Standing up together to Make a Change within Mormonism.

[_Buffalo]

Those who speak for the Church, like Dan, will never admit there are real problems, and will always refuse any attempts at a public dialogue to discuss problems within the church. They might know there ARE real problems, but they will never acknowledge that. It's an unfortunate side effect of the "only true and living church" thing.

[Guest]

Those who speak for the Church, like Dan, will never admit there are real problems, and will always refuse any attempts at a public dialogue to discuss problems within the church. They might know there ARE real problems, but they will never acknowledge that. They're afraid of losing faith. It's an unfortunate side effect of the "only true and living church" thing.

That's why I'm wondering if a full on project to educate, both by a spearheaded campaign and more internet exmormon webring advertisements, might help educate those who are more capable of hearing and understanding. Even if more non-mormons are educated it could help the cause. The Mormon organization is made of a glass house and when you throw enough stones, especially well placed big boulders, it will cause problems to the structure.

In any case, if the prophet and apostles rejected a debate confrontation this would cause more publicity and when used with the Mormon webring advertising could educate more people. There will likely always be an amount of people who believe the emperor is wearing clothing, but there will also be greater education for those to realize the emperor is a stark naked lunatic. If nothing else it would educate non-mormons and heavily effect the missionary project thereby furthering education.

My question is, what is there to lose?

At worse there would only be a small amount of people educated and at best a very large amount. Either way I see that as a win.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Those who speak for the Church, like Dan, will never admit there are real problems, and will always refuse any attempts at a public dialogue to discuss problems within the church. They might know there ARE real problems, but they will never acknowledge that. It's an unfortunate side effect of the "only true and living church" thing.

I don't speak for the Church.

I have admitted and do admit that there are real problems (I just don't find them lethal).

I have engaged and do engage in public dialogue to discuss such problems.

(Incidentally, Buffalo, close friend of mine though he is, also doesn't speak for me.)

[_Buffalo]

Those who speak for the Church, like Dan, will never admit there are real problems, and will always refuse any attempts at a public dialogue to discuss problems within the church. They might know there ARE real problems, but they will never acknowledge that. It's an unfortunate side effect of the "only true and living church" thing.

I don't speak for the Church.

I have admitted and do admit that there are real problems (I just don't find them lethal).

I have engaged and do engage in public dialogue to discuss such problems.

(Incidentally, Buffalo, close friend of mine though he is, also doesn't speak for me.)

Sure you do. When you stop speaking for the church, you'll know it.

Can you provide an example where you've engaged in a public discussion of real problems in the church (as in, problems with current church practice or doctrine, not problems in reaching conversion numbers or tithing goals).

[_ShadowFax]

Those who speak for the Church, like Dan, will never admit there are real problems, and will always refuse any attempts at a public dialogue to discuss problems within the church. They might know there ARE real problems, but they will never acknowledge that. It's an unfortunate side effect of the "only true and living church" thing.

Buffalo, I've sent this discussion link along with my suggestion to broaden the advertising, and also the en masse confrontation project proposal, to the exmormon foundation. I hope they will see it as a win win venture.

It seems that engaging Daniel Peterson in a public debate of the type I'm suggesting wouldn't be a productive use of anyones time.
That's why I think it's a better idea to mass campaign for a confrontation with the prophet and the apostles - no one other than those 13.
This calls the 13 as leaders specifically to an accountability and if they refused the mass public forum confrontation then this publicity would at least ignite more education.
If they don't refuse the publicity would definitely ignite education. Either way it's a win win.
It's all about using publicity to promote education in either case. Breaking this silent spell they cast which breeds disinformation to confront this silent stronghold they have on both unaware active and disaffected Mormons.

[_Buffalo]

Those who speak for the Church, like Dan, will never admit there are real problems, and will always refuse any attempts at a public dialogue to discuss problems within the church. They might know there ARE real problems, but they will never acknowledge that. It's an unfortunate side effect of the "only true and living church" thing.

