MormonThink

[Anonymous]

Quote:

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.

I don’t think having a criteria for expulsion automatically makes the Church “cult-like.” Nearly all religions have such criteria. I knew a lady who was a Jehovah’s Witness and she told me about a sixteen-year old girl who became pregnant out of wedlock. I don’t know their official term but the young girl was publicly “shunned” for a year. By that, none of the fellow members would speak to her or acknowledge her for that time. When that time period was over, they had a big party welcoming her back to the fold. Frankly, I’m glad our own excommunication process does not involve such behavior. But different religions handle it in their own way and I don’t suppose it’s designed to be pleasant for the member experiencing it.

Quote:

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.

cwald is definitely right about this. Certainly issues such as adultery, immorality, etc. will automatically be handled at the local level. But if someone from the COB calls a lowly bishop or SP and asks them to carry out an inquiry, you better believe that they will do it. Whether or not that was the case here, I have no idea.

Quote:

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?

Frankly, I doubt it. Oh, I suppose someone up there might be aware of the different listservs and websites and discussion boards. But the small number of “disaffected” compared to the large number of members in general would lead to me guess that they have bigger fish to fry and far more pressing issues. I think when you feel frustrated with something or someone or very aware of that individual, it’s easy to assume that they feel the same way about you. As an example, years ago, I attended Utah State University and the anti-BYU sentiment on that campus was palpable. After I married, I mentioned this attitude to my wife (a BYU graduate). She just laughed and said nobody there ever mentioned USU. They simply weren’t on the radar of that school’s population. Probably the same way with the upper leaders of the Church. Just my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Hey, I feel bad for anyone who faces church discipline and doesn’t want to. But I also feel MT is all about sharing a Stage 4 perspective with Stage 3 people. To me it seems polarizing and unhealthy. I do see some nuance there among the writers; they are not all the same. Their aims may differ. It seems some long to stay in the church, although not necessarily for what I personally consider to be good reasons.

I think this is really unfortunate all around, and going to the press usually just makes a win win solution impossible. If MT has success stories that illustrate their devotion to the church, that’s what they should be sharing in this case, not lecturing the church on free speech, which we have as American citizens, not in the same unlimited capacity as members of the church. There is a loyalty test in the diciplinary process. Bro. Twede doesn’t exhibit loyalty in his actions at the moment. If he feels loyal, this is the time to make it clear. For people who’ve read a lot of early church history when excommunications were frequent, I would have thought the loyalty test was obvious.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Frankly, I doubt it. Oh, I suppose someone up there might be aware of the different listservs and websites and discussion boards

Honestly, I doubt it as well. But I do see there is that possibility. Could someone in SL get a bee in there bonnet and decide they need to do some winnowing? I hope not, but it is a possibility. That is why I am keeping one eye on this situation. To see if it is an individual circumstance, or a harbinger of things to come.

[Anonymous]

rebeccad wrote:

Quote:

Frankly, I doubt it. Oh, I suppose someone up there might be aware of the different listservs and websites and discussion boards

Honestly, I doubt it as well. But I do see there is that possibility. Could someone in SL get a bee in there bonnet and decide they need to do some winnowing? I hope not, but it is a possibility. That is why I am keeping one eye on this situation. To see if it is an individual circumstance, or a harbinger of things to come.

I think what happened is that he decided to come back to church to establish his credibility as an attending member (see Deseret News articlehttp://http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865562969/LDS-Church-says-disciplinary-claim-is-patently-false.html) and while there struck up up a friendship and then emailed his some information with the purpose of undermining his faith (see NY times article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/us/we … on.html?hp). That’s not something that local leadership is going to tolerate. As long as he was anonymous he was just in the mix but once on the radar he was fair game. As my sainted mother would say “it was his own damn fault”.

[Anonymous]

I now have seen two articles in national papers that attribute his possible excommunication to: 1) being critical of the Church; 2) being critical of Mitt Romney. He contacted the press (or someone contacted them for him), and that is the message he is spreading – essentially, that he has done nothing wrong and is being punished unfairly. The second claim is particularly interesting – since there are lots of members who have been and are critical of Bro. Romney who aren’t facing discipline of any kind for it.

