MormonThink

[Anonymous]

From NYTimes today http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/us/web-site-editor-may-face-mormon-excommunication.html?hp

Quote:

In an interview, however, Mr. Twede said he was not certain that this was the reason he was facing excommunication. He has also written posts on his personal blog, linked to MormonThink, about how he recently started attending church again after five years as an atheist. He described how he had struck up a friendship with a Mormon he called Pat and had e-mailed materials to Pat and Pat’s spouse that he hoped would shake their faith.

Seems a funny thing to do after deciding to come back to church after 5 years.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

Cadence wrote:

I am not a touchy feely person. I appreciate straight forward discussion. If I am wrong I like to be told in a straight forward yet calm manner. So for me the whole “doing it our of love” is Mormon speak for we have a problem and need to manage the delivery of information to keep us in the best light. I know there is some merit in that approach for many, but the facts are the facts no matter how you dress them up. So for me Mormonthink is exactly how I want to hear it. Just put it out there and let me decide its validity.

Let me state it differently

My wife yells at me, she yells at the kids, the house is messy most of the time, she is moody, she is unrelenting at times, she doesn’t eat healthy, she hardly ever admits she is wrong, She is late to work often, ect….

These are truths. What picture does that paint? What do you picture when I say these facts? Is this someone you are going to be open minded about or have you already formed judgements? Have I made it harder for you to like her?

While these are truths I could and should also list the 100’s of positive things my wife does and is. I could also frame these truths in context to share that these things are small minority of the responses I get from her. She is the most awesome person in the world but because I got to pick and choose which facts I told you I painted an entirely different picture of what I wanted you to think by solely using truth. Truth can when used for a malicious purpose cause one to see a picture from only one side, and that side can be very far from real truth. Facts are useless and can make any conclusion if used innapropriately

Was I honest…. yep

Did I share truth…. yep

was it fair to only share the facts I did… nope

Does listing only some facts give a true visual of a person, concept, faith … nope

Can sharing truth be anything other then a search for truth? yes

Your point is valid. I get that Mormonthink leans to the negative. I just do not think it is as negative as it is made out to be. It may just be where you stand in relation to the information. For me when I found the site I was in turmoil. I was dealing with all the unfulfilled promises of the church. It was like I found reality, and as I read more and more it spoke so much common sense to me. I realized I was allowed to use my brain to figure things out and did not need to continue to rely on emotional feeling to navigate my life. Mormonthink helped relieve a heavy burden from my life. So for me it was all about the facts that were presented that opened my mind, not how they were delivered.

Also it seems to be the opinion that Mormonthink only delivers one side of the issue. In many cases there is only one side. A more positive side or approach would require someone to fabricate facts, or nuance the situation or statement to be something it was not. Just like your example with your wife. If she is moody most of the time, saying she has a cute laugh does not change the fact that she is moody most of the time. I just focused on what I wanted to focus on. Moody most of the time or a cute laugh once in awhile. Which is going to have a greater impact on your life? Not always but sometimes looking on the “positive” side is just looking for relief to an uncomfortable situation.

[Anonymous]

I would suggest we need to be very careful in assuming we know what is going on. The only information we have currently (as far as I can see) comes from the “accused” himself. It probably is as he says it is but it’s wise to refrain from jumping to conclusions. I believe the Church rarely comments on reasons for excommunication publicly and so that side of things will most likely remain unknown. Ultimately, whether we agree or disagree, the Church has the right to expel members for whatever reasons they want. If they want to excommunicate members who don’t like green jello with carrots, they can. If you want to remain a member, you have to abide by certain rules. There’s only so far that any of us can go in our attempts to deal with our Church issues.

[Anonymous]

I just found out that this guy is in my former stake. If the stake president is the same as the one who was there (likely, it wasn’t long ago). He is an interesting character, and a lawyer. I know many of the people that are on the high council and will probably be at the disciplinary counsel. The ones I know are very orthodox and big into obeying without question. God help him.

I think that the mormonthink website clearly goes past the “just presenting information” to persuading people against the church.

I agree that the church has the right to decide the rules for membership.

This makes me nervous though, how far is the church going to go in setting the line for apostasy? They could easily set a line that I would be on the wrong side of, and that would be catastrophic to my family, and all of my sincere efforts to stay with the church.

