- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:DBMormon wrote:
I think they tried. Elder Jensen and Bro. Turley went with the intention of answering the issues. They were overwhelmed and not prepared for the gravity and expanse of issues. They learned their lesson. These questions being asked. Some have very compelling reasonable answers, some are even handed with the criticism and some are outmatched. That said the trouble is getting someone to slow down, take a breath, and seriously give room for the faithful answer to have some weight. For me most of these issues no longer cause doubt, some still do.
The more I take time to understand context and to grasp what real LDS doctrine is, the less bothered I am.It is not a simple give some answers or apoligize. It is way more nuanced then that. Nope. “It’s not important to your salvation.” That standard answer is not going to work anymore DB. And i think you know it. I’m not sure the point you are trying to make with this and your previous post in this thread. Please elaborate, because i find it hard to believe you are just going to repeat what the mopoligists are saying over at MAD… “Old news, old issues…move along…nothing to see here…”
Seriously, how can you say there is little new here?
I think that is the point these Swedes are trying to make…the membership are not going to accept nonanswers anymore. That is why it is NEWS. A GA, and pretty well entire congregations are leaving or becoming “disaffected.” This should be a wake up call. And if the church shrugs their shoulders and say “meh” like you just did, things will only get worse.
Your right Cwald, ignore and have faith won’t work. I am speaking to the what the issues are and people struggling, different names but it is the same storyline. I too need to see progress and I think in many ways the last year has been full of it. It’s coming in steady spoonfuls
Our history is being opened far more now than it has been over the last few decades. We aren’t all the way there yet, by any stretch, but we are moving toward it more quickly than most people realize. cwald wrote:
Yet, these folks are still in. They haven’t resigned or been exed. And if you listen to the podcast, the AA and SP gave the members who were part of the Mormon Stories Facebook group and who were at the meeting an ultimatum…either all in or all out. They were also instructed to not talk about the meeting or their doubts and question with other members, including their own family. Then the Bishops were instructed to call them in and determine if they were wolves, and follow up and get a commitment or face church discipline. Many of them resigned.
CWALD, that Stake President and the others who were ok with a in or out ultimatium were wrong, and I highly doubt Salt Lake was ok with that, and I bet they got a phone call soon after telling them to knock it off.
DBMormon wrote:CWALD, that Stake President and the others who were ok with a in or out ultimatium were wrong, and I highly doubt Salt Lake was ok with that, and I bet they got a phone call soon after telling them to knock it off.
Well, I agree they were wrong, but we can’t just blame the SP and say the SLC had nothing to do with it. No more excuses. The church screwed up on this one, and they, you, and the rest of mormon faithful need to know this was the Church’s mistake…not the local leaders. That is if you believe Mattson? And if we can agree that Perry, Jensen and Turley represent the LDS church hierarchy? Mattsson clearly states in the MS podcast, this all happened during a meeting with Perry, Jensen and Turley…and at the end of the meeting the AA got up and made these comments…ultimatum. An apostle and two members of the 70 were present at the time.
This makes absolute sense to me, since my SP brother let it slip that he was just following orders from his AA, and that he felt it was his church obligation to inform my SP about my involvement with John Dehlin and mormon stories. So obviously, this is not some rouge SP and Bishops…they were getting orders from the top. And yes, DB, they were in the wrong.
Quote:CWALD, that Stake President and the others who were ok with a in or out ultimatium were wrong, and I highly doubt Salt Lake was ok with that, and I bet they got a phone call soon after telling them to knock it off.
However, lets just give the church the benefit of the doubt on this one for just one moment. Lets say they (SLC) didn’t know and the SP got a phone call. telling them to knock it off. Did the the SP apoligize? Did SLC demand the SP and local leaders issue an apology and call the people back in and retract their statement and tell them they made a mistake and needed to clarify their comments? Did they ever try to undo the damage they had made when they issued the ultimatum by taking responsibility?
Nope. There has been no apology and no retraction and no comment at all. Nope. The church will never just take responsibility and apologize and admit they have made mistakes and injured people. They were hoping to sweep this under the rug and hope the general membership never heard about it…and if they did…plausible deniability and “its just the local leadership gone rogue, not us” type of rhetoric.
I guess, from a staylds standpoint…they have issue some vague references and comments in general conference via Urchtdorf and Hollland. Which is a start…
To be fair, cwald, the statements since this happened haven’t been “vague”. There have been some pretty straightforward, direct statements since then. This incident wasn’t handled properly – at all, but I really do think they have learned from it and similar things that have occurred of which they are aware since then. I really do believe they understand they can’t “silence the critics” now.
cwald wrote:And just to prove my point…here is the first thing I read about Mattson today.
