Dr. Shades wrote:Hmm. If that's the case, then what do you make of Rough Stone Rolling, the fact that it's sold in Deseret Book, and the fact that Bushman hasn't been disciplined?
I was talking to the future, given the bad press the Church has received lately. I sensed a level of frustration in the words of the GA's on the PBS show, which may indicate a possible backlash against the leniency of the past. I don't know it'll happen, and I hope it doesn't, but I got a feeling it's coming in some form.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:As we've all experienced on bb's like FAIR, many LDS use the word "attack" as synonymous with one's simply raising/discussing an issue they may find unorthodox, and Jensen's 'loving' invitation for such a person to "be at least quiet" is very telling, in my opinion. I hope I'm wrong, but I see the Church in general becoming less tolerant of anyone who dares question or discuss issues that the Brethren don't want discussed at all.
Hmm. If that's the case, then what do you make of Rough Stone Rolling, the fact that it's sold in Deseret Book, and the fact that Bushman hasn't been disciplined?
I believe the church is using Bushman to do the work it knows must be done. Change will be slow, but it will happen. It always does.
I am interested to see what if anything happens to Grant Palmer. I am not sure whether his disfellowship has been lifted. In light of his comments on "The Mormons", it will be interesting to see how he is treated.
For those who don't recall, Grant Palmer stated that the Book of Mormon was a 19th century production answering 19th century religious questions.
I am not sure how long the Church can hold on to its' claim of Book of Mormon historicity. It will be interesting to see how the Church responds to the increasing number of members who will begin to view the Book of Mormon as inspired but not historical. At some point, the Church will have to accomodate this idea.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:As we've all experienced on bb's like FAIR, many LDS use the word "attack" as synonymous with one's simply raising/discussing an issue they may find unorthodox, and Jensen's 'loving' invitation for such a person to "be at least quiet" is very telling, in my opinion. I hope I'm wrong, but I see the Church in general becoming less tolerant of anyone who dares question or discuss issues that the Brethren don't want discussed at all.
Hmm. If that's the case, then what do you make of Rough Stone Rolling, the fact that it's sold in Deseret Book, and the fact that Bushman hasn't been disciplined?
I believe the church is using Bushman to do the work it knows must be done. Change will be slow, but it will happen. It always does.
I agree wholeheartedly with this view. To my mind, the Brethren allowed Rough Stone Rolling simply because they had to. Pioneering work such as that of Quinn and Meg Toscano and other "dissidents" had basically laid the ground work for Bushman's tome. I think it's interesting to note that it took so long for Rough Stone Rolling to appear in bookstores. It's as if Church leaders are thinking to themselves, "Well, the information is already out there, thanks to those antis like Quinn. We may as well put out a scholarly book of our own, so that it doesn't look like we're trying to hide our history."
In that case, maybe there's a way to hybridize Polygamy Porter's and Rollo Tomasi's viewpoints.
Maybe what's really going on in the Brethren's heads is something like this:
"Okay. Fine. You win. Now the information's out there. Now sit down and shut up!!"
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Dr. Shades wrote:In that case, maybe there's a way to hybridize Polygamy Porter's and Rollo Tomasi's viewpoints.
Maybe what's really going on in the Brethren's heads is something like this:
"Okay. Fine. You win. Now the information's out there. Now sit down and shut up!!"
The showing of "The Mormons" may mark a subtle but significant change in the course of Mormonism. It seems to me, significant change occurs primarily from events outside of the control of leadership. The manifesto and ordination of blacks to the priesthood are two examples. This documentary appeared to be outside of their control. The response of the Church to the documentary was particularly muted, almost resigning in fact. I wonder if the old politburo is just too old and too tired to fight this inevitable shift. Besides, they are living in a world they don't understand and hardly recognize.
What could the Church really do? I think their hands are tied. What can they denounce? Can they now fight the intellectuals/critics and excommunicate them? Can they put a sweet face on polygamy? How will it affect missionary work? The genie is out of the bottle and they know it. The best they can do is play the new card they have been dealt.
The church has always put out two sets of stories, one for the public and one for the faithful. It will be interesting to see how these stories change.
8) Story of a missionary being told his mother died (by a written note from the Stake President---"your mother died...call home")
Small correction, it was the local Branch Pres that left the note not SP.
Thanks...I knew it was someone else. I was typing during the show trying to hit the highlights.
11) an old black lady bearing her testimony who was a former drug user who changed her life around (good for her!!!)....she called it the LSD Church ("that's the church for me") I thought that was funny---moving part
Amazing. The LDS Church actually does benefit some people. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of similar stories and changed lives.
Now we just need to find a way to maximize the good parts and minimize the bad parts....Something every group should strive for. ;)
"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
8. Margaret Toscano was very effective, making her disciplinary proceeding appear like the Spanish Inquisition.
Which it certainly was not. I liked her up to that point. I think she over did it and was innacurate about a number of points as far as how DC's go. You can bring your bishop, you can bring witnesses to speak on your behalf, the hand shakes are nothing more then friendly gestures and the setting is nothing like the TV show portrayed it at all.
