Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

[_Jersey Girl]

His simple statement here does not have any impact on his life or the lives of others.

Neither does anything that you say, or I say, or any other poster here.

Get a grip.

[_RockSlider]

nevazhno

Thanks for you note nev! Might I suggest you use the lawyer who is doing this for free (apparently he has long before this) as his numbers will be public and every "vote" will be counted and seen. It was up to 2000 last night just through this man

[_RockSlider]

Sanctorian,

I have not followed Mak's posting here very long. Thus I don't know what your beef might be with him. All I know is after watching and asking a few questions a few weeks back, I realized Mak thoughts on my concerns all matched my concerns.

We seemed to be on the same page .... well with my concerns ... the guys like pinky and the brain or some damn thing.

[_maklelan]

Really? Here's what I know, real people are struggling with this policy.

And you think I'm not directly involved with many of these real people? You think my discreetness here means I haven't been weeping over this for days? You think your perception of my persona here on this single message board gives you some inkling of who I am in person and what my history and experience within and outside the Church is?

Some probably will take their lives because of this policy. Families will certainly be torn apart from this policy. Mark supports the church through his employment, tithing and service hours. He says he's against this policy but continues to support the church through his employment, tithing and service hours.

Tell me again how he's taking a stand that will have any influence on the change of this policy?

You will never have any idea how far off you are with this little rhetorical crusade of yours.

[_Sanctorian]

Really? Here's what I know, real people are struggling with this policy.

And you think I'm not directly involved with many of these real people? You think my discreetness here means I haven't been weeping over this for days? You think your perception of my persona here on this single message board gives you some inkling of who I am in person and what my history and experience within and outside the Church is?

Some probably will take their lives because of this policy. Families will certainly be torn apart from this policy. Mark supports the church through his employment, tithing and service hours. He says he's against this policy but continues to support the church through his employment, tithing and service hours.

Tell me again how he's taking a stand that will have any influence on the change of this policy?

You will never have any idea how far off you are with this little rhetorical crusade of yours.

I already suggested I have no idea what you do beyond this board. I also suggested you might very well be taking a stance beyond this board and for that you should deserve respect. What I am suggesting is in relation to this board. A mere statement on this board that in and of itself has no influence on anything does not deserve the amount of praise and admiration because the statement does not prove anything. I already think you're a stand up guy. I think it's great you're opposed to this position. If your position is leading to action, even better. I'm not asking for proof. That alone is for you to answer.

[_Sanctorian]

Sanctorian,

I have not followed Mak's posting here very long. Thus I don't know what your beef might be with him. All I know is after watching and asking a few questions a few weeks back, I realized Mak thoughts on my concerns all matched my concerns.

We seemed to be on the same page .... well with my concerns ... the guys like pinky and the brain or some damn thing.

I don't have a beef with Mak per se. My beef is what the character of Mak represents. Someone that clearly has little core belief in Mormonism yet still supports and advocates Mormonism. Mormonism is a hateful, fraudulent, life destroying organization and everyone should be fundamentally opposed to it. When someone like Mak exhibits support for such an organization knowing damn well it's harmful and fraudulent, I take issue with that.

This entire thread is based on that idea. A group of intellectual insiders that don't believe in the foundational claims of Mormonism and are trying to institute change from the inside have ZERO influence on the church. The only people that have real influence on the church are outside influences. This policy is a microcosm of Mormonism as a whole. Mak and his friends can do nothing from the inside but hope for change. Meanwhile, people on the outside are taking action and forcing change.

I can come on a board all day long and bitch about Mormonism and nothing will change. When I remove my name and stop paying tithing, that hurts the church in some small fashion. If enough people do the same, the church takes notice. When enough people boycott the church and its revenue sources, revelation happens.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't have a beef with Mak per se. My beef is what the character of Mak represents. Someone that clearly has little core belief in Mormonism yet still supports and advocates Mormonism. Mormonism is a hateful, fraudulent, life destroying organization and everyone should be fundamentally opposed to it. When someone like Mak exhibits support for such an organization knowing damn well it's harmful and fraudulent, I take issue with that.

Well, it is paying the bills.

That said, I don't really fault anyone for working for the Church. Making money is what it is, and idealism rarely gets the bills paid.

I worked for the Army until retirement, and I was fundamentally opposed to many of the policies, military campaigns, and the organizational bureaucracy for the majority of my career. But there are nuggets of good here and there, and there are good & competent folks here and there. I've had people tell me I'm a war criminal because I supported the military industrial complex by maintaining my employment with the Army.

And that may be the case. But at the end of the day I liked having money, and I was vested to a certain degree. I certainly wasn't going to throw away a decade's worth of specialization and start over because of how Gays were being treated at the time.

I look at people like those employed by the COB, and realize they are just like others in any organization just trying to get by. Sure they could take an ideological stance and quit, but if they don't have the luxury of viable economic alternatives then I certainly don't fault them for staying put.

The best thing a man like Mr. Mak can do is keep plugging away, offering amiable opinions on matters, and then over time change will happen naturally. He has immediate obligations the Church is fulfilling for him, and he certainly should see it through. I'm not sure what else a Church employee is supposed to do if staying put is a really good deal for him and his family?

- Doc

[_grindael]

I think the Church makes a token effort to acknowledge the humanity of its leaders and their motivations, but tends to allow the cult of obedience to overshadow it.

Who do you mean by "the Church" here? I think I know, but don't want to put words in your mouth.

The historical introduction that was allowed to be added to OD––2 I think functions as an additional official acknowledgement that leadership can be guided by non-divine motivations.

I would agree Mak, if only if this were true: "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."

Church records absolutely do offer clear insights into the origins of the priesthood ban against blacks. Brigham Young claimed that it was instigated by divine guidance or motivation. (revelation) If only they were honest here, Mak, your statement would have some teeth. I'm open to the possibility of your premise here, if you used a different example. I think they make every effort to acknowledge that they are human and make mistakes, but not with things of this nature. (Doctrine, revelation, teachings, etc.) They had to recraft the priesthood narrative to make it work the way you are stating above. It is not one prophet having a revelation that overturns the true teachings of a former prophet, rather it is one prophet overturning a policy that they claim they don't know the origins of.

Take for example what Dallin Oaks said recently, which I think perfectly encapsulates their thinking today: (Take note especially after the "but")...

I also testify to you that the teachings the savior has given us in his own words recorded in the New Testament and in modern revelation through his authorized spokesman are true and they set out for us the way to avoid being deceived by seducing spirits, to use the scriptural term, or by those who have themselves been deceived by seducing spirits. Stand fast with the leadership of the church. I heard President Hinckley in describing a revelation he had received concerning the building of small temples form which he will soon benefit in this part of the world that he did not claim perfection that there was only one perfect person who had ever lived upon this earth and even the prophets of God were not perfect. But, as the Prophet Joseph Smith said, on a great occasion, ‘there is no error in the teachings.’ Spoken under the influence of the spirit of the Lord, witnessed to be true in the hearts and minds of those who have the gift of the Holy Ghost, those teachings are the Lord’s will to his people. And I testify to you that these teachings are true and that if we hold with and follow the current leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, we will stay on the path toward eternal life. (Boise Rescue Transcript)

[_Sanctorian]

Well, it is paying the bills.

- Doc

I don't have a problem with that. In fact, that seems like a good way to recoup tithing. But don't pretend that's not your motivation and if it is, keep your mouth shut and stop advocating the church. Just do your job, collect your paycheck, go home, kiss your wife and kids and thank Jebus for surviving another day.

[_palerobber]

deleted