MADness - banned - folk versus orthodox Mormon

[_Ray A]

USU78's comment:

In fairness, there is a function that sometimes turns up: if you are a relative newbie and you post too much within a relatively short period of time, sometimes you get locked out for a short while.

This may have happened.

Yeah, beastie is a "newbie" who managed to attain "pundit" status overnight. 2,673 posts. Joined in 2004.

Bets are on? What is USU78 smoking/drinking tonight?

[_beastie]

Yeah, beastie is a "newbie" who managed to attain "pundit" status overnight. 2,673 posts. Joined in 2004.

Bets are on? What is USU78 smoking/drinking tonight?

Well, at least he didn't automatically accuse me of lying.

Unless there is some malfunction in the moderating software that allows such a banning to take place without a record left behind, someone is lying. It isn't me.

[_Ray A]

I just went back and re-read some of the posts on MAD, and speaking of "toning-down", some may recall this release from the LDS Newsroom, which I quoted earlier in another thread. I'll paste it in full and highlight relevant portions:

SALT LAKE CITY 16 October 2009 The political world is astir. Economies are faltering. Public trust is waning. Individuals feel vulnerable. And social cohesion wears thin. Meanwhile, stories of rage and agitation fill our airwaves, streets and town halls. Where are the voices of balance and moderation in these extreme times? During a recent address given in an interfaith setting, Church President Thomas S. Monson declared: "When a spirit of goodwill prompts our thinking and when united effort goes to work on a common problem, the results can be most gratifying." Further, former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley once said that living “together in communities with respect and concern one for another” is “the hallmark of civilization.” That hallmark is under increasing threat.

So many of the habits and conventions of modern culture — ubiquitous media, anonymous and unsourced online participation, politicization of the routine, fractured community and family life — undermine the virtues and manners that make peaceful coexistence in a pluralist society possible. The fabric of civil society tears when stretched thin by its extremities. Civility, then, becomes the measure of our collective and individual character as citizens of a democracy.

A healthy democracy maintains equilibrium through diverse means, including a patchwork of competing interests and an effective system of governmental checks. Nevertheless, this order ultimately relies on the integrity of the people. Speaking at general conference, a semiannual worldwide gathering of the Church, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles asserted: “In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay.” Likewise, Presiding Bishop H. David Burton emphasized that the virtues of fidelity, charity, generosity, humility and responsibility “form the foundation of a Christian life and are the outward manifestation of the inner man.” Thus, moral virtues blend into civic virtues. The seriousness of our common challenges calls for an equally serious engagement with reasonable ideas and solutions. What we need is rigorous debate, not rancorous altercations.

Civility is not only a matter of discourse. It is primarily a mode of engagement. The technological interconnectedness of society has made isolation impossible. Of all the institutions in the modern world, religion has had perhaps the greatest difficulty adjusting to the reality of give and take with the public. Today, and throughout its history, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continuously encounters the legitimate interests of various stakeholders in its interaction with the public. Rather than exempting itself from the rules of law and civility, the Church has sought the path of cooperative engagement and avoided the perils of acrimonious confrontation.

Echoing this mode of civil engagement, President Monson declared: “As a church we reach out not only to our own people but also to those people of goodwill throughout the world in that spirit of brotherhood which comes from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Speaking of civility on a personal level, Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught Latter-day Saints how to respond to criticism: “Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But, to ‘love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]’ (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.”

The moral basis of civility is the Golden Rule, taught by a broad range of cultures and individuals, perhaps most popularly by Jesus Christ: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). This ethic of reciprocity reminds us all of our responsibility toward one another and reinforces the communal nature of human life.

Similarly, the Book of Mormon tells a sober story of civilizational decline in which various peoples repeat the cycle of prosperity, pride and fall. In almost every case, the seeds of decay begin with the violation of the simple rules of civility. Cooperation, humility and empathy gradually give way to contention, strife and malice.

The need for civility is perhaps most relevant in the realm of partisan politics. As the Church operates in countries around the world, it embraces the richness of pluralism. Thus, the political diversity of Latter-day Saints spans the ideological spectrum. Individual members are free to choose their own political philosophy and affiliation. Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.

Furthermore, the Church views with concern the politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that render civil discussion impossible. As the Church begins to rise in prominence and its members achieve a higher public profile, a diversity of voices and opinions naturally follows. Some may even mistake these voices as being authoritative or representative of the Church. However, individual members think and speak for themselves. Only the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles speak for the whole Church..

Latter-day Saint ethical life requires members to treat their neighbors with respect, regardless of the situation. Behavior in a religious setting should be consistent with behavior in a secular setting. The Church hopes that our democratic system will facilitate kinder and more reasoned exchanges among fellow Americans than we are now seeing. In his inaugural press conference President Monson emphasized the importance of cooperation in civic endeavors: “We have a responsibility to be active in the communities where we live, all Latter-day Saints, and to work cooperatively with other churches and organizations. My objective there is ... that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together.”

