RockSlider wrote:What I'm trying to understand is if one (not just you) does not believe Christ could not be behind a policy like this, how can they continue in it.
Continue in what? The Church? Because my membership is not contingent upon the assumption that everything originates directly from Christ. I find it difficult to believe anyone on this forum actually thinks that membership requires that.
RockSlider wrote:Or maybe I really have no clue of this intellectual new Mormonism ... does it not require Jesus to be at the head?
You continue to try to assert this binary conceptualization of Church policy, and I cannot fathom how that assertion can possibly function as anything other than a remarkably naïve rhetorical snare. Do you really have so little respect for my intelligence?
After reading Kish's post, I'm sorry Mak ... I'm just used to you always responding this way to the hard questions ... you always disagree with them, and yet that does not seem to bother you enough to keep pursuing it. I did not consider that it might be different this time.
RockSlider wrote:What I'm trying to understand is if one (not just you) does not believe Christ could not be behind a policy like this, how can they continue in it.
Or maybe I really have no clue of this intellectual new Mormonism ... does it not require Jesus to be at the head?
The answer to that, in my view, is that the leaders are not infallible or perfect. So, they can make mistakes and still be apostles and prophets. So, many believing Mormons will give the Church time to work this out. I was on the fence as it was. For me this is just further confirmation that the LDS Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ is as the scriptures represent him.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
maklelan wrote:Continue in what? The Church? Because my membership is not contingent upon the assumption that everything originates directly from Christ. I find it difficult to believe anyone on this forum actually thinks that membership requires that.
There you have it, Rockslider.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
You have my respect for this clear and concise response. No one here should expect more from you.
I hope you have not risked your standing in the Church or your profession position by making such a statement in a public forum.
I appreciate that. I am trying to be tactful and somewhat discreet because I realize I run a risk, but I also don't feel it would be right to remain silent. There is too much at stake.
RockSlider wrote:After reading Kish's post, I'm sorry Mak ... I'm just used to you always responding this way to the hard questions ... you always disagree with them, and yet that does not seem to bother you enough to keep pursuing it. I did not consider that it might be different this time.
I appreciate it, but I would ask for some clarification. When you say "responding this way," do you refer to my response to you or to the original question? And does "keep pursuing it" mean remaining a member?
Gunnar wrote:I can hardly wait to hear Maklelan's take on this new development.
My take is that it is ill-conceived boundary maintenance and legal prophylaxis that will cause a great deal of harm.
My LDS friends seem to be divided on it. Some feel that they need to "doubt their doubts," and they've been circulating memes about following and supporting the brethren, and choosing between the church and the world. But more than ever I'm seeing faithful Mormons who feel comfortable expressing concern over the policy (online and off). They can't even play at adopting a supportive view toward it. These aren't wishy-washy LDS types either-- but stalwart members like my own mother.
I didn't see that coming, and it does my heart good to hear it. Same here. Thumbs up.
And Mak is right, I am looking at this very binary because that is where my wife and children are. It's literal to them, its very binary to them. And so yes, I suppose I project that on to him, in hopes of wanting to deal with it at home.
And Kish what you said elsewhere this morning on authority, I'm sorry with all they demand and take from us, I don't find their being "men" an acceptable excuse while at the same time demanding to be treated as Prophets Seers an Revelators whom we all must obey, and which we willing do, against our own morals because of the promise that Jesus is behind this and will not allow them to lead us astray.
maklelan wrote:My take is that it is ill-conceived boundary maintenance and legal prophylaxis that will cause a great deal of harm.
I think we should allow mak's statement to stand as it is. It is pretty clear from his words where he sees this policy coming from. There is no need, I feel, to paint him into a corner.
I am happy to say that this new policy has nothing to do with Christ. I don't expect or need mak to do so in order to feel reassured that his heart is in the right place and understand that his take on the policy is both solid and laudable.
Let's give our LDS friends who are shocked and dismayed about this policy the room to process it for themselves without pushing them too hard.
