Has your view of the church

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I just coughed so hard that I threw up three times. Literally.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I have a bad chest cold.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Let me add another thing.

The church sanctioned strategy of attempting to hide Mormon history (perhaps those words are too strong..."the church sanctioned strategy of strongly encouraging positive portrayals of Mormon history") is a COMPLETE FAILURE in 2009.

I suspect that Ed Decker and the assortment of "anti-Mormons" since him have seriously hampered the growth of the church. I also suspect that the wide proliferation of "negative" information about the church on the internet has hampered church growth. Evidence that GAs believe this is the call from GAs for a rise in apologist-type Mormon bloggers.

We are literally watching the death of Mormon apologia, right before our eyes. What is to emerge in its place? We will see.

But I think this gets to the core of what people like Indy Coug are upset about. They wish for a return to the old ways and the old times, but sorry, Pandora's box has been opened and cannot be shut. And the short-sighted policies that discouraged real history and real scholarship and honesty and truth are now biting us in the ass.

A strong counter-argument can be made that there are voices out there now that are providing answers to this conundrum, and they are not coming from SLC. And those voices are going to be people that actually end up keeping a lot of people *IN* the church.

An LDS church comprised of a few mullahs around a campfire has no future. That much, I am certain.

Right on the money there, Mr. Waters.

[scottie]

This is a pretty good read:

http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs...lland%20lt.pdf

[Tex]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Seems a bit relativistic of you to consider that possibility.

Don't those who think they know better than Church leaders represent the tares who need to be sifted from the wheat?

That was Indy's point and I think it's a ridiculous argument for anybody with an appreciation for how the Church has evolved over its history.

So in your opinion, all the policy changes you listed were just the result of people who knew better than Church leaders finally prevailing?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by scottie

This is a pretty good read:

http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs...lland%20lt.pdf

That's a letter filled with a lot of sadness, a lot of condescension, and a lot of self-righteous indignation. I thought this line was particularly telling:

It is any wonder that fine members of the Church who value obedience and Church orthodoxy to this extent also have trouble recognizing the condescending attitude with which they sometimes regard others who are not of their faith, which attitude I held myself until recently?

Gee, lucky for him he's not condescending anymore.

Here's another:

Many of my friends, who are still active members of the Church have told me that my main problem was that I was too obedient and did not read "faith threatening" materials, and that had I done so (as they have for many years) that I would not have experienced the rupture I have, and that my spiritual life would have been more healthy all the way along. That is, were I less obedient I would have been better off.

"You're just too righteous, Bob ... it leads to apostasy!" Right.

It's clear he blames the church for the resulting ripples of discontent in his family after his apostasy. And he spends paragraph after paragraph complaining about it, taking forever to get to the point. We finally get the first glimpse of what's specifically bothering him on page 6:

For example, I acknowledge the possibility that the Book of Mormon is an historic record. Whether it is historic or not, however, is not important to me and nor was it to Arrington and countless other respected members of the Church. What is important is its value as a tool with which to explore and improve my soul, and to enlighten my way through life.

So it appears he no longer believes the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. But then he departs from that brief glimpse into his issues, and goes back to preaching.

He gets on the church's case for "limiting" the paths of spirituality, eventually citing September 11 and "what we know about how fundamentalist communities of all types operate," suggesting, of course, that orthodox Mormonism is on that path. I actually laughed out loud at that Godwin's Law-esque citation.

Next he tears out a page from Mike Waters:

Where are baptismal rates falling? What I learned during my recent tenure as Stake Mission President suggests that they are falling where Internet access, and hence access to information respecting the Church, is greatest. That is not a good sign.

That's about as scientific as Tom Friedman's napkin graph and just about as embarrassing.

Outside of that one throw-away paragraph about the Book of Mormon's historicity, he never really gets to the concrete issues. Just a lot of complaining about how the church won't let him help people privately apostatize.

My favorite line in the whole letter:

Treat us like we do our children when it comes to Santa Claus and sexuality.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by scottie

This is a pretty good read:

http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs...lland%20lt.pdf

McCue is a self-important asshole, if it's the guy from Canada claiming to know everything.

