I don't recognize this new version of Mormonism.

[_I have a question]

Gad seems to have captured the problem well, or perhaps his post is a red herring.....
(Sorry, couldn't resist, saw the cheap shot and took it)

Mormonism itself doesn't know what it believes.
Church leaders cannot articulate clearly what is or what isn't a core doctrinal tenet of the Church. The temple recommend interview questions can be ambiguous and open to local interpretation. What once was taught as doctrine is now disavowed as societal interference. What is today taught as doctrine is equally susceptible to being disavowed in the future as societal interference. The Church doesn't even know how to tell its own history and key restoration events accurately.

Ask a Mormon what the core doctrines of the Church are and they won't be able to give a clear consistent unambiguous answer. They simply don't know. There is simply nowhere to look to find the answer. Core doctrines don't exist. You can pretty much make it up as you go along. Like the leadership does.

There are two tenets that are maintained consistently.
1. Hand over your cash.
2. Do what we tell you even if it's the reverse of what we told you yesterday.

[_maklelan]

Clearly not one single person on this board has completely severed ties with Mormomisn or they wouldn't post on a Mormon discussions board.

I think it's clear I meant severing ties in the sense of no longer identifying as Mormon, not in the sense of never talking or thinking about it ever agin.

There are some (such as myself) that have resigned membership in regards to the corporation of the Salt Lake Church, but I certainly have not severed ties with Mormonism or I wouldn't be married to a Mormon, allow my kids to be baptized Mormon or participate in Mormon anything.

My dad has never been baptized, but he has allowed children to be baptized and has participated in many Mormon activities. That doesn't mean he identifies as Mormon in any sense whatsoever.

And yet here I am. Once again you make the definition and then try to move the goal posts when someone doesn't fit your rhetoric. You want to talk about dishonesty. Go back and read your posts if you want to see dishonesty and rhetoric.

I get the sense you don't know what I mean when I talk about identifying as Mormon.

[_maklelan]

Gad seems to have captured the problem well, or perhaps his post is a red herring.....
(Sorry, couldn't resist, saw the cheap shot and took it)

Mormonism itself doesn't know what it believes.

Because "it" is not a monolith that believes one thing that same way. "It" is a group with millions of members, active and inactive, who identify with the group in different ways.

Church leaders cannot articulate clearly what is or what isn't a core doctrinal tenet of the Church. The temple recommend interview questions can be ambiguous and open to local interpretation. What once was taught as doctrine is now disavowed as societal interference. What is today taught as doctrine is equally susceptible to being disavowed in the future as societal interference. The Church doesn't even know how to tell its own history and key restoration events accurately.

Everything you've said here is true of all large ideological groups. Look at the US, for instance. You can't essentialize identity as a US citizen. Everyone's got a different conceptualization of its history and the foundation myths that structure its values and past. What is important today could be disavowed tomorrow. This is just how ideological groups work. There's nothing insightful about suddenly discovering the Church works that way too.

Ask a Mormon what the core doctrines of the Church are and they won't be able to give a clear consistent unambiguous answer.

For the LDS Church, most would say the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are pretty clear, consistent, and unambiguous, but they also serve a specific rhetorical function.

They simply don't know. There is simply nowhere to look to find the answer. Core doctrines don't exist. You can pretty much make it up as you go along. Like the leadership does.

This is why it's up to the member and not you to make that call. You don't have the prerogative to declare what can and can't be done, especially in light of how terribly you understand the LDS Church.

There are two tenets that are maintained consistently.
1. Hand over your cash.
2. Do what we tell you even if it's the reverse of what we told you yesterday.

A grotesquely rhetorical and manipulative misrepresentation of LDS values, but that's not really surprising coming from you.

[_maklelan]

How does 'aggressively and confrontationally' translate into profanity?