The Mormon Ethic of Civility.

Isn't this what some "apostates/critics" have been asking for? A "kinder, gentler Mormonism"?

Does MAD exemplify that?

Then take this as a reproof and a call for "toning it down". It sure is tough being a Mormon, or a Christian, but Jesus didn't say they'd be exempt from trials and testing.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matt 5)

Some "lights" are not shining very brightly. I doubt that Jesus would recommend that 10,000 gallons of Rid-x be poured on his persecutors.

[_Jason Bourne]

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?

Here is how I see it. And I think I have a fairly balanced view of things. I grew up LDS, went to seminary, was taught that we would go back to Jackson County, that the second coming might be in my lifetime, that there would be a visit by Christ at Adam-ondi Ahman. There are many core teachings and yes even doctrines that are in the scriptures have been written about talked about and preached about by LDS leaders and writers that members really do believe to some extend or another. One really wonders what Scott Lloyd and his ilk mean by folk doctrine.


Then there is a time that I have been somewhat of an arrogant seemingly know it all TBM that dabbled in apologtics. I aspired to be among the scholarly. At one point I even seriously considered going back to school to get a theological degree or some sort of degree in religious studies so I could have more knowledge and credibility. I thought I knew more then most members. Well I probably did due to my time and effort is studying things LDS. But over time the tact of the apologist, things just like Lloyd suggests, things like dismissing so much that leaders say and have taught as opinion only, the on going attempt to back peddle from techings that seem a core part of the LDS Church just did not sit will with me. Then there was for me the realization that there really are some seemingly irreconcilable problems, well this had led me to where I am today.

So now I participate in the LDS Church in a different way and I see such variety of people. Some believe more of what may now, for whatever reason, and maybe for this discussion only, be termed folk doctrine. Some may believe less. Some may be more like me but we never know because we never or rarely discuss it though there a a few persons I know like me that I have talked to in my real life.

So what does this all mean? The MAD folks are a cadre of a very few who think more highly of themselves than anyone else does. Most active members by far do not post on such message boards, have little interest in FARMS or the debates between defenders and critics. Most stick to to the lesson manuals, may read scriptures and have FHE and may pick up a fairly benign book or two about the Church here and there and are busy with callings, family and work. Most would be quite fine with Meldrum's view or others may be more interested in a LGT view. Faithful believing LDS run the gammet on some of these things. But they are the ones who run the Church. But there are lots of comments about lots of things. Just a while back in priesthood a discussion of heavenly mother came up. One of the smartest people I know, both in his professoin and in Church doctrine and study chimed in and said that we do not talk about a heavenly mother in detail because we all have different heavenly mothers. IN other words God has many wives and by implication so will males who are exalted. Is this folk doctrine? Is this man not as orthodox as Lloyd think he is? Would a GA view this man like Lloyd might? I do not think so. And let me tell you, there is no question that on a intelligence level this man would make Lloyd look like a midget. The man is just a brilliant scientist.

I have no doubt that most GAs would not be happy nor agree with Lloyd's ridiculous and arrogant position. Think about Elder Ballard's comments over the past few years as well as other GAs about how we should act when engaging and dialoguing about our faith with those who disagree. Think about his comments about believers getting out in the various ways one can on the internet and promoting a positive message about the Church. Most members are what Lloyd disdainfully refers to as Folk Mormons or whatever he called it. They make up more of the Church than Lloyd's cadre and others on MAD. They are the minority, the ones that want to cherry pick from what the leaders say. They do not think the GAs are serious when the GAs say "Follow the brethren" as well as noting that what leaders say in conference should be studied along with the standard works. Do you honestly think that the GAs are going to alienate the bulk of the active members be agreeing with such a stupid and faulty premise as Lloyd's really is? As has been noted, I think many of the GAs could fall into Lloyd's folk Mormon classification.

Lloyd and those that agree with him are in their own little delusional and arrogant world.

[_Yoda]

Lloyd and those that agree with him are in their own little delusional and arrogant world.

Amen, Jason! This is a sig-worthy statement.

I agree with everything you said. I grew up in the same era you did. We are definitely "kindred spirits". :)

[_Jason Bourne]

---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.)

As well as the Bio David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. The recent Kimball bio by his son as well. Both demonstrate that there is quite a bit of posturing for policy and power among the top leadership.

---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.

I have to say I think Scratch is right on about this one. How about that!

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

I think this is an overly cynical view. All those who believe in and afterlife are somewhat motivated at least initially by self interest. But I think it grows beyond that to genuine love and caring for one's fellow being. Ray is being way too cynical about this.