I see someone who actively is trying to cause faith crises among the membership and who now is spinning his situation in any way he can to cast the Church in the worst possible light. I see someone deep in defiant Stage 4 who is lashing out at not just the Church itself but, in very practical terms, its members – and then complaining when the organization whose members he is hitting takes quiet action to remove him from their playground. He doesn’t want to leave the playground, so he is screaming at the top of his lungs to anyone who will listen (and proactively finding people who will listen) that the Church of stifling his freedom of speech (and other concocted charges now). Iow, he’s doing all he can to embarrass the Church on his way out.

I feel bad for him, but not because he is facing excommunication. I feel bad for him because of the type of person I fear he is becoming – or has been becoming for some time. Frankly, I don’t think the Church is punishing him. I think the Church is giving him exactly what he wants – a broader stage for his performance. I don’t disagree with that decision, but I think it’s disingenuous for him to claim that he is being attacked or persecuted in any meaningful way.

Part of the lesson I taught today in Sunday School was on pride, and as I saw the newspaper articles today I couldn’t help but see a perfect example of what I was teaching my students. I hope that is not an unjust judgment, but it’s how I see it right now.

[Anonymous]

With all of the hullabaloo about MT, I surfed there and read a lot of the entries. Although most of the info is true, I couldn’t help feeling uneasy about MT, and couldn’t quite put my finger on why. I knew that it wasn’t because of Stage 3 cog dis, because I left Stage 3 years ago. I tried to articulate why I was feeling so uneasy, and a few of all y’all’s entries captured why:

DBMormon wrote:

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

I completely agree with this, and I think it is highly relevant to any discussion of MT.

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.

Let’s take the Book of Abraham and polyandry as examples. There are no satisfying Stage 3 or Stage 4 answers to these issues. Folks in Stage 3 either have to ignore the inconvenient truths about these issues, or have their world rocked; and folks in Stage 4 become very upset about these truths, and tend to see them as “deal breakers”. A Stage 5 understanding of Joseph Smith’s role as a prophet, and his personal character are necessary to face problems with the BofA and polyandry. Admittedly, this approach is nuanced, but certainly doesn’t change any facts—it just views them through the epistemological lens of conjunctive faith.

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

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….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.

MT is engaged in card stacking, and forcefully jolts Stage 3 Mormons into Stage 4, often with disastrous results. It’s not that the info at MT is untrue, it’s just stacked in a way that emphasizes the negative, and fails to capture the full spectrum of the good through bad aspects of each issue. The fact that our correlated curriculum also card stacks is irrelevant in this church discipline discussion (though it needs to be addressed to keep members from leaving). The Church can use all the propaganda it wants to support its institutional missions, but members cannot disseminate propaganda that runs at cross purposes with the Church without discipline for apostasy becoming a likely result. I don’t like it, but it’s the reality of the situation.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

But I also feel MT is all about sharing a Stage 4 perspective with Stage 3 people. To me it seems polarizing and unhealthy.

I’ve been thinking about this very issue today. I’ve been reading a lot of StayLDS, NOM, and RfM lately, and some of the threads are like the proverbial “train wreck”–I probably should look away, but I just wanna see what’s going on… I find myself logging in obsessively, going from one site and thread to another. At some point in the last few days, I came to the conclusion that I’m reading a lot about what other people think and feel about the Church, without thinking and writing about exactly what I think and feel at this point. And since this is my spiritual journey, I really need to be doing that. (I am going somewhere with this…just stay with me).

In the next few days, I want to articulate my current faith position so that I have a personal foundation to build my spiritual practices upon. I initially thought of sharing it with my bishop; however, I am beginning to see that may not be such a good idea. He is a patient and good man, and would not use my faith position against me. My position might create problems for him, though. I’ve come to think that if the Church works for people and their families, I probably shouldn’t be messing with that. Let them discover these things on their own time-table. If the Church chooses to change its curriculum and approach in a way that inoculates its membership, great. If not, it’s probably not my place to do it. My two cents. 🙂

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that comment, turintumbar. There is a LOT of profound truth in the last part, especially.