There's a tax lawyer in Canada who has apostasized and goes around attacking the Church. Leave already. He also is not literate in any particular discipline affecting the ancients yet he is a know-it-all. Debate him if you like, and you'll find condescending, never-in-doubt, but not always right.

[MikeWaters]

Hey, whoa, wait a sec, I've offered many possible reasons why the church's market share is not growing.

I don't think the proliferation of anti-Mormon material has *helped* growth.

I actually do know a case of a die-hard Baptist who immersed himself in anti-Mormon material and took it upon himself to correct the Mormons. And who found himself a convert. I liked that guy. And one of his sacrament meeting talks was one of the all-time doozies I have ever witnessed--it involved reading quotations from a Dungeons and Dragons manual (as an example of Satanism) and had the Bishop kicking him in the back of his shoes. He was a strong member, but not altogether of the same stripe as the average son of pioneers.

Any publicity is better than no publicity. Maybe.

Did Mormon General Authorities think that there would never be any scrutiny of history? Is that a serious way to handle these things? To deny, deny, deny?

Mormonism is this strange beast, where if you are a member, and you are a social critic in every domain of your life, you are not allowed to be a social critic of your own religion. If you are, you are dangerous. This makes ones religious life unsatisfying at times. You are a problem solver, you like issues and problems, you like exploring ideas and brainstorming. But you are in a church who has no use for you, no want for you, and in the worst case scenario, brands you an enemy.

Maybe things in the church are going great. Maybe they aren't. The point is--it's not my job to solve things, or really even take measure. Just shut up and do your job, keep your head down, there is no suggestion box, there is no role for you, go home, get out, be gone, be done, are you still here?

I'm no one special. I have no great answers. I was born the way I was born, with the desires of heart that were placed there. And to be honest, probably the worst thing that could happen is for me to be placed in a position where I could enact change, because then I would have changed hats from observer/critic to revolutionary. And I will tell you one thing I have learned--almost every revolution fails.

It's God's ship, he's the one responsible for it. And let's be honest--God's ship has sunk to the bottom of the ocean in the past. We tend to operate on the idea that that is impossible now, which gives a sense of bravado and confidence that does nothing for when the storm comes. We rest on the laurels of a destiny that is not sure.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

That's a letter filled with a lot of sadness, a lot of condescension, and a lot of self-righteous indignation. I thought this line was particularly telling:



Gee, lucky for him he's not condescending anymore.

Here's another:



"You're just too righteous, Bob ... it leads to apostasy!" Right.

It's clear he blames the church for the resulting ripples of discontent in his family after his apostasy. And he spends paragraph after paragraph complaining about it, taking forever to get to the point. We finally get the first glimpse of what's specifically bothering him on page 6:



So it appears he no longer believes the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. But then he departs from that brief glimpse into his issues, and goes back to preaching.

He gets on the church's case for "limiting" the paths of spirituality, eventually citing September 11 and "what we know about how fundamentalist communities of all types operate," suggesting, of course, that orthodox Mormonism is on that path. I actually laughed out loud at that Godwin's Law-esque citation.

Next he tears out a page from Mike Waters:



That's about as scientific as Tom Friedman's napkin graph and just about as embarrassing.

Outside of that one throw-away paragraph about the Book of Mormon's historicity, he never really gets to the concrete issues. Just a lot of complaining about how the church won't let him help people privately apostatize.

My favorite line in the whole letter:

Do you realize that your link to Tom Friedman's napkin graph is to a post entitled "Tom Friedman is a Dumb C**T (unfortunately not edited in the post you cited)?

Stay classy, Tex. Angie Harmon would be proud.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Do you realize that your link to Tom Friedman's napkin graph is to a post entitled "Tom Friedman is a Dumb C**T (unfortunately not edited in the post you cited)?

Stay classy, Tex. Angie Harmon would be proud.

Yep. I've linked it before with the appropriate warning about profanity. Sorry that I didn't warn you again, but I doubt you were really offended.

The unfortunate language aside, the article is hilarious.