Standing up together to Make a Change within Mormonism.

[_Inconceivable]

As for "demonizing," well, it ain't me doing it here.

By your definition, I would think that if speaking for the church makes one a demon it would put you in good company.

As much as I'd like to think that Thomas Monson and full time missionaries are demons, that's not what I meant.

[_Buffalo]

If a Joseph Smith had encountered an individual with this attitude you are ascribing to the church, he would have called that individual to repentance.

The guy who seems to hate Joseph Smith the most wishes to speak on his behalf, huh?

The reason why the church is so slow to correct its mistakes is because it refuses to listen to outside voices until the PR consequences are dire.

CFR. So which mind are you reading now? the Church's?

The church has never accepted outside criticism even once in its history. If you doubt that, I invite you to post evidence to the contrary. :)

[Gadianton]

I trust that the majority of ark-steadying by former members and waivering members, as with this thread, is well intended.

At its core, though, are these presumptions:

1) The ark-steadiers know better than Christ's chosen leaders what is best for Christ's Church. They are in the best position to judge and to direct at least some of the affairs of Christ's kingdom.

2) The problems are with the Church and not with the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of the ark-steadiers and others.

However, it may be instructive to note that these same presumptions (in principle) are not exclusive relative to the restored gospel, but manifest themselves in many walks of life. Teenagers often presuppose these things in relation to their parents. Certain employees may presuppose these things in relation to their bosses and company owners. Some medical patients may presuppose the same in regards to their doctors. Etc., etc.

Are these presuppositions necessarily wrong? No. But, on average, don't they tend to be the rare exception rather than the rule? And, if so, wouldn't it be wise on the part of those inclined towards ark-steadying, to reasonably challenge their presumptions?

I know that it has been quite beneficial to me--which is why I no longer tend to be an ark-steadier, whether in terms of the Church or at work or with parents or otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

I trust that the majority of ark-steadying by former members and waivering members, as with this thread, is well intended.

At its core, though, are these presumptions:

1) The ark-steadiers know better than Christ's chosen leaders what is best for Christ's Church. They are in the best position to judge and to direct at least some of the affairs of Christ's kingdom.

2) The problems are with the Church and not with the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of the ark-steadiers and others.

However, it may be instructive to note that these same presumptions (in principle) are not exclusive relative to the restored gospel, but manifest themselves in many walks of life. Teenagers often presuppose these things in relation to their parents. Certain employees may presuppose these things in relation to their bosses and company owners. Some medical patients may presuppose the same in regards to their doctors. Etc., etc.

Are these presuppositions necessarily wrong? No. But, on average, don't they tend to be the rare exception rather than the rule? And, if so, wouldn't it be wise on the part of those inclined towards ark-steadying, to reasonably challenge their presupositions?

I know that it has been quite beneficial to me--which is why I no longer tend to be an ark-steadier, whether in terms of the Church or at work or with parents or otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Apologists are constantly steadying the ark. It's their function.

[_wenglund]

Apologists are constantly steadying the ark. It's their function.

Certain critics mistakenly project. That is their function.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

Apologists are constantly steadying the ark. It's their function.

Certain critics mistakenly project. That is their function.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Apologists are constantly telling us which statements by the brethren were authoritative (the ones that aren't currently embarrassing) and which ones are merely the opinions of men (the embarrassing ones) even if those opinions are in official FP statements. :)

[_Inconceivable]

Weng,

Buffalo is absolutely correct.

If a prophet wants to tell everyone when he is or isn't speaking as a man that's his perogotive - not yours or any other apologist.

I would hate having a bunch of language nannies scurrying around behind me thinking they need to tell everyone what I meant to say.

The only reason why apologists get away with it is because the prophets aren't inspired or intelligent enough to even fake speaking for god.

Isn't it about time you let these guys own their remarks.


If you honestly don't think Zelph was a real prophet, what does that make your Joseph Smith?

[_wenglund]

There is evidently considerable confusion as to what "ark-steadying" is and isn't.

It is telling the Church leaders how to do their job.

It isn't expressing one's opinion as to whether something spoken by Church leaders is doctrinally binding or not.

Think of the stark distinction as like the difference between an entry level employee telling the owner of the company how to run his company, as contrasted with one employee expressing his opinion at the water cooler to another employee or former employee regarding an off-hand memo written by the company owner.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_keithb]

There is evidently considerable confusion as to what "ark-steadying" is and isn't.

It is telling the Church leaders how to do their job.

It isn't expressing one's opinion as to whether something spoken by Church leaders is doctrinally binding or not.

Think of the stark distinction as like the difference between an entry level employee telling the owner of the company how to run his company, as contrasted with one employee expressing his opinion at the water cooler to another employee or former employee regarding an off-hand memo written by the company owner.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

At its core, you have a few presumptions as well:

1. The leaders of the church are doing the best, or even a good, job of directing the members of their church in a way that maximizes potential happiness in their lives. I think that it's evident, from the number of complaints from this forum, the NOM forum, etc. that some members feel that this isn't the case.

2. The leaders of the church can't benefit, even indirectly, from the constructive criticism of members of the church on their policies and performances and use that criticism to do a better job. To use your job analogy, this would be equivalent to an employee feedback (perhaps via survey) of management's performance -- something many successful companies already have in place.

[_Buffalo]

There is evidently considerable confusion as to what "ark-steadying" is and isn't.

It is telling the Church leaders how to do their job.

It isn't expressing one's opinion as to whether something spoken by Church leaders is doctrinally binding or not.

Think of the stark distinction as like the difference between an entry level employee telling the owner of the company how to run his company, as contrasted with one employee expressing his opinion at the water cooler to another employee or former employee regarding an off-hand memo written by the company owner.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Those amount to the same thing.

It's telling though that you think that the church belongs to the top leadership in the same way as a soulless corporation. I thought the church was the body of the membership, and the leaders are there just to serve US. I guess not.