Quote:Alan The Oblivious @ MAD wrote:I particularly object to the charge by some that the church has “hidden” it’s history. The documents have always been available, it’s just that nobody bothered to read them. The difference now is that the internet has made them more readily available, especially to people who would ordinarily not have sufficient interest to seek them out.
It is not the mission of the church to be objective on these matters. The church will put the best interpretation or spin on difficult issues, our enemies the worst.
This is nothing new and has been going on for years.What I find interesting is that none of the historical information now appearing to trouble people is new or freshly revealed. It’s been around for decades for the most part. It’s just the same old stuff re-packaged. As the preacher said in Ecclesiastes, there is “nothing new under the sun“. I’ve spent the last 4-5 days arguing on MDDB on three different threads. It’s been… Stimulating!
Within minutes the attacks against Mattsson became character assassination and ad hominem, including:
– Liar
– Fraud
– Hiding a sin
– A yokel
– Lazy
– Naive
– Involved in a ‘hatchet job’ (malicious intent)
It’s been an education. And I’ve fought them on every point.
Old-Timer wrote:To be fair, cwald, the statements since this happened haven’t been “vague”. There have been some pretty straightforward, direct statements since then.
This incident wasn’t handled properly – at all, but I really do think they have learned from it and similar things that have occurred of which they are aware since then. I really do believe they understand they can’t “silence the critics” now.
Okay. That is fair.
I guess what set me off is the reaction I’m reading via Facebook, comments and bloggrrnscle…see Mackey post ^^^.
I’m sure that is what my relations are saying as well.
I’m guessing most members will simple blame Mattsson, rather than ever acknowledge the church messed up. We have to quit blaming the people, both the accused and the local leadership for the institutions mistake.
I’ve just seen to much of it in my own life…”cwald just wanted to sin…we the church take no responsibility for the pain his family has had to go through.”
And doesn’t help when one of our own here who knows better comes on and says it’s just old hat. Sorry DB…that is just the way I see it today.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
mackay11 wrote:I’ve spent the last 4-5 days arguing on MDDB on three different threads. It’s been… Stimulating!
Within minutes the attacks against Mattsson became character assassination and ad hominem, including:
– Liar
– Fraud
– Hiding a sin
– A yokel
– Lazy
– Naive
– Involved in a ‘hatchet job’ (malicious intent)
Really?!? That’s very discouraging. I’ve never been on that site, but I won’t bother. Good for you for defending Mattsson, because whatever else he is, I think he was a trusting, faithful member and family man. I notice they’re willing to use such unkind language describing Mattsson, but when the “dad” character in that video (about the young husband who’s troubled about the Book of Abraham and finally confides in his “TBM” wife and dad), they have the dad saying things to the effect of, Gosh, all that boring . . . .scripture stuff? Kinda too complicated for me…. Seems like it’s acceptable to be unversed and undisturbed by Book of A. issues. But you can’t be unversed and disturbed.
Old-Timer wrote:To be fair, cwald, the statements since this happened haven’t been “vague”. There have been some pretty straightforward, direct statements since then.
This incident wasn’t handled properly – at all, but I really do think they have learned from it and similar things that have occurred of which they are aware since then. I really do believe they understand they can’t “silence the critics” now.
Straight forward statements but no apologies. Aren’t we suppose to ask forgiveness when we make a mistake?Ann wrote:
Really?!? That’s very discouraging. I’ve never been on that site, but I won’t bother. Good for you for defending Mattsson, because whatever else he is, I think he was a trusting, faithful member and family man. I notice they’re willing to use such unkind language describing Mattsson, but when the “dad” character in that video (about the young husband who’s troubled about the Book of Abraham and finally confides in his “TBM” wife and dad), they have the dad saying things to the effect of, Gosh, all that boring . . . .scripture stuff? Kinda too complicated for me…. Seems like it’s acceptable to be unversed and undisturbed by Book of A. issues. But you can’t be unversed and disturbed.Don’t worry Ann, the people of MDDB do not represent the majority in the church. They are certainly the minority. Sometimes MDDB does my nut in. There are some incredibly infuriating people who participate there. But there are some who are more civil. There are also several ‘lurkers’ who have PM’d me and expressed appreciation for my nuanced views and pragmatic approach to Mormonism. I feel it’s partly a strength to others to present and defend the middle way. Wayfarer did a sterling job for a while… until they banned him!
I also use it as a place to test ideas. There are aspects of Mormon history that there are actually some decent answers to, and MDDB is a place I find them. On the other hand there are topics which, despite their best efforts, have no reasonable resolution. I find those helpful to discover too. I also participate on other forums where I end up taking a slightly more ‘defending Mormonism’ position because I still have some faith – it’s again a way of testing and reshaping my ideas.
