The June 1

[YOhio]

Please defend this statement. Explain to us all why it's such a good thing to belong to an aggressively anti-gay, sexist, totalitarian, historically racist religion.

There's no defense for it unless one is aggressively anti-gay, sexist, totalitarian or historically racist. That's the only reason to be Mormon.

[FMCoug]

I've spent a lot (probably too much) of time thinking about this and I think I understand the fundamental disconnect between the Orthodox and the so-called ProgMos. Do the actions of Kate and John meet the Church's definition of apostasy? Probably so. The problem I and others have with this is that the "our way or the highway" Church is not what we want the Church to be. And the fundamental tenets of the Gospel don't require it. So yes, it is of man and I am okay with being critical of that. SU has used the term totalitarian. While that is pretty extreme, it's not totally wrong either. Christ was one to invite, not force or threaten with real earthly consequences if you don't toe the line (i.e. no temple recommend). And if anybody tries to say there are not earthly, painful consequences to lack of a recommend, you are a complete idiot. Participation in some of the most important events in family members' lives should not be contingent on Church membership (and more).

My beef is that there is no room in the Church to be "kind of Mormon". You're either all in or to some folks, you're out, a fence sitter, etc. To the most extreme this extends to culture, politics, etc.

The big tent we've dreamed of just got a lot smaller. And that makes me sad.

[SoonerCoug]

There's no defense for it unless one is aggressively anti-gay, sexist, totalitarian or historically racist. That's the only reason to be Mormon.

Those things have been fundamental goals of Mormon leadership. They made it their mission to oppose the equal rights amendment, civil rights movement / racial equality, and also the gay rights movement.

What is your reason for being Mormon? I'm guessing it's because you were born into a Mormon family. That is my reason, but I don't think it's a good reason at all.

[TripletDaddy]

Those things have been fundamental goals of Mormon leadership. They made it their mission to oppose the equal rights amendment, civil rights movement / racial equality, and also the gay rights movement.

What is your reason for being Mormon? I'm guessing it's because you were born into a Mormon family. That is my reason, but I don't think it's a good reason at all.

He won't answer that question, sooner. Don't w.a.s.t.e. your time.

[SoonerCoug]

My beef is that there is no room in the Church to be "kind of Mormon". You're either all in or to some folks, you're out, a fence sitter, etc. To the most extreme this extends to culture, politics, etc.

This is a fantastic point. I think this very issue is what limits Mormonism's growth and reach.

[YOhio]

Those things have been fundamental goals of Mormon leadership. They made it their mission to oppose the equal rights amendment, civil rights movement / racial equality, and also the gay rights movement.

What is your reason for being Mormon? I'm guessing it's because you were born into a Mormon family. That is my reason, but I don't think it's a good reason at all.

While sexism is my primary reason I'm also on board with totalitarianism. I love that part of it.

[Pheidippides]

I've spent a lot (probably too much) of time thinking about this and I think I understand the fundamental disconnect between the Orthodox and the so-called ProgMos. Do the actions of Kate and John meet the Church's definition of apostasy? Probably so. The problem I and others have with this is that the "our way or the highway" Church is not what we want the Church to be. And the fundamental tenets of the Gospel don't require it. So yes, it is of man and I am okay with being critical of that. SU has used the term totalitarian. While that is pretty extreme, it's not totally wrong either. Christ was one to invite, not force or threaten with real earthly consequences if you don't toe the line (i.e. no temple recommend). And if anybody tries to say there are not earthly, painful consequences to lack of a recommend, you are a complete idiot. Participation in some of the most important events in family members' lives should not be contingent on Church membership (and more).

My beef is that there is no room in the Church to be "kind of Mormon". You're either all in or to some folks, you're out, a fence sitter, etc. To the most extreme this extends to culture, politics, etc.

The big tent we've dreamed of just got a lot smaller. And that makes me sad.

Agreed.

I've had some friends from my college/law school days contact me about how my path out was and how best to proceed in the past 24 hours. It's been a tipping point for a lot of people - they just don't feel welcome anymore.

[SoonerCoug]

While sexism is my primary reason I'm also on board with totalitarianism. I love that part of it.

LOL

[UVACoug]

They won't answer you, SU! They're so scared of your inquisition they'll log out for a week just to avoid this thread. So chickenshit.

I'm trembling in my boots.

[Solon]

Attempt to troll art Vandelay with mood when he clearly asked for tense.