I'm showing that others have far more aggressive and confrontational to me. Telling me "you're acting like a little bitch," and "Screw you, asshole," is far more aggressive confrontational than I have ever been, but you don't care about what the people here say. It only matters what I say.

is this more of your exaggerated self-victimization?

Would you like me to quote the profanity that has been hurled at me in the last week?

In your delusional brain

And you are now on ignore.

[_I have a question]

Gad seems to have captured the problem well, or perhaps his post is a red herring.....
(Sorry, couldn't resist, saw the cheap shot and took it)

Mormonism itself doesn't know what it believes.

Because "it" is not a monolith that believes one thing that same way. "It" is a group with millions of members, active and inactive, who identify with the group in different ways.

Of course 'it' is a monolith. Regardless of how members identify with it, it has to teach something, right? It has to set out the parameters and details of what members should or shouldn't believe to be consistent with being a member of 'it'. Mormonism is a set of teachings emanating from a central Church. It's not whatever members want it to be.

Church leaders cannot articulate clearly what is or what isn't a core doctrinal tenet of the Church. The temple recommend interview questions can be ambiguous and open to local interpretation. What once was taught as doctrine is now disavowed as societal interference. What is today taught as doctrine is equally susceptible to being disavowed in the future as societal interference. The Church doesn't even know how to tell its own history and key restoration events accurately.

Everything you've said here is true of all large ideological groups. Look at the US, for instance. You can't essentialize identity as a US citizen. Everyone's got a different conceptualization of its history and the foundation myths that structure its values and past. What is important today could be disavowed tomorrow. This is just how ideological groups work. There's nothing insightful about suddenly discovering the Church works that way too.

Thanks
However, I'd expect a large ideological group that self identifies as being the only true large ideological group with Jesus directing its daily business (see Bednars testimony at Conference) to behave on a somewhat higher plane. You'd expect leaders getting insight directly from Christ to be a little clearer and more consistent than the norm of man-made large ideological groups, right?

Ask a Mormon what the core doctrines of the Church are and they won't be able to give a clear consistent unambiguous answer.

For the LDS Church, most would say the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are pretty clear, consistent, and unambiguous, but they also serve a specific rhetorical function.

Is there anything about Mormonism that isn't rhetorical for you?

They simply don't know. There is simply nowhere to look to find the answer. Core doctrines don't exist. You can pretty much make it up as you go along. Like the leadership does.

This is why it's up to the member and not you to make that call. You don't have the prerogative to declare what can and can't be done, especially in light of how terribly you understand the LDS Church.

Of course I can. I'm a member. I have community authority to make that call, right?

There are two tenets that are maintained consistently.
1. Hand over your cash.
2. Do what we tell you even if it's the reverse of what we told you yesterday.

A grotesquely rhetorical and manipulative misrepresentation of LDS values, but that's not really surprising coming from you.

I'm simply stating the two values that I see come through consistently time and time again. Pay your donations and obey the Prophet. All else is largely a variation on those themes or simple background noise. Track your way through Conference, you'll see I'm right.

[_I have a question]

How does 'aggressively and confrontationally' translate into profanity?

I'm showing that others have far more aggressive and confrontational to me. Telling me "you're acting like a little bitch," and "f*** you, asshole," is far more aggressive confrontational than I have ever been, but you don't care about what the people here say. It only matters what I say.

I don't think those type of comments are representative of "what the people here say". I agree they are aggressive and confrontational whereas you tend towards confrontational defensiveness when you feel personally slighted. I'm probably one of the most acerbic and challenging towards you (I wouldn't describe my style as rudely aggressive but perhaps you might). However, terms like "bitch" and "f*** you asshole" seem to be very isolated and not indicative of how most posters here engage you.

Perhaps I can call on your good nature to not tar everyone with a single brush stroke.

[Guest]

There are two tenets that are maintained consistently.
1. Hand over your cash.
2. Do what we tell you even if it's the reverse of what we told you yesterday.

