Is the Mormon Leadership in a hidden panic?

[_Jason Bourne]

Well I have not seen it nor have you provided it but I am open to more proof. Help me out.

I'll see what I can find

Thanks

See you can discuss things quite reasonably when you want to.

[_Mercury]

Well I have not seen it nor have you provided it but I am open to more proof. Help me out.

I'll see what I can find

Thanks

See you can discuss things quite reasonably when you want to.

"When I want to" being the active context. I really do not see constructive debate possible with coggy and mac.

[_harmony]

I'm not seeing any wholesale panic on the part of LDS leadership. I'm seeing an acknowledgment of internet pornography, and an increase in internet apologetics, but nothing that would constitute a panic yet. Mostly what we get in conference and in the Ensign is the same ol' same ol'. If they actually did come up with something new, at least it would make it easier to stay awake during conference.

Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of RfM.

[_Fortigurn]

I think FAIR, FARMS, FAIRWiki and especially 'more good' are all evidence that the church realises the dangers of the internet. The development of the Internet Mormon (with beliefs which are often antagonistic to those held by the chapel Mormon), is further evidence of the internet's impact on the LDS community.

[_The Dude]

I'm not seeing any wholesale panic on the part of LDS leadership. I'm seeing an acknowledgment of internet pornography, and an increase in internet apologetics, but nothing that would constitute a panic yet. Mostly what we get in conference and in the Ensign is the same ol' same ol'. If they actually did come up with something new, at least it would make it easier to stay awake during conference.

Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of RfM.

Typical of the wishful thinking at RfM. As long as the LDS leadership keeps a straight face come conference time, the faithful members won't know there's anything wrong. The Church lumbers ever onward....

[_Notoriuswun]

The internet is the modern equivelant of Martin Luther nailing his redress to the door of the Catholic Church in Germany...

And MAD is the equivelant of the man hired by the Pope to debate Martin Luther - whom was basically owned.

[_moksha]

I think the true dilemma posed by the internet is exposing members to its accurate history as opposed to legend. This can create a crisis of faith for some members. The official response has been to defend the legends and to minimize this crisis by calling it something like McCogDis or denying its existence. This does not solve the problem for those members who will continue to be surprised by this new information. I hope it never gets to the point where the official retort is that the internet is an instrument of Satan.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think the true dilemma posed by the internet is exposing members to its accurate history as opposed to legend. This can create a crisis of faith for some members. The official response has been to defend the legends and to minimize this crisis by calling it something like McCogDis or denying its existence. This does not solve the problem for those members who will continue to be surprised by this new information. I hope it never gets to the point where the official retort is that the internet is an instrument of Satan.

I recall a testimony at Church one Sunday. The man related how a long time Church friend who had been a strong leader where he had previously lived, had called telling him that he had resigned from the Church. The issues were doctrine, history etc and he had lost his testimony. This good man then bore the testimony said that he had never read anything negative about the Church and never would, not in a book nor on the internet. He then bore his testimony.

I do not mock this man at all by the way. If he is happy and happy about how he approaches things I am happy for him. I have a good friend that is the same way. At times I wish I had stayed like them. And many, many active members are like this. And as long as there are the Church is not in crisis nor are leaders panicking.

[_rcrocket]

I think the true dilemma posed by the internet is exposing members to its accurate history as opposed to legend. This can create a crisis of faith for some members. The official response has been to defend the legends and to minimize this crisis by calling it something like McCogDis or denying its existence. This does not solve the problem for those members who will continue to be surprised by this new information. I hope it never gets to the point where the official retort is that the internet is an instrument of Satan.

I recall a testimony at Church one Sunday. The man related how a long time Church friend who had been a strong leader where he had previously lived, had called telling him that he had resigned from the Church. The issues were doctrine, history etc and he had lost his testimony. This good man then bore the testimony said that he had never read anything negative about the Church and never would, not in a book nor on the internet. He then bore his testimony.

I do not mock this man at all by the way. If he is happy and happy about how he approaches things I am happy for him. I have a good friend that is the same way. At times I wish I had stayed like them. And many, many active members are like this. And as long as there are the Church is not in crisis nor are leaders panicking.

I can counter your anecdote with many more and better ones, including ones with deep knowledge of the church and its history. Do you expect when Joseph Smith was told that his name would be had for good and bad that the "bad" would be silly and unbelievable?

rcrocket

[_Jason Bourne]

I can counter your anecdote with many more and better ones, including ones with deep knowledge of the church and its history. Do you expect when Joseph Smith was told that his name would be had for good and bad that the "bad" would be silly and unbelievable?

No