This thoroughly accurate reply deserves some serious recognition.
Bravo, 3D.
Imperative is a mood; not a tense.

I want to ask a simple question, in all seriousness. Now doesn't it all come down to whether you support gay marriage and oppose the LDS patriarchy? Indeed, don't recent LDS hierarchy responses to the gay marriage revolution and the rebellion against monotheism's patriarchy cast past LDS church racism in a new light? The LDS racism wasn't an aberration, it was part of a pattern.

So, what are you going to do about it? What's more important to you? Your LDS loyalty or membership or your Civil Rights convictions (if indeed you have them).

LAUte, UVA, All-American, seriously, cut the sophistry. Anyone who doesn't denounce the LDS Church right now for its undeviating opposition to social progress has, as far as I'm concerned, made their values completely clear to me, and those values are repugnant to mine.

While the world isn't as black-and-white as this, I find a lot of truth in SU's characterization here. Folks in my heavily Mormon neighborhood have already expressed this basic opinion from the believers' side: no believing Mormon can support either gay rights (i.e., same-sex marriage) or ordaining women to the priesthood.

For the record, I suspect that the councils - should they actually take place - will enact no real ecclesiastical discipline against these folks.

[Tex]

This is a long time coming for Dehlin. No one should be surprised.

It seems the only thing constant about the doctrine of who can get the priesthood (and practice whatever) is that it is always changing.

A strange bit of hyperbole.

Anyone who doesn't denounce the LDS Church right now for its undeviating opposition to social progress has, as far as I'm concerned, made their values completely clear to me, and those values are repugnant to mine.

Consider my values completely clear to you.

Christ was one to invite, not force or threaten with real earthly consequences if you don't toe the line (i.e. no temple recommend). And if anybody tries to say there are not earthly, painful consequences to lack of a recommend, you are a complete idiot. Participation in some of the most important events in family members' lives should not be contingent on Church membership (and more).

My beef is that there is no room in the Church to be "kind of Mormon". You're either all in or to some folks, you're out, a fence sitter, etc. To the most extreme this extends to culture, politics, etc.

The big tent we've dreamed of just got a lot smaller. And that makes me sad.

Your selective reading of scripture aside, this is nonsense. I have been surrounded most of my life with "kind of" Mormons. There are millions of Church members at all places along the spectrum of faith. An extreme minority ever face discipline, to say nothing of excommunication.

[Donuthole]

This thoroughly accurate reply deserves some serious recognition.
Bravo, 3D.
Imperative is a mood; not a tense.

TripleDad is so easy to troll.

[UVACoug]

I've spent a lot (probably too much) of time thinking about this and I think I understand the fundamental disconnect between the Orthodox and the so-called ProgMos. Do the actions of Kate and John meet the Church's definition of apostasy? Probably so. The problem I and others have with this is that the "our way or the highway" Church is not what we want the Church to be. And the fundamental tenets of the Gospel don't require it. So yes, it is of man and I am okay with being critical of that. SU has used the term totalitarian. While that is pretty extreme, it's not totally wrong either. Christ was one to invite, not force or threaten with real earthly consequences if you don't toe the line (i.e. no temple recommend). And if anybody tries to say there are not earthly, painful consequences to lack of a recommend, you are a complete idiot. Participation in some of the most important events in family members' lives should not be contingent on Church membership (and more).

My beef is that there is no room in the Church to be "kind of Mormon". You're either all in or to some folks, you're out, a fence sitter, etc. To the most extreme this extends to culture, politics, etc.

The big tent we've dreamed of just got a lot smaller. And that makes me sad.

My experience is obviously much different than yours. I don't understand why anyone would want to be the kind of Mormon you describe. If I lost my testimony, I would be gone without any hesitation. What are the benefits of being "kind of Mormon?" I have never had a problem with the truth claims of the Church, but the cultural/social aspects of the Church have been a real problem for me. Even to the point of me being inactive for a relatively lengthy period of time.

Not trying to discount your experience. Just find it interesting how different people's perspectives can be.

With respect to your claim that there is no room for your kind in the Church, I don't think that is fair (although I understand why you would feel that way). The Church has consistently said that members will never be disciplined for holding unorthodox beliefs. They repeated that in both of the letters to Dehlin and Kellie. Haters like SU will call it sophistry in their typical condescending way, but there is a real difference between holding an unorthodox belief and trying to persuade other members of the Church to join in that unorthodox belief. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a disciple of John Dehlin tell me that everything he says is wonderful because he is a "member in good standing" ... or how Dehlin has close friends who are general authorities that know what he is doing and approve of it. I've heard similar things said by defenders of Kate Kellie. Is it any wonder that the Church would want to disassociate itself from people that it believes are leading vulnerable members astray?