[Anonymous]

One more point:

This is not “THE (global) CHURCH” doing this; it’s “the (local) Church”. That doesn’t change his situation in the least, but it’s an important distinction, nonetheless.

THE CHURCH has been moving away from reflexive excommunication for more than just a few years – and I don’t see this case as reflexive in nature. Dude now is fighting the Church actively and publicly, which is the foundational definition of apostasy.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

Also it seems to be the opinion that Mormonthink only delivers one side of the issue. In many cases there is only one side. A more positive side or approach would require someone to fabricate facts, or nuance the situation or statement to be something it was not. …

This is EXACTLY the problem I have with apologists and FAIR, and why I appreciate MormonThink. Apologists and FAIR are masters at making round pegs fit into a square holes.

Sometimes one just has to call it the way it is…a spade is a spade…and then decide from there what to do.

I have no problem, TODAY, that the church wants to excommunicate this guy. I don’t care if they excommunicate him, and I don’t care if they excommunicate me. The church can do whatever the hell it wants to do. BUT, 18 months ago this kind of church threats of discipline ripped out my soul and tore my life apart. It has completed changed the course of my life, and the church destroyed my family relationship. Yep. THE CHURCH HAS DESTROYED MY FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS. PERIOD. Did you here that Wade Englund? THE CHURCH has destroyed my family relationships.

I am a heretic. David Twede is a heretic. MOST OF YOU are heretics. I don’t know if David is actively seeking to destroy the church. Maybe he is. And I don’t think that MormonThink and StayLDS are on the same level of apostasy as far the DAMU is concerned. But I am quite convinced that many many leaders don’t care…they think we are all wolves in sheep clothing, and that includes StayLDS, and would purge the entire DAMU from membership, in New York second. That is why I find this story sad and disturbing.

Most of you here do not use your own names because of fear of church discipline and creating riffs within your family. IMO, you are wise to do so,

[Anonymous]

Gerald wrote:

…Ultimately, whether we agree or disagree, the Church has the right to expel members for whatever reasons they want. If they want to excommunicate members who don’t like green jello with carrots, they can. If you want to remain a member, you have to abide by certain rules. There’s only so far that any of us can go in our attempts to deal with our Church issues.

Really? If the church does not want to be criticized for being cult like, they need quit acting like one. IMO.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

This is not a site about informing people of little known facts…. there are many little known facts that members do not know, both positive and negative.

– How many members know …

Thanks for sharing those random tidbits, DBM. It turns out I was already aware of those things, but it was fun to hear about them again nevertheless.

Quote:

Why don’t we share this info too if it is essentially exposing new info to members? Why did this site only share negative new information? Their agenda is one sided, that is my issue.

The Church News and the Ensign have a one-sided agenda as well. Do you have an issue with them?

I think I looked at the MT site once a year or so ago, but since the information was pretty much well-known to me already, and I didn’t feel the need to re-hash it all, I left it alone. The bias was fairly obvious and it wasn’t really what I wanted to hear at the time. I could say the same thing about the Church News. Not particularly news, and not really what I need to hear.

Since this thread piqued my interest, I had another look at MT yesterday, and ended up learning something new (though I actually got it somewhere other than the MT site — I don’t recall where exactly). I had always been under the impression that Parley Pratt was murdered while returning from a mission to Arkansas by a mob of people who were opposed to the Gospel — that he died a martyr, in other words. While that may have been true, what I hadn’t been told was that the person who committed the murder was the legal husband of the woman that Parley had recently made his twelfth plural wife … and I am genuinely a little bit upset about it. I have read a lot about Pratt. I admired him. He was, I think, a remarkable person. But I’m not sure what to think about him now because I know that the sources I read way back when had an agenda to withold some basic relevant facts that they were, no doubt, aware of, or at least should have been. If I had the energy and interest to do a full-scale reconstruction of PPP’s life, I know that I would have to be certain to include sources other than those that are approved by the church. This is certainly not a new or profound observation, but I’m certain this is what a lot of church members go through — once they become aware that certain information has been deliberately withheld from them, they become suspicious of everything.

Obviously I don’t know for certain, but perhaps the people at MT have had experiences like the one I just related. And perhaps they feel that there are plenty of sources of half-truths that church members can access directly from the church, and they feel an obligation to provide the other half of those half-truths for those with enough interest to look into it. Is that such a bad thing? I agree that it could be done a little more kindly.