Buffalo, I've sent this discussion link along with my suggestion to broaden the advertising, and also the en masse confrontation project proposal, to the exmormon foundation. I hope they will see it as a win win venture.

It seems that engaging Daniel Peterson in a public debate of the type I'm suggesting wouldn't be a productive use of anyones time.
That's why I think it's a better idea to mass campaign for a confrontation with the prophet and the apostles - no one other than those 13.
This calls the 13 as leaders specifically to an accountability and if they refused the mass public forum confrontation then this publicity would at least ignite more education.
If they don't refuse the publicity would definitely ignite education. Either way it's a win win.
It's all about using publicity to promote education in either case. Breaking this silent spell they cast which breeds disinformation to confront this silent stronghold they have on both unaware active and disaffected Mormons.

I think that's a great idea. They most certainly will ignore you, but anything to raise awareness.

[_ShadowFax]

I think that's a great idea. They most certainly will ignore you, but anything to raise awareness.

If I acted as a solitary voice they would ignore me. If it was a mass campaign utilizing media and advertisements whenever and however is feasible then they could still ignore it but this act in itself would do just as much to educate non-mormons and Mormons alike. In the case of educating non-mormons the missionary efforts would be affected.

Taking action to campaign a plan in a specific exmormon confrontation debate with the 13, thereby invoking change in the Mormon system as mentioned in the opening piece, would be unproductive to use the time to debate interpretations of fear, shame, guilt or truth; because that would bog down the debate. It would be more logical and time efficient to promote a pre-plan pointed debate with the goal of acknowledgment of the current Mormon methods and practices which have proven to result in damage of family and in many cases destroying family unity altogether. It is this lack of open environment that damages and regardless of ones interpretation of fear based methods it can’t be denied that the damage does occur and the Mormon system is not set up for honest debate about Mormon issues. These cases, such as the anonymous bishop and others, can’t be ignored regardless of any personal interpretation of fear based methods of practice or any arguments that there is good within Mormonism to attempt to counter the dysfunctional practices and their resulting harmful potential within the family unit when people do not embrace the Mormon beliefs.

I would also imagine that a few other very well pointed and specific questions pertinent to clearing up Mormon problem issues should be addressed with the goal of getting definite clear answers. It would have to be agreed that at the time of the public debate the 13 were speaking on behalf of their calling as mouthpiece and spokesperson for Jesus.
If the 13 reject a mass campaign petition for an open debate with an equal number of exmormons on the panel this would create an opening for more awareness and debate within the advertised webrings and publicly create more educational opportunities. It at least would force open debate to Mormonism rather than the hidden secrecy and non-debate for fear of being labeled an anti-mormon and repercussions with the family of that type of fall out.

[_Nomad]

I recently discovered this website and I have a question which I’d like to ask, but before I ask the question let me first explain what caused me to ask it.

[Followed by long, rambling, condescending (and yet strangely naïve) suggestions on how to steady the ark of wayward Mormonism.]

You'll fit in here perfectly.

[_stemelbow]

What would involve the undertaking of personally, and as a group, putting forward a project and goal toward the above agenda?

I kinda liked the "start your own church" response. I'm not really sure what your asking for. I'm not sure what kind of wishful thinking would need to be had to think you should try and reform the church to suit your agenda. In effect, your proposal is nothing more than trying to call some shots. I hope you form a church and find success in it. It'd be interesting.

[_Buffalo]

What would involve the undertaking of personally, and as a group, putting forward a project and goal toward the above agenda?

I kinda liked the "start your own church" response. I'm not really sure what your asking for. I'm not sure what kind of wishful thinking would need to be had to think you should try and reform the church to suit your agenda. In effect, your proposal is nothing more than trying to call some shots. I hope you form a church and find success in it. It'd be interesting.

Perhaps the leaders of the church should seek to be more humble and accept criticism.