[churchistrue]

nibbler wrote:

IMO both sides came out looking bad.

yup

[churchistrue]

amateurparent wrote:

Quote:

Ann wrote:

Before he was an apostate he was a true believing member, loving his California Mormon experience, loving scouts, serving a mission to NYC, including 9/11. Before he was an apostate he requested to stay on his mission for an extra transfer. Before he was an apostate he met his wife at BYU. Before he was an apostate he went to Rough Stone Rolling and FAIR for all his information because he wanted to use approved sources.

Instead of looking at excommunication as the apostate’s sin and error, why couldn’t we see it also as the church’s failing?

Ann, I love what you wrote.

I do believe that Runnells started out as a person who had questions and he hoped for answers. He didn’t get any answers. NONE. When he didn’t get any answers from the church, he posted his questions online and the Internet just blew up.

DH and I have had some heated discussions about Runnells and FAIR. DH sees FAIR as having given Runnells real answers, and Runnells just didn’t want the answers. I see the answers given as unacceptable. They were nebulous and odd answers that didn’t answer the real questions asked, or the the answer was “go read the scriptures and pray some more”

My perception is that Runnells quickly felt under attack and reacted defensively. DH feels that Runnells started out from an attack position.

Every time we discuss Runnells and FAIR, as a couple, we get cross-wise as each of us is certain we have more insight than the other. We do our evening walk and debate as we go. My hands are flying because I talk with my hands as much as my mouth. Neither one of us has been convinced of anything the other had to say. Each is sure the other will smarten up at some point.

I probably side more with your view than your husband’s. I don’t blame necessarily blame Jeremy for his evolution. And I don’t think he’s a bad person. But there are consequences for actions. We don’t get to choose them. Maybe he did everything perfect according to his conscience, but he still has to understand he’s opposing an organization that has stated what they do to people who oppose them. If he valued his membership in the church, he wouldn’t have taken the course he did.

[churchistrue]

nibbler wrote:

Women staff the entire primary presidency. If women were allowed to be SSP then that might set up a scenario where there’s a woman president “over” a male counselor, which I’m guessing is a no-no.

You posted this while I was making my reply. I was thinking the same thing.

[churchistrue]

I think there will continue to be progress in female equality issues. The first thing the church will do is to look at everything to determine if priesthood is necessary. This is probably one they can say, priesthood is not necessary, and open it up to women. However, the church has a tradition of not mixing men and women in callings, to prevent potential adulterous situations I guess. So, the church would first have to move to a model where men and women could be in a presidency together, before it could be opened up to women. That might be a bigger obstacle. But, this is the world we live in. Unmarried men and women need to learn to work together in variety of situations: business, politics, schools, etc. So there’s no reason the church can’t evolve in that direction.

[churchistrue]

Roy wrote:

churchistrue wrote:

To criticize the church for communicating in the way it does now, utilizing a professional PR Spokesman, is either coming from a petty, unfair perspective or a perspective that is naive about how large organizations work.

Thanks for the input CIT. To be fair, the church is a large organization. I am glad that they have a PR department. I believe that Bro. Otterson does a pretty good job balancing the need to address these issues in some form with the need to not challenge the faith of the unaware.

I even hope that the PR guys can have a seat and influence at the decision making table (much as I suspect that the legal team has a “seat” or influence). As much as that might seem counterintuitive to a TBM, I want my church to consider how the general public will respond to policy decisions BEFORE those decisions are made. If the PR department is only there to provide spin once the policies have been set, then they become much less useful to me.

Good point. I’d be curious to know if there is a full loop, or if it just one way. I

[churchistrue]

Heber13 wrote:

Good quotes from your blog, CIT.

It feels faithful and hopeful, to hear you process it like you do.

Of course, I think there is legitimate other responses because it doesn’t feel to some like they went far enough to really make it an apology, or to fess up to some things, but they stepped in that direction to acknowledge problems. Perhaps baby steps.

I also think it is OK to criticize them, even if trying to stay faithful and hopeful. That is my middle ground approach.

If people were not critical and open about the problems, the PR department wouldn’t be talking about “thorny issues”. They can’t deny them any longer or just tell people they are no big deal.

