MADness - banned - folk versus orthodox Mormon

[_Ray A]

I think it means they are so determined to rid the church of folk Mormonism that they don’t mind if the cost is a few folk Mormons going out the door along with it.

Not at all. And these are the verses they use to support that:

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. (John 6)

The "Church of the Firstborn" are those who go all the way, firmly believing that the Church leaders have as much authority as Christ. And whatever they require is "God's will". There is simply, in the final analysis, no time for "social Mormonism" or "cafeteria Mormons". The "sorting out" process is going on at this very moment, and unless one proves to be "valiant" in every sense of the word (think of Brigham and Heber standing by Joseph Smith), they cannot qualify for multiple wives and endless "glory".

[_beastie]

The "Church of the Firstborn" are those who go all the way, firmly believing that the Church leaders have as much authority as Christ. And whatever they require is "God's will". There is simply, in the final analysis, no time for "social Mormonism" or "cafeteria Mormons". The "sorting out" process is going on at this very moment, and unless one proves to be "valiant" in every sense of the word (think of Brigham and Heber standing by Joseph Smith), they cannot qualify for multiple wives and endless "glory".

But, Ray, how could they justify that when the only "sin" of these people is actually believing the words of past prophets?

[_Ray A]

There is no doubt McConkie was an elitist arse. Perhaps it is sign of my naïveté that I cannot bring myself to believe he represents most church leaders.

You have to remember they are privy to things like "second anointings", and maybe Mc Conkie was just more open than other GAs. They are not on a humanitarian picnic or doing charity work just for the sake of "good will". That's just more Celestial fly-buys to their heavenly account. If they didn't believe in Mormonism, many of them might as well give a rat's arse about the poor. They are only in this for one thing, and one thing only - their OWN exaltation.

I'll get to your next question (above) soon.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You were banned, Beastie, because you'd climbed within one step of the thing the apologists had put so much effort into trying to dispel: namely, that the Brethren are starting in intervene in Mopologetics. What they need to convince the TBMs of more than anything else is that the Brethren support apologetics (without ever "officially" sanctioning it, of course). And what you had done is put all the logical steps in place:

---Have their been "factions" among the Brethren throughout the Church's history?
---Yes, without question there have been "factions." (You and 007 cited one example. Another--actually, many--can be found in Quinn's 2nd Mormon Hierarchy book.)

---If the Brethren were to observe the behavior of the apologists--including Scott Lloyd's derogatory remarks about "folk Mormons"--might some "faction" among them disapprove?
---Yes, absolutely certain General Authorities would disapprove of this unChristian behavior.

---If some of the Brethren disapprove of the apologists' activities, might they intervene and order up a "toning down"?
---Yes, absolutely.

By making this logical line of thinking so plain, you threatened to totally undermine everything that Scott Gordon and DCP (and the behind-the-scenes MAD & FAIR people) have been fighting to achieve.

[_beastie]

You have to remember they are privy to things like "second anointings", and maybe Mc Conkie was just more open than other GAs. They are not on a humanitarian picnic or doing charity work just for the sake of "good will". That's just more Celestial fly-buys to their heavenly account. If they didn't believe in Mormonism, many of them might as well give a rat's arse about the poor. They are only in this for one thing, and one thing only - their OWN exaltation.

Yes, I agree, that, in the end, it’s about attaining one’s OWN exaltation. But I always thought that working to save OTHERS, as well, was in important part of that exaltation.

But it is true that I was a convert, and perhaps I underestimated how much my thinking was affected by my protestant upbringing.

You were banned, Beastie, because you'd climbed within one step of the thing the apologists had put so much effort into trying to dispel: namely, that the Brethren are starting in intervene in Mopologetics. What they need to convince the TBMs of more than anything else is that the Brethren support apologetics (without ever "officially" sanctioning it, of course). And what you had done is put all the logical steps in place:

---Have their been "factions" among the Brethren throughout the Church's history?
---Yes, without question there have been "factions." (You and 007 cited one example. Another--actually, many--can be found in Quinn's 2nd Mormon Hierarchy book.)

---If the Brethren were to observe the behavior of the apologists--including Scott Lloyd's derogatory remarks about "folk Mormons"--might some "faction" among them disapprove?
---Yes, absolutely certain General Authorities would disapprove of this unChristian behavior.

---If some of the Brethren disapprove of the apologists' activities, might they intervene and order up a "toning down"?
---Yes, absolutely.

By making this logical line of thinking so plain, you threatened to totally undermine everything that Scott Gordon and DCP (and the behind-the-scenes MAD & FAIR people) have been fighting to achieve.

Without a doubt, that was the argument I was building.

And that may be why other MADdites lined up to defend what I think is Scott Lloyd’s indefensible remark – that it is “untenable” that any GA would be offended by Lloyd’s depiction of folk Mormons. If they admit that I may be right, and some GAs would be offended, well, then the next step is logical.