A grotesquely rhetorical and manipulative misrepresentation of LDS values, but that's not really surprising coming from you.

Uh huh.

[–]Lifeguard2012 6 points 9 hours ago

My dad makes a lot of money but doesn't have any retirement and is unable to help me at all with college.

But at least he gives his 10%.

This is typical. My parents did the same thing. My fellow Ward members did it, too.

But hey, somebody has to pay for that house in Draper or Day Break.

- Doc

eta: My parents were in bankruptcy due to some business decisions that went south. Their house, which was previously paid off, was used as collateral to secure a loan to stay afloat. They drove clunkers. They were working poor basically.

And yet, on the advice of Mormon leadership and SLC counsel via GC talks, Ensign articles, and GA speeches they paid tithing on the income they made first. This put a HUGE strain on them. They should've been counseled to get out of debt first, but nope. The money was sent to SLC.

Anyway. My mom died of a heart attack at age 63. She never got to experience retirement. She worked until she died. My dad had a stroke. He worked right up to that day. Now he has dementia, and he never got to enjoy a retirement. They were not blessed. They were taken advantage of by a callous and uncaring corporation. It sickens me to this day.

[_cognitiveharmony]

The rhetoric and thought processes on display from Mak are very telling of his view of the Mormon church and it's foundation and even more telling of his views on God and His relationship with/to "His" church. While I can't presume to know definitively, to basically say that the members of the church define Mormonism rather than God himself is to limit God's participation and influence that would be completely alien to it's founders and quite frankly to God Himself as He has defined Himself within the revelations of the church. If Mormonism can be defined this way, what function did the restoration serve? What right does God have to define His own church and why would anyone from within or without not have the right to criticize the church based on this definition and it's real world implementations?

In addition to this, very few criticisms of Mormonism require a perspective from within. When I criticize Joseph Smith's philandering, my perspective from within or without has little to no bearing on the validity of that criticism. Most of my criticisms depend on the relationship of being a fellow human being rather than a fellow Mormon. This understanding makes these observations even more authoritative as my perspective isn't colored by the need to "give Joseph a break".

This simply appears to be an attempt to shield the church and it's members from valid criticism. Vantage points and perspectives are inherently defined within themselves and while there is value in understanding the perspective to better understand a criticism or apologetic, the perspective itself does not invalidate it. It's intellectually dishonest to attempt to discount a criticism based on the perspective. While this conversation has been somewhat interesting, the only new idea that has been introduced is that a perspective somehow invalidates or validates your right to comment authoritatively. It MAY invalidate it but the perspective itself doesn't necessarily determine that, but rather the content of the comment itself. Everyone has a basic understanding that one's perspective along with personality traits, culture, etc. will influence the way they view the world and their insights into it. This is nothing new.

As an example, a person that defects from the US to Russia and denounces their US citizenship would have the right to comment authoritatively on many things pertaining to US citizenship. There may be things that are no longer valid after a time but I would evaluate those things based on their content and not immediately discount them just because this person no longer self identifies as an american.

[_maklelan]

I don't think those type of comments are representative of "what the people here say". I agree they are aggressive and confrontational whereas you tend towards confrontational defensiveness when you feel personally slighted.

No, it's usually when I feel personally attacked, but I'll admit that I have been overly defensive for minor indiscretions. What I have never done is resort to the above.

I'm probably one of the most acerbic and challenging towards you (I wouldn't describe my style as rudely aggressive but perhaps you might). However, terms like "bitch" and "f*** you asshole" seem to be very isolated and not indicative of how most posters here engage you.

Perhaps I can call on your good nature to not tar everyone with a single brush stroke.

I would ask that you do the same when you go to try to account for Mormonism broadly.

[_maklelan]

The rhetoric and thought processes on display from Mak are very telling of his view of the Mormon church and it's foundation and even more telling of his views on God and His relationship with/to "His" church.

Oh, yeah, I'm an open book.