I agree it’s possible to be critical in a way that doesn’t cross the line. But that line where someone crosses that ground from OK to not OK is pretty blurry. And unfortunately, probably most varies according to how one’s local leadership sees it. I know I push the line with my views on scripture historicity and authority, so for myself I choose to be very conservative with how I express disagreement on political type issues.

[churchistrue]

I’ve been writing some thoughts on this for the last week and finally got it out. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/michael-otterson-lds-spokesman-on-boundaries/

Good discussion here in this thread. I went back and forth between feeling Otterson’s comments were a little dismissive to feeling they were honest, conciliatory and productive.

First, on the fact a PR guy is giving this not an apostle:

Quote:

First, let’s address the question of whether it’s appropriate for the LDS Church to have a professional public relations manager speak for the church in these situations. Many critics of the church like to make fun of the church, using terms like “President Newsroom”, suggesting that a church shouldn’t operate this way. The claim that since the church has a prophet and apostles, they should speak for the church always. The church is an organization with 15M+ members, with $50B+ in real estate and other assets, with 30,000 branches/wards, operating in 160 countries in 180 different languages. Some criticize that, but I think that kind of organizational strength is a huge asset in enabling the church and its members to get involved in critical issues in the world (like the new initiative with refugees) and be a force for good in the world. To criticize the church for communicating in the way it does now, utilizing a professional PR Spokesman, is either coming from a petty, unfair perspective or a perspective that is naive about how large organizations work.

Here’s my favorite quote from Otterson in the presentation, and my reaction.

Quote:

Like many institutions, from business to government to religion to law enforcement to media and a host of other areas, the Church has not found the transition to greater transparency a particularly easy one.

Quote:

I hear humility. I hear an apology. I honestly was moved to being a little emotional over this the first time I read this. My faith crisis/journey has been very difficult and painful. I do blame the church for a lot of it. I hear this as an “I’m sorry, we’re trying to do better”. I’ll take it. Thank you.

[churchistrue]

I was going to post this on the “Questions” thread, but it got closed. Here’s my analysis of what Elder Oaks meant by opposition. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/elder-dallin-h-oaks-opposition-in-all-things/ Summary: I don’t think he meant opposition to include simple disagreement or even expressing disagreement but a more organized and intentionally motivated opposition against the church.

[churchistrue]

I’ve followed his story a bit. I think there must be more to the story. He’s dropped a few things here and there that hint at that. It seems he has a bit of an antagonistic relationship towards his stake prez, and that is what it sounds like the primary issue is, not really the fb post. I could be wrong, but that’s my observation.

[churchistrue]

Old-Timer wrote:

Most of our truly unique beliefs come from the Bible.

Also, we currently don’t teach much of the theology in the Book of Mormon – and I am more than fine with that, given the time period in which it is set and our belief in on-going revelation.

Too few members understand that. If we understood that simple fact better, collectively, it would be much easier to make major doctrinal changes now.

I’d like to hear you expound on this. Are you specifically referring to trinity? Or do you have more in mind?

One thing I found recently that is pretty clear in the BOM that we definitely do not teach is that those that never had the gospel (or law) taught to them will immediately receive salvation when they die, similar to what we believe about children that die before age 8. I believe now we teach that those people will have a chance to accept or reject the gospel. But in the BOM it clearly teaches they will receive salvation.

2 Ne 9:25

25 Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

Mosiah 3:11

11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.

Mosiah 15:24-25

24 And these are those who have part in the first resurrection; and these are they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having salvation declared unto them. And thus the Lord bringeth about the restoration of these; and they have a part in the first resurrection, or have eternal life, being redeemed by the Lord.

25 And little children also have eternal life.

[churchistrue]

On BOM historicity. First of all, this is a huge issue for me that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking and writing on. Here in various threads and at my site linked in my signature.

I think it does matter, a lot. But not in the sense that the BOM or the church is not valid if it’s not historical, but that a lot of assumptions and perspectives need to change from the traditional view in order to make sense of it.

If the BOM is not historical, there’s a lot about the LDS church that appears to be pretty messed up. If you want to open an even bigger can of worms, apply it to the Bible also. Some struggle with NT historicity in the same way.

I think what really matters is how much you think God is involved in the guiding and directing the LDS church now and throughout history (back to Adam–I guess since that essentially is all part of church history).

