Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
i think john is a lot more active on facebook. For those in the in the StayLDS segment, “A Thoughtful Faith Support Group” is generally aligned. Old-Timer wrote:Quote:So, question. What are the 14 F’s people keep talking about?
The 14 Fundamentals – something that should be burned, buried and forgotten. In other words, don’t ask.
😈
Best not to ask because someone here has a very visceral reaction to the 14F…cwald wrote:The 14 Fs, represents the worst of the worst when it comes to religion. Unfortunately they are alive and well in the LDS Church since October 2010 GC.
A research here will pull up several threads.
and !voila!
i love you cwald, but i agree with Ray…in one ear and out the other.. or “screw them if they can’t take a joke”…
i love, LOVE mercyngrace’s response above!!!
If we say we can find universalism in mormonism, I agree. If we say that Mormonism IS universalism, then I think we err in saying that universalism is a identifying attribute of mormonism; and as practiced today, it is not. Obviously, it is an important strategy for staying LDS for us to select what we want to believe of the religion. I accept that, and the universalist aspect is absolutely to be found in some of the teaching. We key on these as our own way of interpreting mormonism. I think, though, there is a danger in imputing our meaning onto the true believing masses of mormons. As Alma 12:9 says, sometimes the more enlightened version of the Gospel Truth is for our own consumption and not necessarily for sharing.
It all depends…
Old-Timer wrote:“Pure Mormonism” says that everyone will be judged according to how they strive to live according to the dictates of their own consciences – and that God makes up the difference in the ideal and the real. That theology is as universal as it gets, especially when D&C 19 and the ideal of “eternal punishment” not being “never ending punishment” is factored into it.
The only more universal idea is that everyone, eventually, will reach the same end result – and even that is possible within Mormon theology (with the exception of Sons of Perdition, who consciously choose to exclude themselves from it), even if few members believe it.
I think the question cwald asks or better said posits is whether the church under correlation is anything like pure mormonism, and whether pure mormonism exists anywhere as a church.cwald wrote:Annnnnd, after reading my last four/five posts, I better take a break from the staylds board, as I am wount to do from time to time.
don’t do dat. you are 100% correct — the church we want to exist doesn’t, but the Church of the 14 fundamentals does. We’re deluded, sometimes, because we want to make it work, and we filter out the bad to make the good work.we need you dude.
mackay11 wrote:I am rapidly becoming a true Universalist. I discovered a whole load of quotes this morning that make this all the more enjoyable.
I’m dashing off to church now so can’t clean up the formatting. I’ll be back later and will add them all into the quotes thread.
Cheers
here, here!If we select from the broad spectrum of thinking in the Church over time, we can find good stuff to anchor on. The challenge, as cwald points out, is that there is also a very exclusive sense within the church and most of its leaders that doesn’t embrace universalism. I am ok with that.
cwald wrote:Or is it only universal when dealing with non members? That we sui pretty good with.
It’s the apostates and heretics that are going to hell.
well, if we embrace the idea that hell is the telestial kingdom, then…hey, not so bad…I find pascal’s wager to be completely flawed. “If you win you gain all.” It’s a false choice. I would like to think of god as an enlightened being. If I had a son who was a fawning sycophant, believing without hesitation exactly what he thinks I said 3000 years ago to a people who made crap up, I would be very concerned about his ability to discern truth.
If I had a son or daughter who ascribed to me genocide, and then justified it through faithful apologetics, I would be deeply concerned as to his or her moral compass.
If, on the other hand, I had a child who took full responsibility for his or her actions, did her level best to make the best out of the world s/he lived in, and cared for neighbor, what would I care what s/he thought of me? Expecially if every description of me is robed in abstraction so vague I cannot be recognized?
I would hope an enlightened god would countenance critical thinking. I think
Mr Deity’s interaction with Michael Shermerlove it. great example. it’s as if the first part of the book of mormon was written by a different process than the mosiah-onward section…. hmmmm… I mean, starting with King Benjamin’s speech, there seems to be a completely different sentiment expressed. Kumahito, I can understand your feelings on this. My LDS ancestors left Utah to settle in the east, in disgust of the ongoing practice of post manifesto polygamy. I did not grow up with the veneration of the pioneers… we were free thinkers and realists about the church, so the pioneer thing wasn’t ever pushed on us. church was at times 35 miles away, so i never went to primary. but later, i married a wonderful girl whose parents were from solidly idaho LDS pioneers (although she grew up in DC area), and pending time with her relatives, i came to really enjoy the traditions. Then, as i learned the supressed histories within my mother’s family secrets (the dirty filthy polyg stories), i also came to revere those of my own progenitors who had tht pioneer background, recognizing their humanity.
it is fascinating to see how human nature mythologizes the past.
ConcernedMember wrote:One question, though: If the participants here aren’t considered “disaffected”, what would you call it? (BTW, I don’t really like the term “disaffected”, but I don’t have a better one at the moment). I guess I settle for “disaffected” because I have lost some affection for the church (history, doctrine, culture, policies, and procedures) over the years so dis-affected kind of seems to fit for me. (Maybe I’m in the wrong place???)
Disaffection is the beginning of enlightenment, a necessary part of the trial of our faith through which we hope to pass. I am no longer “disaffected”, but we all have our days.I have a preference to say that we are on one of many “Middle Way” paths, but in the end, I would simply be preferred to be called and authentic “Mormon” or “LDS” in the fullest sense of the word.
Sitting right now on the Days of 47 parade route, about 357 S 200 E, my DW loves parades…. Yeah, we went to the concert at the conference center, and the rodeo…. Pioneer Day is a big event here. My LDS ancestors came over in the later scandanavian immigration. There was really an amount of vision, courage and fierce determination that empowered our crazy ancestors to come to a god-forsaken desert and make a life.
I can’t resist having the profoundest respect.
And then, today, there are Pioneers willing to stand against the bigotry and narrowness of institutional thinking and declare with one voice, we CAN accept diversity and unity with all…
Blessed, honored Pioneer, indeed!
The DAMU (DisAffected Mormon Underground – pronounced “damn you”) existed in the 90s, on listserv mailing lists and usenet (alt.religion.mormon, soc.religion.mormon) Except that StayLDS tries to not be disaffected, nor is it really “underground”. Our goal is to find a way of staying LDS amidst disaffection…to find one’s “middle way”.
Welcome.
mackay11 wrote:One thing I might well add to my quotes library is this:
Quote:
Eric Hawkins, a church spokesman, said that “every church faces this challenge,” adding, “The answer is not to try to silence critics, but to provide as much information and as much support as possible to those who may be affected.”
Note how Church Spokesman Eric Hawkins posits that the response to critics is to provide information. However, there is nothing about listening and understanding the concerns. Elder Mattson’s concern with the Apostles who tried to minimize his concerns wasn’t the information provided, but the lack of ability or willingness to address his concerns.SamBee wrote:That 1946 quote is incredible.
I am somewhat ambivalent about the quote. My father worked on the Manhattan Project, and while the bomb certainly was beyond all imagination in terms of its power for evil, I am not sure that I share J Reuben Clark’s sentiment that it was a mistake or a tragedy, or that satan planted it in the minds of the Americans who created it. It was certainly uniquely destructive, and the result of the fear of its use has been a ‘cold peace’ where mutually assured destruction contained many conflicts in the past sixty years.I find it interesting that when the MX project was targeted for deployment in Utah, SWK voiced opposition and the project was halted. The church thus has had a very strange relationship with the bomb, imo.