But staylds is my spiritual home
:wave: 🙂 DBMormon wrote:I think they tried. Elder Jensen and Bro. Turley went with the intention of answering the issues. They were overwhelmed and not prepared for the gravity and expanse of issues. They learned their lesson. These questions being asked. Some have very compelling reasonable answers, some are even handed with the criticism and some are outmatched. That said the trouble is getting someone to slow down, take a breath, and seriously give room for the faithful answer to have some weight. For me most of these issues no longer cause doubt, some still do. The
more I take time to understand context and to grasp what real LDS doctrine is, the less bothered I am.It is not a simple give some answers or apoligize. It is way more nuanced then that. The more time take to understand context and grasp what real LDS doctrine is, the less bothered I am… by being Mormon.
I love LDS theology:
– the one the Givens sum-up in The God Who Weeps.
– The one that Joseph taught when he was at his best, not at his worst
– The one that Elder Uchtdorf often teachers
But I can do without the post Utah formation of a culture and set of practices. The imposition of the origins being clean history. The idea that the prophet speaks with the precise voice of God rather than being a prophet who gets inspiration. The stuff DB calls “nonsense” in various environments.
Unfortunately these seem to dominate most of what is discussed on a Sunday. I can live with that because there’s enough for me to pick through for my own personal journey. And at the end of the day, that’s my friends’ and family’s community. And they matter more to me than abandoning it.
Ann wrote:mackay11 wrote:I’ve spent the last 4-5 days arguing on MDDB on three different threads. It’s been… Stimulating!
Within minutes the attacks against Mattsson became character assassination and ad hominem, including:
– Liar
– Fraud
– Hiding a sin
– A yokel
– Lazy
– Naive
– Involved in a ‘hatchet job’ (malicious intent)
Really?!? That’s very discouraging. I’ve never been on that site, but I won’t bother. Good for you for defending Mattsson, because whatever else he is, I think he was a trusting, faithful member and family man. I notice they’re willing to use such unkind language describing Mattsson, but when the “dad” character in that video (about the young husband who’s troubled about the Book of Abraham and finally confides in his “TBM” wife and dad), they have the dad saying things to the effect of, Gosh, all that boring . . . .scripture stuff? Kinda too complicated for me…. Seems like it’s acceptable to be unversed and undisturbed by Book of A. issues. But you can’t be unversed and disturbed.
I will add, that among faithful LDS who are aware of the difficult issues, only about half seem equipped with the empathy and charity to help. Some can’t understand how you got there and others can’t see you as anything more then an enemy. I believe we would find the same in the world as well. We are pretty diverse as human beings
mackay11 wrote:DBMormon wrote:I think they tried. Elder Jensen and Bro. Turley went with the intention of answering the issues. They were overwhelmed and not prepared for the gravity and expanse of issues. They learned their lesson. These questions being asked. Some have very compelling reasonable answers, some are even handed with the criticism and some are outmatched. That said the trouble is getting someone to slow down, take a breath, and seriously give room for the faithful answer to have some weight. For me most of these issues no longer cause doubt, some still do. The
more I take time to understand context and to grasp what real LDS doctrine is, the less bothered I am.It is not a simple give some answers or apoligize. It is way more nuanced then that. The more time take to understand context and grasp what real LDS doctrine is, the less bothered I am… by being Mormon.
I love LDS theology:
– the one the Givens sum-up in The God Who Weeps.
– The one that Joseph taught when he was at his best, not at his worst
– The one that Elder Uchtdorf often teachers
But I can do without the post Utah formation of a culture and set of practices. The imposition of the origins being clean history. The idea that the prophet speaks with the precise voice of God rather than being a prophet who gets inspiration. The stuff DB calls “nonsense” in various environments.
Unfortunately these seem to dominate most of what is discussed on a Sunday. I can live with that because there’s enough for me to pick through for my own personal journey. And at the end of the day, that’s my friends’ and family’s community. And they matter more to me than abandoning it.
The key is to help people open up to the nuance without overwhelming them. If you sat next to me in Sunday School or Priesthood, you would 1.) not consider me an apostate if you were old school and 2.) if you knew the issues and had doubts, you would know I am a safe place to come talk. I teach truth, not the supposed truth that many members hold to but real truth, when they hear it, they know it. I give people flexibility, I know my history to be able to set facts straight, and I don’t push an agenda at the expense of hurting someone. I try to let people have their “truth” withou my bursting their bubble but rather planting seeds
I also add, in Mormon theology and doctrine, there is nuance. It is easy using Leaders quotes and not my own dogma to show their is room for alternate views. I never tell someone how it is, but rather show them there is another way to see that same principle so that in the end they are free to choose for themselves but also having all the info on the table. When you give people room to understand issues in context and either choose their non-sense or the new and explained truth that is now available that they had never noticed before, guess which one they gravitate to?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.