Senate Mormonism

I get that you feel personal ownership and pride over the thread, there was a discussion on the changes to the scriptures and someone asked if there was any real difference. I gave my opinion on what I felt was the most important one.

What I've found fascinating is the way believing members are constantly trying to control the conversation online like they are able to do in church to only talk about doctrines that are faith promoting or faith neutral. I"ll remind you that I'm the third post on this thread and feel just as much right to personal ownership to it as you do. I don't think it is possible to understand the doctrine without critically examining what they are. Since for the believing member those doctrines are subject to constant reinterpretation or "revelation," you can't have an understanding of what they may do regarding gay marriage if you are unaware of the previous statements and doctrines on interracial marriage.

My opinions on what is the doctrine of the LDS church is going to sound like an attack to your ears. What is so aggravating I am sure is that as a former ally and insider, I have the specialized knowledge to debate you the logical merits of the validity of the claims. To understand Mormonism, I think you must subject it to critical examination. I just read a book on Scientology called "Going Clear." It taught me far more about Scientology than reading Dianetics and taking Scientology courses ever could. If you had a thread about understanding Scientology, and then forbid attacks on the Seaorg for dumping people overboard ships or whatnot, that would seem really weird to me. So that is why I disagree with the basic premise of the moderation policy.

But you are right, we've done this all before so no need to go round in circles again and again, I argue with you mostly because you are one of the smartest Mormons I know, and I see it as a challenge and honestly there is a part of me that would like me to be proven wrong yet again, so take that for what it is worth.

 

Actually no. The most aggravating thing about it is that while I have tried to respect your choices and beliefs, you seem unable to respect mine in turn. Even after I've explained that I disagree with your interpretation of things, you keep trying to push it on me, and then keep criticizing me when I don't accept your version of things.

I can agree to disagree, but you seem unable to do so when it comes to this discussion. That is the most frustrating part.

And here is where you completely miss the point. I'm not here to argue. I keep trying to explain that to people over the years, and I thought you understood that.

I have no need to prove anything to you or anyone else. I've already proven the Gospel to myself, to my own satisfaction. I don't need to validate my own beliefs by trying to make anyone else agree with them, or admit that they are right. I am here to share my perspective and explain my beliefs, not to prove them or force them on anyone else.

And that's the biggest reason that this thread has survived so long. From the beginning, the moderators (starting back with Lord Bane) insisted that it not turn into arguments over whether specific beliefs are right or wrong, but instead focus on understanding different perspectives. Turning it into an argument does nothing for anyone. You aren't going to argue me into agreeing with you, and I'm not going to argue you into agreeing with me. At best, we'll each walk away feeling smug about how we "showed him what's up", and the cycle will start all over.

It was that sort of behavior that ultimately caused the locking of the threads on Islam, because people got so focused on arguing rather than discussing.

Quite simply, I refuse to go along with it (and the moderators have consistently refused to allow it) I'm not going to rise to your bait. If you can't respect that and abide by it, then please just leave the thread alone.

 

http://www.kued.org/productions/promontory/interviews/quinn.html

 

And your point is? You need to place actions like that within their historical context, or else you are simply using them to mislead people.

Within that context, you have to remember why the Mormons were in Utah to begin with. They had already been forcibly ejected from 4 previous homes (New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois), and had already dealt with such issues as the US Army being sent to subjugate a rebellion that never actually happened in the first place. They had a lot of suspicion of "outsiders", and they had very good reasons for that suspicion.

 

Do you really want to have a discussion on the Mormon persecution complex, or will anything I have to say on the subject just become more fodder for you to nurse it? The subject is the most fascinating in history to me. The history is more complex than them just being constant victims driven from place to place due to prejudice against truth and righteousness. 19th century Mormonism was anti-democratic, pro-theocracy and posed a direct challenge to traditional marriage. They didn't deserve everything that happened to them, but they brought a lot of it on themselves by being bad neighbors. Quinn in the link covers why even today these stories of persecution are retold.

I think it is fascinating to think of an alternative timeline where the south won the civil war, and the pro-slavery theocratic state of Deseret becomes an independent state that like Texas decides to affiliate with the Confederacy.

 

Espy,

The link you gave had a lot of context provided for that quote. It was a long interview on the subject, and you chose out that specific snippet (which, from what I could tell reading the interview, is the quote that would be considered the "most damaging" to the Church's perception). Considering that you said just the other day that you were trying to argue in this thread "for the benefit of the onlookers", your use of that quote without context or any commentary on your part comes across as highly deceptive, to say the least. (Not to mention, it was a violation of Senate standards, where links/quotes without adding your own input is highly discouraged.)

Note also that I didn't say that they were right to run a boycott on non-Mormon businesses. I simply provided the context that showed why they had a severe distrust of outsiders, and how they had good reason for it. That shows that it was understandable, not that it was right. (In a similar way, I think your current and past behavior in this thread is understandable, but not right.)

