LDSguy wrote:I am of the opinion that the the average LDS person is turned away by too much hostility, but when among their own there's nothing to discuss, because everyone agrees.
The Mormons claim to not have a monolithic world view nor even (some say) a systematic theology. Therefore it seems that there would be many, many different view points to discuss even if everyone on the board is LDS. Were there two Hill Cumorahs or just one? Was the black priesthood ban a doctrine of god or was it a doctrine of man? Can you drink iced tea, and if not, why not? Must a man have more than one wife to get into the VIP lounge of the Celestial Kingdom?
I'd say the part that's true in the above quote from LDSguy is that the average LDS person is turned off by disagreement -- disagreement between Mormons about what is right and true in the Mormon church vs. what is wrong and just human opinion. So while there is actually very much to discuss on their own, nobody feels right opening his mouth and actually talking about it. It takes a special breed of anti-mormon to come along and make it happen.
The Mormons claim to not have a monolithic world view nor even (some say) a systematic theology.
That's not true. The Internet Mormons claim to have no systematic theology. I think this would be news to the twelve apostles who believe in a restored gospel. The Chapel Mormons have a nearly infallible prophet who delivers the will of God twice a year. And that will of God conveyed by modern prophets is comparable to or even supercedes the standard works. They have the articles of faith. They have Sunday School manuals prepared by a panel working under the direction of the prophets. Manuals, which have been derided by high ranking apologists, by the way.
Don't forget you're talking about a group of people who think that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking's been done".
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
The real porblem with twinkies is that creamy filling. It can get all over your face, on your hands, and sometimes, if you're not careful, it can get between your ears.
Great Cthulhu wrote:This can only be partially true:
LDSguy wrote:I am of the opinion that the the average LDS person is turned away by too much hostility, but when among their own there's nothing to discuss, because everyone agrees.
The Mormons claim to not have a monolithic world view nor even (some say) a systematic theology. Therefore it seems that there would be many, many different view points to discuss even if everyone on the board is LDS. Were there two Hill Cumorahs or just one? Was the black priesthood ban a doctrine of god or was it a doctrine of man? Can you drink iced tea, and if not, why not? Must a man have more than one wife to get into the VIP lounge of the Celestial Kingdom?
I'd say the part that's true in the above quote from LDSguy is that the average LDS person is turned off by disagreement -- disagreement between Mormons about what is right and true in the Mormon church vs. what is wrong and just human opinion. So while there is actually very much to discuss on their own, nobody feels right opening his mouth and actually talking about it. It takes a special breed of anti-mormon to come along and make it happen.
I think the only question you posed that anyone I know thinks needs any further discussion is that of the one or two Cumorahs. I spoke with a friend the other day at some length about it. He subscribes to the one Cumorah theory, and I haven't looked into it that much, but it does appear to be an issue of some relevance.
I think you'll find that very rarely are Mormons reticent to share their opinions, but on boards like this and MAD if anyone is shy it's probably because they're intimidated by other Latter-day Saints and non who are very well educated. Reducing it down to just being afraid of being controversial or hypothetically incurring church discipline is very simplistic and inaccurate in my opinion.
Bond...James Bond wrote:Don't forget you're talking about a group of people who think that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking's been done".
The quote is "when the prophet speaks, the debate is over." It was made by Young Women's President Elaine Cannon in the 1978 Fall General Conference. This is the full quote:
In each country as you hear this program by direct line, your course should become clear, your priorities ought to be known to you as a daughter of God. Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over.
maklelan wrote:I think the only question you posed that anyone I know thinks needs any further discussion is that of the one or two Cumorahs. I spoke with a friend the other day at some length about it. He subscribes to the one Cumorah theory, and I haven't looked into it that much, but it does appear to be an issue of some relevance.
I think you'll find that very rarely are Mormons reticent to share their opinions...
That's fine if you think my examples are bad. Since you are in the trenches, you probably know of some better examples and I hope you will share them for my enlightenment. Really, Maklelan, I wonder what you think Mormons are willing to argue about -- among themselves.
...but on boards like this and MAD if anyone is shy it's probably because they're intimidated by other Latter-day Saints and non who are very well educated. Reducing it down to just being afraid of being controversial or hypothetically incurring church discipline is very simplistic and inaccurate in my opinion.
Yeah, it's probably not because of church discipline. (I didn't say that, by the way.) Looking stupid among the pseudo-intellectuals might be the thing they fear, or maybe they just aren't willing to think about it hard enough to come to a conclusion one way or another. Or maybe not willing, but they are so used to having faith on religious topics that they don't really know how to think hard about the issues. What do you think of that? Sometimes, maybe?