Polygamy justification?

[I.J. Reilly]

Another dodge. That is fine. Smart people, i.e. those who can see the church for what it is, have to define the church as something different than what the vast majority of members see it as. The church has to walk a fine line here, offering enough hocus pocus to keep the mainline happy (Exhibit A: The proclamation on the family), but not getting SO specific and prescriptive that they would drive off the highly educated members who enjoy thinking for themselves.

What I would really like to see, and I think we have been walking around the periphery of this for ages on sites like CUF and CG, is for the 'smart' Mormons to take back their church.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wq7RoUjB16g&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wq7RoUjB16g&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

Is this what we're talking about?

[The Wankster]

Another dodge. That is fine. Smart people, i.e. those who can see the church for what it is, have to define the church as something different than what the vast majority of members see it as. The church has to walk a fine line here, offering enough hocus pocus to keep the mainline happy (Exhibit A: The proclamation on the family), but not getting SO specific and prescriptive that they would drive off the highly educated members who enjoy thinking for themselves.

What I would really like to see, and I think we have been walking around the periphery of this for ages on sites like CUF and CG, is for the 'smart' Mormons to take back their church.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

*smart people are those who see the LDS church for what it is?*

The church is designed for people to get what they want out of it, it's the people who attempt to make it into something it is not.

I get that you no longer believe, fine, get off your attempt at making anyone who doesn't see it the same way as you, inferior, people are going to find what they want to find.

*Smart Mormons* Your such an ass at times.

[UtahDan]

Another dodge. That is fine. Smart people, i.e. those who can see the church for what it is, have to define the church as something different than what the vast majority of members see it as. The church has to walk a fine line here, offering enough hocus pocus to keep the mainline happy (Exhibit A: The proclamation on the family), but not getting SO specific and prescriptive that they would drive off the highly educated members who enjoy thinking for themselves.

What I would really like to see, and I think we have been walking around the periphery of this for ages on sites like CUF and CG, is for the 'smart' Mormons to take back their church.

You're barking up the wrong tree Robin. No one wants to have this battle with you and most of us have a nuanced enough view that what you are trying to argue wouldn't much apply to us.

[wuapinmon]

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wq7RoUjB16g&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wq7RoUjB16g&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

Is this what we're talking about?

One-sided stories for years and years and years.


I've done some of my best writing while listening to this album.

[creekster]

Another dodge. That is fine. Smart people, i.e. those who can see the church for what it is, have to define the church as something different than what the vast majority of members see it as. The church has to walk a fine line here, offering enough hocus pocus to keep the mainline happy (Exhibit A: The proclamation on the family), but not getting SO specific and prescriptive that they would drive off the highly educated members who enjoy thinking for themselves.

What I would really like to see, and I think we have been walking around the periphery of this for ages on sites like CUF and CG, is for the 'smart' Mormons to take back their church.

You know, this is a remarkably arrogant thing to say, it seems to me.

[UtahDan]

The house of cards analogy is a good one. I have used that parallel before.

It only works if you view certain cards to be be critical ones or if you can conclusively establish that one has been pulled from the bottom. In matters of faith there will always be too much wiggle room for that to be more than a personal conclusion, as I think you recognize.

[I.J. Reilly]

One-sided stories for years and years and years.


I've done some of my best writing while listening to this album.

They were my pre-ACT warm-up. It worked out well for me.

[Jarid in Cedar]

It only works if you view certain cards to be be critical ones or if you can conclusively establish that one has been pulled from the bottom. In matters of faith there will always be too much wiggle room for that to be more than a personal conclusion, as I think you recognize.

I say that from personal experience. I agree with your statement on this.

[RobinFinderson]

You're so cool, Robin. Someday, I want to be just like you. The problem is this itsy witsy brain of mine could never measure up to your enormous intellect. I'll guess I'll just have to settle with being a moron who take some things on faith.

Hey man, leave faith out of this! No need to make this personal.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

*smart people are those who see the LDS church for what it is?*

The church is designed for people to get what they want out of it, it's the people who attempt to make it into something it is not.

I get that you no longer believe, fine, get off your attempt at making anyone who doesn't see it the same way as you, inferior, people are going to find what they want to find.

*Smart Mormons* Your such an ass at times.

Look man, SU makes about a perfect case for why Mormon Prophets are not what the vast majority of LDS think they are. When I was a missionary, I taught people that 'Just as Moses was a prophet to his people, we have a prophet today, who is able to lead followers of Christ through the wilderness of modern life, so they too may attain a promised land, which is salvation and everlasting life.' The Moses comparison is too over-the-top. As wuap points out, it far oversells the idea of 'prophet,' and converts like wuap end up underwhelmed by the reality. Still, a vast majority of LDS find the Moses comparison perfectly acceptable. SU's case is built to destroy the idea that the Mormon prophets are like a modern Moses.

On the other hand, you have folks like Jeff, who nimbly dodge SU's argument by saying that modern prophets are NOT what most LDS think they are. IMO, Jeff is correct, and he is an example of what I have called a 'smart Mormon.' He sees the truth about the prophets, and the limits of what can really be expected from them.