 

I was simply pointing out the historical context of your statement that I should leave Utah because I am non-Mormon. I thought that was self evident and since you already said you didn't want to engage in further discussion, I left it at that. I just happened to be reading it at the same time as I read your response and thought it was relevant.

 

As I've said before, I don't read minds. When you don't provide any context to your post, I have to work with the context of what You've said previously. I had no reason to think you were responding to a comment I made several posts (and several days) earlier, on a different page, when there were several comments of yours that were more recent that provide a different context.

As for my comment that you should leave Utah, my point was only that if you find it so frustrating and feel so shunned, you do have other options. (I will point out that I simply asked why you choose to live in a place where it has so much influence, if you don't like that influence.) Obviously, if you continue to live there, you consider the benefits to outweigh the costs, or else you would choose to move. If you choose to keep living there, then you really have to accept that you will be dealing with the Church's influence, if only because such a high proportion of the population are members.

It's like living in Rome, and then complaining that the Catholic Church has too much influence. You aren't going to be able to force them to change, so you need to either learn to live with it, or change your situation. Otherwise, you'll never find a way to be happy.

 

I see value in secularists confronting religious dominiation of political systems wherever they be found. I really don't mind the Mormonism of my coworkers, really the main place it has in my life is with my family, and that would be the case no matter when I lived. I find value in being close to them and my friends, so I stay. There has been a concerted effort by the faith of my fathers to make this place I live only hospitable to fellow Mormons, and part of the change needed here is for people like myself to stick around and make it easier for those who come after us by building secular communities.

 

So, according to a few Mormon friends today the church announced a major retooling/re-emphasis of the missionary program. From what I glean, they are moving away from door-to-door tracting and are going to put a greater emphasis on bringing "inactive" members back into the fold. K_K, I seem to remember you posting on the temp board that the church has been moving away in general from door-to-door tracting in recent years, you stating it was the "most ineffective"(IIRC) way of reaching out to people. What are your thoughts on this move? From an apostate's perspective, what is your take, if any, Espy?

 

folks seem pretty jazzed about this telecast today. lotta hiein' to kolob up in this piece tonight

 

It was largely a mixture of "same old, same old" and "we're updating things".

The broadcast was the annual Worldwide Leadership Training broadcast, usually done about this time of year as part of training for new Mission Presidents. (Mission Presidents usually serve for 3 years, with newly called ones starting their service on July 1.) If you are really curious about it, you can watch it online (as well as see previous years' broadcasts) here. Traditionally, all Ward and Stake leadership is invited to the broadcast, with anyone else who wants to attend welcome to do so. Often, the broadcasts are talked up a bit ahead of time, but not much new actually comes out of the broadcasts.

This time, they continued a lot of emphasis on reactivation and member referrals. The big changes mostly came through announcing that missionaries will be given greater access to online resources (such as allowing them to use Facebook for proselyting), some missions will be starting a trial program for using iPads, and missionaries will be made available to give tours of many of our chapels during the day (usually while they are there to be able to use the Internet access.)

Beyond that, it's mostly incremental changes that they discussed, largely by focusing on a few case studies of Wards and Stakes that have already tried putting many of these principles into action. (There were several such examples from the Tampa, Florida area.)

 

This thread is awesome.
If people want to discuss the Book of Mormon, why not read it first and apply Moroni 10:3-5?

end of discussion.

 

Because the fundamental principle of Moroni's promise is invalid.

 

Fundamental principle of studying something and praying to know if it is true is invalid?
If only the Senators had read the Obamacare bill first, Congress wouldn't be in this state they are currently in.

However, that's for anotehr thread.

I suppose a more less flawed approach would be to NOT read it and then search on the Internet for others who MIGHT
have and get their opinions to help form your own?

 

Moroni's promise is based on the same fundamental principle given by James:

On what basis do you claim that it is invalid?

 

Yeah no. But feel free to cling to talking points.

 

Wrong forum, sorry.

 

What does it matter? We know you're reading.

 

I think the change in missionary age is just a sign that missionaries are all about retention of the missionary rather than bringing in new converts, and they have all these kids has always been an issue because they don't have the demand for their product to justify the salesforce they have, so they have to come up with new ways to make work. Before they'd have them knock on doors, now they have them make crappy memes on facebook. As long as they feel busy and productive, it is less important if they actually are.

The reason why I came back today was to let you in on a newly developing issue that is going to have large implications not necessarily on the religion as a whole, but some new discoveries that will put to bed much of the apologetic nonsense as thanks to an incredible wordprint analysis of some 5000 books, there is a book that has been mostly overlooked that has not only wordprint similarities that the computer noticed, but the following thread is full of thematic and wording similarities that basically prove there is nothing in the BoM that is out of place from 19th Century New York schoolbooks, including a psuedo biblical style that is clear to me Joseph read at one point and incorporated into the Book of Mormon.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31734&start=588