If what the Church teaches is true, I don't see how it could stand by in good faith and let John Dehlin continue to build up his cult to lead people out of real devotion to the gospel. If what the Church teaches is true, it doesn't do any good to be "kind of Mormon." If what the Church teaches is true, does it really make sense to allow people to be led astray for the sake of PR?

If you don't believe the Church is true ... if you want to be "kind of Mormon" (or want to attack the Church) ... I understand why you would be disappointed (or would be celebrating this as a means of bashing the Church). I don't understand why anyone would be shocked or surprised though. The Church has always maintained its orthodoxy.

[UVACoug]

This thoroughly accurate reply deserves some serious recognition.
Bravo, 3D.
Imperative is a mood; not a tense.



While the world isn't as black-and-white as this, I find a lot of truth in SU's characterization here. Folks in my heavily Mormon neighborhood have already expressed this basic opinion from the believers' side: no believing Mormon can support either gay rights (i.e., same-sex marriage) or ordaining women to the priesthood.

For the record, I suspect that the councils - should they actually take place - will enact no real ecclesiastical discipline against these folks.

Your "heavily Mormon neighborhood" is the LDS hierarchy? It amazes me how obtuse and narrow-minded many of the members of the Church can be, especially in Utah (and especially among those who wear their orthodoxy on their sleeve). If SU's post were describing those people, I would agree that his comment has some truth in it. It's that aspect of LDS culture that really drives me crazy and makes me want to stay home from Church. I don't think SU's comment comes anywhere close to accurately describing the "LDS Hierarchy" though, or the actual teachings of the gospel. Sure, you will find Church leaders here and there that will take things to an extreme, but I don't think it is fair to paint with a broad brush like that.

But then again, I am a sophist and a shill ... so my perception probably isn't worth much.

[New Mexican Disaster]

My experience is obviously much different than yours. I don't understand why anyone would want to be the kind of Mormon you describe. If I lost my testimony, I would be gone without any hesitation. What are the benefits of being "kind of Mormon?" I have never had a problem with the truth claims of the Church, but the cultural/social aspects of the Church have been a real problem for me. Even to the point of me being inactive for a relatively lengthy period of time.

Not trying to discount your experience. Just find it interesting how different people's perspectives can be.

With respect to your claim that there is no room for your kind in the Church, I don't think that is fair (although I understand why you would feel that way). The Church has consistently said that members will never be disciplined for holding unorthodox beliefs. They repeated that in both of the letters to Dehlin and Kellie. Haters like SU will call it sophistry in their typical condescending way, but there is a real difference between holding an unorthodox belief and trying to persuade other members of the Church to join in that unorthodox belief. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a disciple of John Dehlin tell me that everything he says is wonderful because he is a "member in good standing" ... or how Dehlin has close friends who are general authorities that know what he is doing and approve of it. I've heard similar things said by defenders of Kate Kellie. Is it any wonder that the Church would want to disassociate itself from people that it believes are leading vulnerable members astray?

If what the Church teaches is true, I don't see how it could stand by in good faith and let John Dehlin continue to build up his cult to lead people out of real devotion to the gospel. If what the Church teaches is true, it doesn't do any good to be "kind of Mormon." If what the Church teaches is true, does it really make sense to allow people to be led astray for the sake of PR?

If you don't believe the Church is true ... if you want to be "kind of Mormon" (or want to attack the Church) ... I understand why you would be disappointed (or would be celebrating this as a means of bashing the Church). I don't understand why anyone would be shocked or surprised though. The Church has always maintained its orthodoxy.

Should we have to give up and betray our culture and become totally disassociated with Mormons because we believe that the current "doctrinal" position of the church leadership is behind the times of where it will eventually wind up? Should we be thrown out because we disagree that the conclusions drawn by the orthodox are not those that we draw from the same teachings of Christ? Should we be thrown out of church because we want to reform from within instead of ranting and raving about the problems we see within the institution? Maybe the answer is yes, but if the price that everyone must pass a loyalty oath or they are tossed, then what is the point of reactivation and missionary work?

I agree with FM Coug. Tent just got smaller. I think a lot of people have a lot of thinking to do. Can the relationship still work if they want you gone?