[Anonymous]

DOUG

Quote:

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?

There is a difference. The church believes it proclaims the gospel truth. IT wants to bring all unto Christ. It tries share the gospel in a way to bring it’s members and investigators to the gospel.

That is it’s motives and the why it shares information the way it does.

Mormonthink plays both sides. It wants to be considered in the church. It’s creators do not want to be excommunicated but it wants to reserve it’s right to share information that damages the testimony of members. Essentially It wants to be in the fold but have the right to break the fold’s rules.

Now I agree the church must share these issues more prominently but it should never been done as Mormonthink does… simply throwing all the negative up against the wall at once and cause members to be overwhelmed by the pure number of issues. I can also do the same the other way as well – see jeff Lindsay’s site http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

What would be ideal is a site that mixes both sites and gives people the full story both negative and positive to Faith in the church.

I realize some find support in Mormonthink and I realize some find unsupport in the church but I am speaking of motives.

Fill in the blanks

when the (LDS Church/ Jeff Lindsay / FAIR )tells its own story its motives are to _________ faith. While (MormonThink) tells a story about the LDS Church with the Motives of ____________ faith.

I believe there is a difference if we are honest. the motives make a world of difference over the methods.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

when the (LDS Church/ Jeff Lindsay / FAIR )tells its own story its motives are to _________ faith. While (MormonThink) tells a story about the LDS Church with the Motives of ____________ faith.

The way you pose the question seems a bit leading to me, especially given the loaded nature of the word “faith”. I would say that anyone, including the two groups you specify, will craft their message, if they have one, with the purpose of reinforcing their own position and encouraging others to “believe” the way they do.

Maybe it’s the motivation for doing this that we should be talking about. To help others to find joy and/or happiness. To teach “truth”. To make oneself feel better because “I’m not alone in thinking about things in a particular way”. But I think all of these motivations (and probably lots of others) could be ascribed to those on both sides of the issue.

[Anonymous]

MormonThink’s contributors has a right to do what they are doing but they don’t have a right to do it and also require to be seen as a active faithful LDS.

There are better ways to discuss the issues while still leading to a faithful conclusion.

And no I am not speaking of FAIR.

I don’t feel my question is leading. I think it is fair to establish that an individual who wants to remain in the church has to find a way to not lead others away from faith in that same institution that he wants to remain a member of. If out of the church then they are welcome to write whatever they want. But in the Church, they can not outwardly teach things that diminsh faith.

I can see why people disagree with my view (heck I would have disagreed 8 months ago) but we have to find faithful ways to share our dissent and not simply look to force the church to do what you or I think is right.

[Anonymous]

Never mind.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

I don’t feel my question is leading.

A leading question is one that is worded in such a way as to elicit a particular response.

Quote:

When the (LDS Church/ Jeff Lindsay / FAIR )tells its own story its motives are to _________ faith. While (MormonThink) tells a story about the LDS Church with the Motives of ____________ faith.

I think that qualifies as leading.

Quote:

I think it is fair to establish that an individual who wants to remain in the church has to find a way to not lead others away from faith in that same institution that he wants to remain a member of. If out of the church then they are welcome to write whatever they want. But in the Church, they can not outwardly teach things that diminsh faith.

I get what you’re saying, but I can’t entirely agree with it. If we use the BoM definition of faith, i.e. that it’s only valid if the object of our faith is something that’s “true”, then building faith is inherently tied to seeking after truth. Neither you nor I, nor any other person has the prerogative of establishing what “truth” is, except for themselves. It is an objective process whereby we are presented with ideas and we decide what we want to believe is “truth”. No other person has the right to do that for me. I’m not a fan of MormonThink. I don’t particularly like their website, nor the way they present information. But while for some that site is all about destroying faith (there, I said it) for others it’s a gateway to another form of faith that they couldn’t find any other wayand I can’t see that being one of the website’s editors should automatically disqualify one for church membership.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, this thread probably has run its course.

[Anonymous]

I’ll drink to that.

[Anonymous]

I’m with Bill Reel.

It’s apparent from his blog that David Twede is a blatant apostate and is seeking to convince other members to be that way.

[Author]

Posts