Quote:

We would have welcomed any sort of discussion about issues relative to that situation.

That’s kind of hard to do when the post is deleted before anyone has had a chance to look at it. If it’s the same thing that GBSmith posted, it hardly seems all that subversive or controversial to me. His main point seemed to be about “making the tent bigger”, and we talk about that all the time.

Quote:

This is not “THE (global) CHURCH” doing this; it’s “the (local) Church”.

I wasn’t aware there was a distinction. How does one make such a distinction? Can I join that global church?

[Anonymous]

Doug (and everyone else), the following is the specific reason his post here was deleted:

Quote:

I’m taking my fight to the media, and there, hope to encourage the LDS church to repeal their decision to discipline me over my free speech.

He saw us as part of “the media” and posted his message here explicitly in order to further his “fight” with the LDS Church. Iow, he tried to enlist us in a battle with the LDS Church.

We have deleted very few posts and comments since this site was founded, but most of the ones we have deleted contained one of the following elements:

1) They linked to or supported a site that was obviously and unabashedly anti-Mormon in nature – and it wasn’t debatable. The sites were established explicitly to convince members to leave the Church and, in most cases, actively fight against it. Most of you never saw those posts, but there have been a few.

2) They contained a call to action to fight against the LDS Church or, in at least one case, a specific apostle. There have been at least three of these I can remember right now.

3) They had absolutely nothing to do with our mission. I can remember only one of these in detail, but they have happened.

The post from Bro.Twede fits into the second category. That’s the only reason it was deleted. That is an agenda we simply won’t support.

If anyone wants to start another thread about any aspect of this situation, feel free to do so. Just remember, our mission is to discuss proactive ways to “stay LDS” in light of difficult things to reconcile, accept, ignore, etc. Therefore, if you want to discuss an aspect of this situation, please be specific about which aspect you want to discuss – and focus on not just the difficulty but how you and others might deal with it.

[Anonymous]

FWIW—-I have no problem with you stayLDS folks defending the church here. It is much easier to hear it here from folks who have integrity and honor, rather than places like MAD or LDS.net, or even at some sacrament meetings…where it is all about LOYALTY to the institution at the expense of truth and individuals.

At least here, we can discuss the issue and the facts. I cannot do that at church, or around the dinner table with my parents and brothers, or with many LDS members.

Once again, I disagree with stayLDS on this issue. But I do appreciate that we can have a conversation, and that there are faithful members who understand there is a problem, and yet, still find a way to have faith, and remain respectful to those who don’t.

I hope that bishops and stake presidents who lurk here, will follow the example of the faithful stayLDSers, and try to be more understanding and sympathetic with those who doubt and with those who have chosen, for whatever reason, to follow a different path than the “Orthodox Mormon Way.” Just because there is anger and disappointment and negative views towards the church institution, doesn’t mean that all those folks are antimormon and an apostates and trying to destroy the church. The church dug this hole for themselves…they need to take responsibility for the faith crises “crisis” that is happening. Back off. Follow your own prophets advice — specifically Urchdorf. As well as the Savior’s counsel…and find peace.

Out.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Quote:

This is not “THE (global) CHURCH” doing this; it’s “the (local) Church”.

I wasn’t aware there was a distinction. How does one make such a distinction? Can I join that global church?

This.

The Global Church cannot continue to wash their hands and say it is just the local leadership’s fault. THIS IS A TOP – DOWN CHURCH. If this is not the case…than fine…but come clean and just admit and give the local church some actual power and control. My BP had no problem with me…but had no choice…it came from up the chain. Don’t try to tell me this is not a top-down church.

This is crap…THE CHURCH CANNOT CONTINUE TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. This is what makes folks like me mad.

[Anonymous]

Breath. Breath. Breath.

Folks. I’m going to take the day off and watch college football and drink a beer or three. I don’t need this.

Out.

🙂

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

DBMormon wrote:

This is not a site about informing people of little known facts…. there are many little known facts that members do not know, both positive and negative.

– How many members know …

Thanks for sharing those random tidbits, DBM. It turns out I was already aware of those things, but it was fun to hear about them again nevertheless.