I would like to see the Jeffs of the church, and the Solons and the Paelagiuses, and the PACs, etc. (sorry to the other 'smart' Mormons who didn't make this very short list) have more influence over how things are run. The church can be SO MUCH BETTER than it is. This should be obvious to everyone. But it lacks the institutional mechanism to be anything different than what it is. The ascension of Mormon prophets guarantees that the church's policy will reflect the views of an OLD and INSULAR group of men. I'm hoping that some 'smart' Mormons can make some noise and help improve the church.

Anyhow, if you don't like my term 'smart mormons,' you are welcome to offer an alternative. I can understand why you wouldn't like it, and I am happy to accept a more fair term that represents the folks I'm talking about here.

[SeattleUte]

President Hinckley was telling everyone to pay off their mortgage during a time of extreme excess.

This is radical advice that even in retrospect seems completely useless if not just bad. Mortgage rates have been at historic lows. That fact coupled with tax benefits leads even many super wealthy people savvy in finance not to pay off their mortgages. It's very cheap money.

Also, the advice is useless absent a more holistic analysis. Pay off your mortgage even if it deprives you of needed cash fow to give your children a proper education?

Pay off your mortage the sky is falling! Sounds like something you might hear an addled great uncle screaming over Thanksgiving dinner. It's not revelatory.

[TripletDaddy]

Hey man, leave faith out of this! No need to make this personal.

Someone should start a thread about the need for greater mutual respect on this site.....not for anybody in this thread, of course. I am talking about generalities here....

[Jarid in Cedar]

Order. Structure.

In this model, the prophet presents doctrine/revelation/counsel and we filter and process it. That's a far different scenario than millions of independent prophets.

Some quotes on the topic (thanks to SEIQ):

Elder Packer's mentor, J. Rebuen Clark, said in 1954:

"We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' only when we, ourselves are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak."

Charles Penrose in the Millenaial Star:

"President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill."

The points here are well intended but poorly applied by the majority of church leadership. I had a meeting with Spencer J. Condie(1st Quorum of the seventy) in 2001 to discuss some of the issues that were bothering me and he even pulled out the "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" arguement(which I understand is not the position of the church).

Come up with a different conclusion or question and you are labeled as : an intellectual(as a bad thing), not in harmony with the spirit, a rabble rouser, prideful, lacking in spirituality, nitpicker, under the influence of Satan and his minions. Others could likely add to this list.

[The Wankster]

Hey man, leave faith out of this! No need to make this personal.



Look man, SU makes about a perfect case for why Mormon Prophets are not what the vast majority of LDS think they are. When I was a missionary, I taught people that 'Just as Moses was a prophet to his people, we have a prophet today, who is able to lead followers of Christ through the wilderness of modern life, so they too may attain a promised land, which is salvation and everlasting life.' The Moses comparison is too over-the-top. As wuap points out, it far oversells the idea of 'prophet,' and converts like wuap end up underwhelmed by the reality. Still, a vast majority of LDS find the Moses comparison perfectly acceptable. SU's case is built to destroy the idea that the Mormon prophets are like a modern Moses.

On the other hand, you have folks like Jeff, who nimbly dodge SU's argument by saying that modern prophets are NOT what most LDS think they are. IMO, Jeff is correct, and he is an example of what I have called a 'smart Mormon.' He sees the truth about the prophets, and the limits of what can really be expected from them.

I would like to see the Jeffs of the church, and the Solons and the Paelagiuses, and the PACs, etc. (sorry to the other 'smart' Mormons who didn't make this very short list) have more influence over how things are run. The church can be SO MUCH BETTER than it is. This should be obvious to everyone. But it lacks the institutional mechanism to be anything different than what it is. The ascension of Mormon prophets guarantees that the church's policy will reflect the views of an OLD and INSULAR group of men. I'm hoping that some 'smart' Mormons can make some noise and help improve the church.

Anyhow, if you don't like my term 'smart mormons,' you are welcome to offer an alternative. I can understand why you wouldn't like it, and I am happy to accept a more fair term that represents the folks I'm talking about here.

If you want to have input, you better be doing all that they ask of you, otherwise you will be shouting with all the others who feel they should have input, without putting in.

[Jarid in Cedar]

This thread has brought to me the question that begs to be asked. Why do you as an individual believe what you believe about religion, our place in the grand scheme, etc? Why do you believe in the religion that you believe in? What brought you to the place in your life that you are at today?

Open question to all.

[CardiacCoug]

This thread has brought to me the question that begs to be asked. Why do you as an individual believe what you believe about religion, our place in the grand scheme, etc? Why do you believe in the religion that you believe in? What brought you to the place in your life that you are at today?

Open question to all.

I believe that properly applied Christianity is a good influence on me and my family.

I think the LDS Church can be a great vehicle within which to practice the principles of Christianity. Can I imagine some ways in which it could be a better vehicle and ways I wish the Church were different? Sure.

It seems unlikely to me that the Church and the Book of Mormon are literally exactly what they claim to be, but that doesn't mean that they aren't a good influence (for me personally, not speaking for everyone here).

I categorically reject the view that either the Church is exactly what it claims to be or that it is completely useless.

As far as what brought me my views, it was my family. I grew up reading Sunstone, Dialogue, Fawn Brodie, all kinds of honest historical viewpoints. I have prominent LDS leaders as well as prominent "anti-Mormons" and apostates among my relatives and friends. People who are extremely orthodox LDS as well as people who claim the Church is harmful or completely worthless are both wrong, in my opinion. My views are intermediate between these two incorrect extremes.