[_Ray A]

But, Ray, how could they justify that when the only "sin" of these people is actually believing the words of past prophets?

They, "folk-Mormons", need to go to "higher levels". They are prone to apostasy if they don't understand "Internet Mormonism", and likely to leave the Church should they encounter Internet Mormons and "more sophisticated debate". They are vulnerable. And until they "rise" to the level of a Schryver or Lloyd, that is, what Martin Marty called "second naïvété", accepting Joseph Smith and Mormonism unconditionally, which means even contrary to known evidence, i.e., "exercising faith", they are likely to fall. In other words, you must be able to completely twist logic and eventually go on faith alone. And not all can do that.

You know as well as I do that "accpeting prophets" (on a "higher level") means also accepting that they can be wrong, but that's not how the average "Chapel Mormon" thinks. So there's more to this than simply "accepting past prophets". It is the belief that while prophets can be wrong, the Church is still "divine" and "divinely authorised". You must be able to defy all logic, and sustain Joseph Smith under ALL circumstances - even when he's wrong! And produce some "amazing apologetics" to justify him.

The average "folk Mormon" who "accepts prophets" accepts them at their word. The Internet Mormon doesn't. Because he/she knows how fallible their words are, or can be, but they will never budge from the idea that Mormonism itself could be false. So they do not rely on "accepting prophets".

[_Gadianton]

by the way, the apologists are finally coming around to outright PROVE the Chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon model.

Not only are now admitting that Chapel Mormons exist, but affirming the schism that Doctor Shades has discussed. According to the apologists, Chapel Mormons or Folk Mormons represent an apostate sect that the general authorities themselves condemn!

This is unbelievable!

[_beastie]

They, "folk-Mormons", need to go to "higher levels". They are prone to apostasy if they don't understand "Internet Mormonism", and likely to leave the Church should they encounter Internet Mormons and "more sophisticated debate". They are vulnerable. And until they "rise" to the level of a Schryver or Lloyd, that is, what Martin Marty called "second naïveté", accepting Joseph Smith and Mormonism unconditionally, which means even contrary to known evidence, i.e., "exercising faith", they are likely to fall. In other words, you must be able to completely twist logic and eventually go on faith alone. And not all can do that.

You know as well as I do that "accpeting prophets" (on a "higher level") means also accepting that they can be wrong, but that's not how the average "Chapel Mormon" thinks. So there's more to this than simply "accepting past prophets". It is the belief that while prophets can be wrong, the Church is still "divine" and "divinely authorised". You must be able to defy all logic, and sustain Joseph Smith under ALL circumstances - even when he's wrong! And produce some "amazing apologetics" to justify him.

The average "folk Mormon" who "accepts prophets" accepts them at their word. The Internet Mormon doesn't. Because he/she knows how fallible their words are, or can be, but they will never budge from the idea that Mormonism itself could be false. So they do not rely on "accepting prophets".

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. In the pre-internet days, one could safely remain a “folk Mormon” one’s entire life without ever having to confront information that could result in the “shaken faith syndrome”. But, more and more, particularly as the next generation that is completely plugged in to the internet comes of age, that simply is not possible (except for maybe third world members). So I guess the philosophy could be that the church was going to inevitably lose those folk Mormons…so there is no real cost to alienating them.

It does make sense in a twisted way. I guess the only way to “test” that would be to see if the brethren start engaging in similar hyperbole. But that would require the brethren to buy into internet Mormonism, and I’m not sure they’re there yet. Too many of the older generation, the pre-internet generation, to completely buy into it yet. But it may be coming. It will be fascinating to watch.

[_beastie]

by the way, the apologists are finally coming around to outright PROVE the Chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon model.

Not only are now admitting that Chapel Mormons exist, but affirming the schism that Doctor Shades has discussed. According to the apologists, Chapel Mormons or Folk Mormons represent an apostate sect that the general authorities themselves condemn!

This is unbelievable!

I KNOW!!! That’s why this latest venture, prompted by Scratch, was worth it, despite the fact that MAD is always a black-hole of time, and despite the predictable personal attacks.

I think that has to do with why I was banned from the thread as well as the summary Scratch provided. There was just no good that could come from me pressing for answers to my question about Scott Lloyd’s assertion. It was a lose-lose – such a lose-lose that it would look better to look like unfair moderators.

If posters voted against Scott, then my point about the brethren perhaps being justified stepping in would be supported. If the posters voted with Scott, then Shade’s dichotomy would be supported. There was no way for them to win, and it’s possible at least one mod was astute enough to recognize that.

[_beastie]

Well, guess what - suddenly I'm allowed back on the thread - and mods are suggesting I LIED about being prohibited from viewing the thread.