize homosexual unions in its buildings and Temples; accept aspects of feminist ideology, multiculturalism, "social justice" theory, or any other aspects of Korihorist doctrine that has arisen, time and again, throughout time and amongst different peoples, in various forms, and which has taken a unique modern form since the late sixties within the West, then she and others like her will be waiting a very, very long time. So long, I fear, that the doors of the wedding feast will be closed while such foolish versions are still looking for oil for their politically correct lamps.

I think what scares you the most is that she may be right.

So this then is an admission that my fundamental analysis of that which Brooks represents, philosophically regarding the nature of "Reform" or "New Order" Mormonism is essentially correct; it is a project intended to fuse key aspects of the secular intellectual/political world with the Church and its culture, substantially altering a number of its core theological and moral concepts?

[_Darth J]

If Joanna Brooks is waiting on the periphery of the Church for the Church to, at some future point, accept open homosexuality, ordain openly homosexual church leaders, solemnize homosexual unions in its buildings and Temples; accept aspects of feminist ideology, multiculturalism, "social justice" theory, or any other aspects of Korihorist doctrine that has arisen, time and again, throughout time and amongst different peoples, in various forms, and which has taken a unique modern form since the late sixties within the West, then she and others like her will be waiting a very, very long time.

The atheist straw man character in our favorite 19th-century Bible fanfic warned us about the hippies!

How could Joseph Smith have known?!?