Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Sanctorian
_Emeritus
Posts: 2441
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

Post by _Sanctorian »

maklelan wrote:
My take is that it is ill-conceived boundary maintenance and legal prophylaxis that will cause a great deal of harm.


It's pretty convenient to take this position and do nothing about it but talk to people and when the policy is changed or reversed to pat yourself on the back for being against it. At the end of the day you know that revenue and membership are the driving factors behind change. The bad PR which produces future revenue loss will change this policy. Members that are actually resigning will change this policy. Members that stop paying tithing will change this policy. Just being against it will not change this policy.

You don't have my respect for just being against it. These are REAL people that are in the line of fire. You have my respect for taking a stand. Big difference. If you are taking a stand, you have my respect.
I'm a Ziontologist. I self identify as such.
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

Post by _RockSlider »

Runtu wrote:
maklelan wrote:Thanks for the support. I've been surprised by who is expressing concern with the policy, which, I believe, is a sign of good things.


Same here. If the church is going to move forward, it needs good, thoughtful people like you. Once upon a time I would have been right there with you.


Some of us Baby Boomers are beyond help. If only my children would have been a lot further into the millennials and a lot further away from the BRM type, Mormon Corridor indoctrination I brought them up in.

These new possibilities of a healthy Mormonism seem to have come out of no where, to me only being introduced to it so briefly and recently here by Mak.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

Post by _maklelan »

Sanctorian wrote:It's pretty convenient to take this position and do nothing about it but talk to people


You have absolutely no clue whatsoever what I'm doing about this policy, Sanctorian.

Sanctorian wrote:and when the policy is changed or reversed to pat yourself on the back for being against it. At the end of the day you know that revenue and membership are the driving factors behind change.


It's not quite that simple, but I can hardly fault you for being ignorant and dogmatic about it.

Sanctorian wrote:The bad PR which produces future revenue loss will change this policy. Members that are actually resigning will change this policy. Members that stop paying tithing will change this policy. Just being against it will not change this policy.


It's cute how you think you understand the leadership's motivations.

Sanctorian wrote:You don't have my respect for just being against it. These are REAL people that are in the line of fire. You have my respect for taking a stand. Big difference. If you are taking a stand, you have my respect.


Which am I doing? I and the Church appear to just be open books to you, so tell me about my motivations as well as my actions beyond this board.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Sanctorian
_Emeritus
Posts: 2441
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

Post by _Sanctorian »

maklelan wrote:
Sanctorian wrote:It's pretty convenient to take this position and do nothing about it but talk to people


You have absolutely no clue whatsoever what I'm doing about this policy, Sanctorian.

Sanctorian wrote:and when the policy is changed or reversed to pat yourself on the back for being against it. At the end of the day you know that revenue and membership are the driving factors behind change.


It's not quite that simple, but I can hardly fault you for being ignorant and dogmatic about it.

Sanctorian wrote:The bad PR which produces future revenue loss will change this policy. Members that are actually resigning will change this policy. Members that stop paying tithing will change this policy. Just being against it will not change this policy.


It's cute how you think you understand the leadership's motivations.

Sanctorian wrote:You don't have my respect for just being against it. These are REAL people that are in the line of fire. You have my respect for taking a stand. Big difference. If you are taking a stand, you have my respect.


Which am I doing? I and the Church appear to just be open books to you, so tell me about my motivations as well as my actions beyond this board.


I don't know your actions beyond this board which is why I said if you are taking a stand you have my respect. If all you are doing is taking the position that this policy is bad which is the overwhelming position of just about everyone, member and nonmember alike, don't come on here and say "see, I was against it the entire time". The majority is against it. No brownie points for just being against it.
I'm a Ziontologist. I self identify as such.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

Post by _Runtu »

RockSlider wrote:Some of us Baby Boomers are beyond help. If only my children would have been a lot further into the millennials and a lot further away from the BRM type, Mormon Corridor indoctrination I brought them up in.

These new possibilities of a healthy Mormonism seem to have come out of no where, to me only being introduced to it so briefly and recently here by Mak.