If you think God is very involved (we’re assuming BOM is not historical for this), then God has a lot of splainin to do. Why the gold plates? Why the Angel Moroni? Why perpetuate the understanding that it’s historical even to today? That kind of God is really hard not to understand as being twisted, illogical, confusing. How could you follow that kind of God?

If you think God is not very involved (this is my view, btw), then it’s pretty easy to understand how we got the scriptures we have, but then you get a lot of questions like: What’s the point of the church? Why obey? What’s a prophet? What is scripture?

Obviously, you can take some sort of hybrid, God is involved at times and not at times, but that’s going to bring with it a set of questions also.

I think the problem is not insurmountable but requires a lot of searching and processing at the individual level to come to peace with it.

[churchistrue]

DarkJedi wrote:

amateurparent wrote:

A non-literal Mormon is someone who is culturally LDS but no longer religiously LDS. Some churches have been accused of becoming more like social clubs than religions. LDS Non-literal believers filling the pews will increase that trend. I don’t see that as a negative or a positive, but as a trend that is happening. I am curious to see what the backlash from the FP will be.

I have to disagree with this definition, AP. I think it is correct for some non-literal Mormons but not all. I am more than cultural Mormon and there is some LDS theology I absolutely love. Likewise, I believe there are many very orthodox and believing members who mainly go to church (and church functions) more for social reasons than religious reasons (I am not the only one sitting in the pew and looking at something else). I am not a New Order Mormon or a cultural Mormon. I am a Mormon.

Agree, I view myself similarly. One can take religion very seriously while being a non-literal believer.

[churchistrue]

nibbler wrote:

The Book of Moses also adds some insight:

Moses 1:2

Quote:

And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence.

Moses 1:9-11

Quote:

And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed. But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

Comparing to something in JSH :

JSH 1:20

Quote:

…When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was…

And of course the BoM has several of these experiences where people go into comas and the like when they have profound religious experiences. I believe this is called being “slain in the spirit.”

churchistrue wrote:

Both Lehi and Alma begin explaining their visions with “methought I saw”. If you met your friend for lunch and told a story about it, you wouldn’t begin it saying “methought I met my friend.” My theory here is that this gives us insight into Joseph’s visions.

That is interesting. The way I’ve heard it described, people usually take god’s physical presence as a given. Under those rules the person isn’t seeing god with their natural eyes, they are seeing god with their spiritual, transfigured eyes. The explanation became, you can see god if you are transfigured. Methinks that this would indicate that the concept of seeing god with spiritual eyes (a vision) coexisted with the transfiguration theory.

Doctrine and Covenants 110 can lend perspective as well.

Quote:

The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened. We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us;

The focus is on the mind and the eyes. What’s interesting is what follows.

Quote:

After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys

The vision closed. Moses appeared. Keys were committed (traditionally through the laying on of hands, something more tangible than a vision?).

Quote:

After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed. After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us,

Elias and Elijah ( :crazy: ) appeared to confer keys but their appearances were referred to as visions.

I don’t suspect I’d know what they meant by visions and appearances even if I could cross examine them, much less from a historic record. I believe there was some other thread where we discussed whether there’s a big difference between a physical visitation vs. a vision (i.e. does it really matter?) so I won’t rehash that here.

Great info. Very interesting. I hope you don’t mind if I steal errrr borrow this logic for a future article. If you can find the link to that other thread, I’d love to read it.

[churchistrue]

DarkJedi wrote:

Orson wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Our scriptures record almost no physical visitations to anyone – at least, almost none that are written clearly as physical visitations.

My reading of the scriptures says that seeing God with Physical/mortal eyes is basically impossible. One must be “quickened by the spirit” or see with “spiritual eyes”. It is a spiritual event, physical photoreceptors will be of no use.

This is my understanding as well. Hence, the First Vision is just what it says it is – a vision.

I wrote a little on this, here. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/methought-i-saw-lehis-dream/

Both Lehi and Alma begin explaining their visions with “methought I saw”. If you met your friend for lunch and told a story about it, you wouldn’t begin it saying “methought I met my friend.” My theory here is that this gives us insight into Joseph’s visions.

[churchistrue]

Ron Rasband gave a devotional talk at BYU not long before he was called as apostle that I thought illustrated some progress. He referred to gay people as gay people not as people with same sex attraction.

[Author]

Posts