[_Nimrod]

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.

I think this is an overly cynical view. All those who believe in and afterlife are somewhat motivated at least initially by self interest. But I think it grows beyond that to genuine love and caring for one's fellow being. Ray is being way too cynical about this.

I am 50 years of age. I spent precisely the first 1/2 of my life in what was increasingly becoming LDS Inc and less Mormonism. The last 1/2 of my life I have been free of the yoke, and an observer in a community that is more than 50% LDS.

I am fortunate not to have darkened the door of an LDS chapel in more than 20 years, except on perhaps the occasion of a funeral.

Hearkening back to the first 1/2 of my life, I remember a subdivision among the Chapel Mormons. There were people that exuded genuine kindness and consideration for others. They tended to be older than younger, more female than male. They rarely uttered a word about eternal progression or the hereafter, except perhaps to say they welcomed the time when they could once again see family members that had already died, and perhaps see God and Jesus. These people did not talk in terms of three kingdoms of heaven or exhaltation or anything of that ilk. Their temple sealings were of value to give them the opportunity to see again those family members who had died.

Then there were the people that were the Stake leaders, the Ward leaders, and even teachers of classes at Priesthood, Sunday School, etc. They spoke of temptation, the devil, the atonement, the pre-existence, the 2nd Coming, the millennial reign, the judgment, the resurrection of bodies made whole, spirits of the dead having a 2nd chance due to baptisms for the dead--but it being harder not being in the flesh (by the way, which seemed odd to me), one's calling and election made sure, etc. They begrudged home teaching, and did not exude any genuine kindness or care for others. It was their own exhaltation that was in their headlights.

Now I suppose some of this latter group would over time become part of the former group. I don't know. In my observations, I did not see it. Those that were caught up in achieving their own exhaltation became, in my observation, more entrenched with time in that mode. And many that were in the kindness group had not, I would find out, been active when they were younger. So for me, I did not see much progression of those in the seeking exhaltation group migrating into the kindness group.

Funny too, Jason, that you mention Ballard for the preaching on how LDS ought to act when dealing with those not of the 'faith'. In that first 1/2 of my life, I had occasion to meet 10-12 GAs. Some did seem truly caring for others, but Ballard was among those GAs I met the most singularly, strikingly arrogant and indifferent. (Oaks on the other hand was one whom I saw, pre-GA days, exhibit true kindness.)

[_Ray A]

I think this is an overly cynical view. All those who believe in and afterlife are somewhat motivated at least initially by self interest. But I think it grows beyond that to genuine love and caring for one's fellow being. Ray is being way too cynical about this.

I think you're speaking as a more liberal-thinking Mormon there, Jason. Consider Clayton Christensen's view:

Why do I choose to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an organized religion, rather than attempt as an individual to live a good life? It is because the church helps me understand and practice the essence of Christianity. The mechanism by which the organization achieves this is to have no professional clergy. We don’t hire ministers or priests to teach and care for us. This forces us to teach and care for each other – and in my view, this is the core of Christian living as Christ taught it. I actually have come to feel badly for my friends who belong to faiths in which professional clergy are employed – because they don’t know how much joy they miss when they “outsource” the teaching and care of the members of their church to specially trained professionals.

(Emphasis added)

It's not as if those of other faiths don't do charity work, and most of them don't believe in "exaltation" and being CEOs of worlds with 55 female secretaries as a reward for faithfulness. Maybe there's a lot more behind the Mormon "charity impetus", but nevertheless it is still charity. They can give it all, as far as I'm concerned, because regardless of real motives it's still assisting others. I also remember one GA speaking about "selfish altruism", but that's actually a human trait, not a "divine one". When you boil it all down the believer always sees his faith and obedience as a quid pro quo. It would be folly to suggest otherwise. This is even the case for a dedicated theist who believes "God is watching". He's less likely to do evil with that thought in mind. Now when person believes there no quid pro quo, no God watching, and still renders selfless service to humanity, I would consider that above the quid pro quo mentality. There are people like that, for example:

The Fred Hollows Foundation.

Fred Hollows once said: "“To my mind, having a care and concern for others is the highest of the human qualities.”

He was an atheist.

[_Fiannan]

Objecting to MAD mods is the first sign of apostasy.

It's also a sign of integrity. And the more Mormons who believe in fairness, and object to the Nazi-like control the MAD board exercises (see D&C 121), the more hope there is that not all Mormons sell themselves out so cheaply.

That is why MAD is, actually, anti-Mormon.

There seem to be a lot of people who get banned over there who use this board. I wonder, when I was a little kid I often came across a snake in the grass. I never wanted to hurt it but it was fun to first just examine it, and then, once it got angry antagonize it a bit before leaving it be. Is my analogy to a snake proper and fitting of the people who control that board?