I'm well beyond redemption at this point. :lol:

It's gratifying to me that my wife and my active LDS kids are all in agreement that this policy is wrong. I had a thought last night that maybe this whole thing is what Vaughn Featherstone referred to as a "self-inflicted purging," though to be fair, he was talking about masturbation and porn. But throughout the church's history, it has drawn lines to separate itself both physically and culturally from "the world." The practice of polygamy, the "gathering," the Word of Wisdom--these were all obvious markers that Mormons were a "peculiar people." Perhaps this new policy is an attempt to further sharpen the lines between what is acceptable in the church and what is not. Perhaps the brethren are well aware that a lot of people will be disillusioned and/or leave the church over this, but they are betting those who stay are those who are committed. After all, if you can get someone to go along with such a policy, you can get them to do a lot more.

Obviously, I have no insight into the way this policy came about. I genuinely don't understand it and hope that the leadership will collectively come to their senses and reverse this. Either way, as Jersey Girl said, there's not really any going back from here. The message is clear: gays are not welcome, and their children are expendable. You can't dress this up. It is what it is.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

Post by _RockSlider »

Sanctorian wrote:member and nonmember alike, don't come on here and say "see, I was against it the entire time". The majority is against it. No brownie points for just being against it.


Do you have some suggestions for me of what I might do. I jumped on Mak in my frustration for a minute ... didn't help.
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

Post by _Ceeboo »

Yeah Mak!

You suck!

You don't fool me!

You are just posting that you find this policy troubling, harmful, and not divinely inspired because you just want to have a fall-back position for yourself. A safety net for Mak. It's all about you. It always is.

I don't buy anything you have posted in this thread!
How can I be certain that it's even you posting it?
Show me all of your personal discussions that you have had over the last 8 days.

Post pictures of you, your wife, and your children having these discussions that you claim you had.

I ain't buying any of the BS you're tossing around!

Post your bank statements, you coward!

Show the board you Facebook messages! Go ahead - we are waiting.

I call BS on you, your entire posting history here and I call BS on your existence.

And - why did it take you 5 days to come and answer MDB's question? I find that to be pretty "convenient".

Pathetic!

You suck!

Peace,
Ceeboo
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Sanctorian wrote:

I don't know your actions beyond this board which is why I said if you are taking a stand you have my respect. If all you are doing is taking the position that this policy is bad which is the overwhelming position of just about everyone, member and nonmember alike, don't come on here and say "see, I was against it the entire time". The majority is against it. No brownie points for just being against it.


I am not sure what it would take for people to even begrudgingly admit what Mak is doing goes well beyond this board.

He works at the COB, he posts here under his own name, and how simple would be for anyone with a grudge against him to draw attention to the public statement he just made to one of his superiors?

Comparing him to any other member against this policy fails to take into account his employment.

Kudos Mak
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Sanctorian
_Emeritus
Posts: 2441
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

Post by _Sanctorian »

RockSlider wrote:
Sanctorian wrote:member and nonmember alike, don't come on here and say "see, I was against it the entire time". The majority is against it. No brownie points for just being against it.


Do you have some suggestions for me of what I might do. I jumped on Mak in my frustration for a minute ... didn't help.


:lol: I'm not sure I can help you with that. I applaud any efforts you might take. I'm assuming you no longer support the Morg which if true, you already did your part.
I'm a Ziontologist. I self identify as such.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

Post by _SteelHead »

Fence Sitter wrote:
Sanctorian wrote:

I don't know your actions beyond this board which is why I said if you are taking a stand you have my respect. If all you are doing is taking the position that this policy is bad which is the overwhelming position of just about everyone, member and nonmember alike, don't come on here and say "see, I was against it the entire time". The majority is against it. No brownie points for just being against it.


I am not sure what it would take for people to even begrudgingly admit what Mak is doing goes well beyond this board.

He works at the COB, he posts here under his own name, and how simple would be for anyone with a grudge against him to draw attention to the public statement he just made to one of his superiors?

Comparing him to any other member against this policy fails to take into account his employment.

Kudos Mak


Which is why he has my respect.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
Post Reply