MormonThink

[Anonymous]

I can see how the church may well decide that formal discipline won’t serve anyone. If it doesn’t actually help the person repent it won’t serve the individual. If it doesn’t help detract faithful members from the “damaging” information – and on top of that if the negative PR detracts from the mission of the church (and possibly drives some members out of curiosity to MormonThink) then just maybe the action could be a net negative overall.

“Ignore” may be the best choice.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

do wish we could all take a step back and see this from the church’s viewpoint as well as tweed’s.

DB

Exactly.

Chad Waldron

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

I can see how the church may well decide that formal discipline won’t serve anyone. If it doesn’t actually help the person repent it won’t serve the individual. If it doesn’t help detract faithful members from the “damaging” information – and on top of that if the negative PR detracts from the mission of the church (and possibly drives some members out of curiosity to MormonThink) then just maybe the action could be a net negative overall.

“Ignore” may be the best choice.

Exactly. Sounds like a guy who doesn’t want to get exed, and used PR and media to as a way to help stay in the church.

The church can excommincate whomever they want…but they can’t do it in secret and can’t expect folks to not be outraged when they perceive authoritarian threats and unrighteous intimidation.

Because we are a social media generation, the church should expect to be questioned, by member and non members, and held accountable for their decisions and criticized when they make mistakes.

Chad Waldron

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Because we are a social media generation, the church should expect to be questioned, by member and non members

Wouldn’t it be great if sometime the church realized this and decided that it was time to address some of the big questions head on instead of hoping no one will notice?

[Anonymous]

rebeccad wrote:

Quote:

Because we are a social media generation, the church should expect to be questioned, by member and non members

Wouldn’t it be great if sometime the church realized this and decided that it was time to address some of the big questions head on instead of hoping no one will notice?

Yes.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

rebeccad wrote:

Quote:

Because we are a social media generation, the church should expect to be questioned, by member and non members

Wouldn’t it be great if sometime the church realized this and decided that it was time to address some of the big questions head on instead of hoping no one will notice?

I’m not sure what it would benefit them for taking on issues that there may not be clear answers to. The church is in the business of inspiring others to build faith, not debate issues. BKP…”Not all truth is useful.”.

Sometimes I think they allow FAIR and FARMS to take on the issues because, well…because they arent so interested in doing it.

Other groups can do this if they are interested, as long as they don’t work against the church in doing so. I haven’t spent time on MormonThink to have an opinion on the content and how they treat issues, but seeing the postings on the events of this disciplinary action seems to point to a negative bias, which is what I think DB is saying.

There is the cost-benefit analysis on why the church would address some issues. I wonder about the cost-benefit on whether to keep pushing to discipline Twede or not. It is getting a lot of press. There is a benefit in defending the church. But at what cost?

[Anonymous]

There was a recent interview with Jan Shipps (the non-Mormon Mormon scholar), and she talked about the fact that the church is opening up the materials to scholars like never before. This wasn’t the case a couple decades ago.

What I think is good about that is that the church leaders are not scholars or historians. They are never going to do a good job addressing historical accuracy in an unbiased way and using valid methods to do so. How do they distinguish between good sources and bad sources? Put things in an appropriate time sequence and then understand the effects of prior things on later things? Extrapolate valid theories to explain people’s motives and understand the context of what they are seeing in its correct time and place? Distinguish between first, second, and third hand accounts? Validate the chain of ownership of historical records? Evaluate the time lapse between the events and their being recorded? History is complex and partly unknowable. I think in leaving it to the scholars, we are at least acknowledging that.

I’m not sure, for example, what the church can say about polygamy and its roots that is completely accurate. Same with the role of women. Same with the race ban. I’d rather read what the scholars have to say on those matters. MormonThink, IMO, was also not scholarly. But you can’t be scholarly and also have a dog in the fight. The only way to reduce bias is to reduce your stake in the outcome.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

rebeccad wrote:

Quote:

Because we are a social media generation, the church should expect to be questioned, by member and non members

Wouldn’t it be great if sometime the church realized this and decided that it was time to address some of the big questions head on instead of hoping no one will notice?

I’m not sure what it would benefit them for taking on issues that there may not be clear answers to. The church is in the business of inspiring others to build faith, not debate issues. BKP…”Not all truth is useful.”.

Sometimes I think they allow FAIR and FARMS to take on the issues because, well…because they arent so interested in doing it.

Other groups can do this if they are interested, as long as they don’t work against the church in doing so. I haven’t spent time on MormonThink to have an opinion on the content and how they treat issues, but seeing the postings on the events of this disciplinary action seems to point to a negative bias, which is what I think DB is saying.

There is the cost-benefit analysis on why the church would address some issues. I wonder about the cost-benefit on whether to keep pushing to discipline Twede or not. It is getting a lot of press. There is a benefit in defending the church. But at what cost?

Yeah…but building faith in WHAT? That is the issue here.

Unfortunately, you have just summed up this issue very well…and accurately as far as the church is concerned.

(Edited by me…again.) never mind.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

I’m not saying the church needs to go into things deeply or spend a lot of time defending itself.

But why not display the parts of the Book of Abraham they have in the museum of Church History? Why not teach people that J.S. was a polygamist?

Then people could explore the ideas around that in an different context. There are so many things that people have never heard of and when they do, they feel like the church has been hiding things from them. It would strengthen the church and weaken the arguments of people who wanted to fight against it if there weren’t so many things that so many members had never heard of.

[Anonymous]

rebeccad wrote:

There are so many things that people have never heard of and when they do, they feel like the church has been hiding things from them. It would strengthen the church and weaken the arguments of people who wanted to fight against it if there weren’t so many things that so many members had never heard of.

100% agree, rebecca. Well said!

As HG pointed out, they are opening up like never before, and I think some in Salt Lake actually realize this reality. Sometimes that is hard to see when it is slow going, or it goes through channels like church history department or revisions of curriculum that take years and years to see any evidence of it. Until there is continued evidence of it, I think your feelings are valid, and many others will feel that way, and some souls may be lost because of feelings of betrayal. John Dehlin’s research seems to support that.

Of course, it will also lead some to search on their own, come to sites like this one, and actually benefit from realizing they can take ownership of their faith, that these issues are no doubt troublesome, but certainly not inevitably fatal to a testimony for everyone. As we can see from the various opinions on this site, there are multiple ways people will react to this conundrum.

Clearly, the Internet is forcing this change. It is inevitable. But it may not be to the extent I wish it would be, or the speed for my needs and wishes. (sigh). I guess that is about me, and I have the choice on how to deal with it according to the dictates of my conscience. But I cannot choose how the church leaders will deal with me as I deal with it. I must take that into account as I choose to react and what my hopes are to keep a relationship with the Church.

I don’t know that I have read in this MormonThink situation that anyone is stating the content of Twede’s website is blatantly false or inaccurate (although it is hard to tell what’s been said by church leaders in reality). Only that the church leaders feel the intent of Bro Twede is to present it in a destructive way to the church and testimonies of members. His actions don’t seem to help his case, IMO, even if the info is basically right with a dash of his own bias.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

I’m not sure what it would benefit them for taking on issues that there may not be clear answers to. The church is in the business of inspiring others to build faith, not debate issues. BKP…”Not all truth is useful.”….

Yeah…but building faith in WHAT? That is the issue here.

Unfortunately, you have just summed up this issue very well…and accurately as far as the church is concerned….

Though some things just support the overall message and others are a sidebar, I think they inspire faith in Jesus Christ and His doctrine.

[Author]

Posts