Overall, the 4 hours were a good show, in my opinion. Nothing earthshattering, but I bet it'll get some TBM's thinking (particularly about certain history rarely, if ever, heard about in Church) and some non-members thinking more than ever that the LDS are weird.
Oone member friend I spoke with liked it, thought there was stuff in there the church ought to talk more about, was embarrased that his teen son who watched it with him had never heard of MMM and he wants to read up more on LDS history and be better versed in it. So one person is right on with your point about history. Another friend did not like it and feels the Church story cannot be told appropriatly without the faith and spiritual side. He also felt that the time given to crtics was about 80/20 for the critics.
The change I sense coming to the church will be introducing apologetics to Chapel Mormons. I believe the church leaders silently supported "Rough Stone Rolling" and have waited to see how the dust settled after that book came out. I agree with the posters here who see a turning point coming for the church from the PBS show. They had to accept this information is already out there, and the only way to keep members from losing faith over the true history is innoculate them enough so they won't be too disturbed when they hear these things for the first time. Give them a good enough spin on it, and many will not think anything more about it. It's a sneaky way of exposing members to the truth they have avoided all these years, but I believe it will work for many Chapel Mormons.
Members that would have been exd in the Fawn Brodie days for even talking about this information are now apologist types that are not disciplined by the church, so I see most of the leaders steering away from Oak's threatening comments. FAIR and FARMS would have been shut down long ago if the church didn't support apologetics. My local leaders were willing to give me a calling and keep my temple recommend despite my feelings for the leaders and doctrine. I have discussed my opposition to doctrine and leaders behavior with several members of my Ward and the missionaries that come by. Times have changed.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
Who Knows wrote:Man, the story about the wife dieing in childbirth killed me. It's crap like that that really bugs me about religion. People ignore common sense because they think they've had some type of religious experience telling them to go against it. How people can still rely on 'spiritual promptings' over common sense after experiencing something like that, I'll never understand.
That story pissed me off. Not at the church, but at the utter STUPIDITY of some people! Not to be insensitive, but for God's sake, after all that medical advice they received, what the Hell did they expect OTHER THAN that she'd die?
DUUUUUUH!
But even worse, the part that made me want to reach through the screen and THROTTLE that idiot of a widowed husband was when he said, "If I had to do it all over again, . . . I think. . . well, . . . I'd probably have to reconsider."
What kind of insensitive jerk would allow his wife to die all over again just to bring a kid he'd never met and hadn't even been concieved yet into the world? Kid #8 or whatever it was?
Shades, I think you are being just a 'tad' insensitive here.
Look, I'm no Mormon in terms of belief, yet I have also put myself into positions where my life was threatened on at least 3 occassions, in order to extend and actually start a family.
These people weren't hapless victims. They wanted more kids. It's an inbuilt human instinct to pass on your genes to the next generation. It's as natural as eating food and drinking water. They had obviously seriously considered the risks and thought it was worth it.
I don't think they can be called stupid or brainwashed in this instance. Just normal people wanting to extend their family. There are plenty of people non-mormon who would have done the same thing I think.
Dr. Shades wrote:In that case, maybe there's a way to hybridize Polygamy Porter's and Rollo Tomasi's viewpoints.
Maybe what's really going on in the Brethren's heads is something like this:
"Okay. Fine. You win. Now the information's out there. Now sit down and shut up!!"
The showing of "The Mormons" may mark a subtle but significant change in the course of Mormonism. It seems to me, significant change occurs primarily from events outside of the control of leadership. The manifesto and ordination of blacks to the priesthood are two examples. This documentary appeared to be outside of their control. The response of the Church to the documentary was particularly muted, almost resigning in fact. I wonder if the old politburo is just too old and too tired to fight this inevitable shift. Besides, they are living in a world they don't understand and hardly recognize.
What could the Church really do? I think their hands are tied. What can they denounce? Can they now fight the intellectuals/critics and excommunicate them? Can they put a sweet face on polygamy? How will it affect missionary work? The genie is out of the bottle and they know it. The best they can do is play the new card they have been dealt.
I think You demonstrate a remarkable, possitive perception of Mormonism. It will not die, nor will it fade away. It will continue to evolve, as it ever has to provide a place of worship & community for those who find comfort in authoritainism. How un-authoritative LDSism will become, to accomodate more thinking & questioning generations will be most interesting.
I'm sure LDS Leadership will watch & rewatch those four hours. They cannot help but see what everyone saw, and be moved by it. Will Oaks be congratulated or castigated for his (asinine) comments? As were John Taylor's re Blacks? Unbelievable in today's light!
Wonder what the sequel will be like? Will it show their "new card" being well played? Warm regards, Roger