Quote:

Why don’t we share this info too if it is essentially exposing new info to members? Why did this site only share negative new information? Their agenda is one sided, that is my issue.

The Church News and the Ensign have a one-sided agenda as well. Do you have an issue with them?

I personally have an issue with any site or source revealing only partial information that suits their cause good or bad(card stacking is a form of propaganda). Both sides and all info pertaining to available information should be published in articles. Their is a lot of card stacking in official LDS sites and anti sites. Part of what makes it so frustrating to research the entirety of information on subjects. But this is not church or even anti church unique(card stacking is done by almost all major corporations and anti corps). PR firms including ours is particularly troubling with various forms of propaganda including card stacking, red herring, faulty cause and effect, compare and contrast, simple solution. But it is important to remember that the PR isn’t the GAs anymore then “fair Mormon” and they represent a wide variety of clients with the same techniques. I’m grateful for this site becuase we get a wide range of information and ideas about things without being persuaded on either side while offering help about how to “stay LDS” without having to swallow the blue pill. If you want the blue pill their are any number of official and unofficial LDS sites to go to as well as numerous anti Mormon sites. But swallowing thre red pill doesn’t mean that a person will or has to choose not staying LDS as the anti sites will have you believe becuase they card stack just as much. There is an overwhelming positive to stay LDS and for some to leave. But those as of choosing to “stay LDS” we acknowledge the bad with the good and choose not to card stack one way or the other. We see the good and not so great. We acknowledge that we ourselves are not perfect just as GAs and prophets are not. That doesn’t mean there isn’t tremendous good in imperfection.

Quote:

“It is all right to make mistakes; nothing is perfect because with perfection, we would not exist.”

― Stephen Hawking

My expectations were reduced to zero when I was 21. Everything since then has been a bonus.”

― Stephen Hawking

One of the basic rules of the universe is that nothing is perfect. Perfection simply doesn’t exist…..Without imperfection, neither you nor I would exist”

― Stephen Hawking

My expectations were reduced to zero when I was 21. Everything since then has been a bonus.”

― Stephen Hawking

“Government works best under the glare of public scrutiny. Absent such scrutiny, abuses occur.”

― Stephen Hawking

It surprises me how disinterested we are today about things like physics, space, the universe and philosophy of our existence, our purpose, our final destination. Its a crazy world out there. Be curious.”

― Stephen Hawking

[Anonymous]

I want to make a point of clarification, since I also think my previous comment was too broad.

I don’t know if this particular case was instigated by the global leadership or the local leadership. Most excommunications are initiated by the local leaders, but this one might not have been. This case very well might have been brought to the attention of the local leadership by a higher level. I don’t know either way, so given my lack of knowledge about its origins, I will retract my previous assertion.

However, in this case, I really don’t care about the distinction – since, as I’ve said previously, I can’t read what he is saying and see anything but an open and obvious attack on the Church. Thus, I can’t argue against excommunication – even as I wish it wouldn’t reach that. I just see so much denial and aggression, at the site and in his response, that I have no real hope it will end well.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

And I don’t think that MormonThink and StayLDS are on the same level of apostasy as far the DAMU is concerned. But I am quite convinced that many many leaders don’t care…they think we are all wolves in sheep clothing, and that includes StayLDS, and would purge the entire DAMU from membership, in New York second. That is why I find this story sad and disturbing.

Most of you here do not use your own names because of fear of church discipline and creating riffs within your family. IMO, you are wise to do so,

Yep. It is the question of where the line would be drawn by whom that is disturbing. Knowing a few of the members on that disciplinary council, I try to guess where they draw the line, the majority of them would draw it in a way that would not only be against Mormon Think, but also against me, and against many people on StayLDS. Looking at my own Stake leadership, I think the same.

I can see a reasonable and fair arguement for why he should undergo discipline. But it does worry me that he has been asked to provide names of others. Is that because they are going to widen the net? In doing that, the net doesn’t have to get very wide before I am really uncomfortable with where it is going.

At the risk of sounding paranoid, I wonder how closely THIS forum is watched. Does Salt Lake know about it, do they observe it? If I posted my full name and my ward and detailed exactly where I stood about the spirituality and the teachings of the church would someone notice? Is there a scenario where someone from SL would see that, and inform my SP or Bishop?

[Author]

Posts