Good for you for being an individual and not a clone!

It is very revealing that you are branded a “pariah” (in your own words), just for exercising your God-given right to form your own conclusions, about ideas.

Somehow (and somewhere), the LDS Church has failed to give a proper understanding of that very principle, to the up-and-coming (the rising) generation.

A paradox that you have certainly overlooked, however, is that–although Pres. Hinckley teaches you to think for yourself, on the one hand–as president of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, himself, has said things (wink, wink)(not my “wink”, but his) that have been utterly disingenuous, in changing a longstanding “couplet”, first uttered by Lorenzo Snow and later actively and vigorously promoted by Joseph Smith, Jr.: to the inclusion of a sermon–teaching it at the funeral of one King Follett.

But, with an imperious fluorish of the hand; a sleight of tongue; and a General Conference “wink-wink”, he has effectively done away with a previous understanding, among the people.

People owe it to themselves to come out of their marvelous, endorphin-induced, warm & fuzzy stupor and not be impressed by the arm of flesh, like they are: even if that “flesh” happens to be that of a 96-going-on-97-year-old man 1) wearing a mantle; 2) standing by a mantle; or, 3) all of the above.

It’s not a matter that John Doe disagrees or disbelieves. That’s no sin. Billions of non-Mormons disbelieve. It’s the history of John Doe’s claims. RfM-ers and anti’s just have a bad history of twisting, misrepresenting, taking out of context, and out-right lieing.

There have been what I perceive to be real problems in the church, as in any growing volunteer-run organization, over the past 25 years that I’ve been involved with it (off and on). However, none of them have meant that the church isn’t God’s official church, or that the foundational stories are fiction.

But, having investigated those problems over the past 25 years off and on, and other alleged problems advertised by the bitter ex-members or professional anti’s, and having (mostly) worked through the problems why I left, I’ve come to this conclusion:

It’s a pure waste of time to take what bitter ex-members and professional anti’s say at face value because a) the bitter exes always twist and exaggerate, and b) professional anti’s always do a combination of misrepresenting and lieing, or c) what they claim is/was a problem really isn’t/wasn’t a problem, or d) yes, it is/was a problem, but the complainer just never found (or accepted) the right answer that would have resolved the concern.

If someone is looking for a _faithful_ answer, or a _faithful_ resolution to a problem, then sure, I’m more than willing to have a dialogue. But to someone who’s already made up their mind that there are no faitful answers or resolutions, then there’s no point in talking, and I don’t care to listen to them anymore.

So for those like John Doe, I try to let the professional or hobbyist apologists answer the questions, because my involvement in the matter is never going to satisfy John Doe unless I leave the church.

The problem with the John Doe’s is that they’re not trying to get people to stop eating bad sushi, they’re trying to get people to leave God’s official church.

The problem with the John Doe’s is that when faithful members do have a problem in God’s official church, John Doe’s solution is to leave the church, not to seek for an remedy that maintains compliance with the Gospel. Or sometimes the John Doe’s want to change the gospel.

20 years ago, I had problems in and with the Church. My solution was “problem avoidance”, so I left the church. I just left the people and situations that gave rise to the problems. I deeply regret that.

Had I been more mature, smarter, and humbler maybe I would have sought _resolution_ of the problems, instead of concluding that they couldn’t be resolved, and just fleeing them.

Bookslinger: “Well, yeah. Me too! There is so much worthless blather in the blogosphere and on TV, we need quick ways of implementing our own personal filters.”

This honestly just makes no sense to me. It’s one thing to be sure of one’s position. It’s quite another to be so sure, as to eliminate any consideration of other viewpoints. It’s like saying, “I like sushi. John Doe doesn’t like sushi, so I should ignore anything he has to say on the subject of sushi.” What if John Doe happens to have information on a recent outbreak of fatal bacteria in a particular kind of sushi? Having already decided he’s a worthless source (just on the basis that you disagree with him), you end up missing vital information.

Well, yeah. Me too! There is so much worthless blather in the blogosphere and on TV, we need quick ways of implementing our own personal filters.

(But what’s more dangerous than worthless blather are rationalizations or excuse-making on the part of people who come across as faithful and dedicated members, but who aren’t.)

Back to the PBS special, I think it was one of the anti authors, Bagley maybe, who I felt was disingenuously identified.

But you’re right, applying labels can be used just as much to give a slant as the absence of labels can.

But in analyzing church history and the actions of individual church leaders, I think one does need to know if the speaker is speaking from a “faithful” or “other” viewpoint.

In my relationship with the church, one thing it took me a long time to learn, is that one needs friends and sources in the church (and by that I mean friends and sources in faithful standing in the church) who give you a more complete story of things that you don’t get in Sunday School, and from the pulpit, and at general conference.

It’s not about “secret” things, but it’s the things that aren’t promulgated, or the things that aren’t generally brought up until they’re needed.

I’ve found that you need to get those things from faithful sources so you don’t get the twisted version of things, and so you don’t get an interpretation that’s going to cause you to lose faith or lose your testimony.

Maybe the general header is “exception processing.”

What we get from the weekly pulpit, Sunday School, and general conference are “the rules” not “the exceptions.” I took “the rules” too strictly, and as being without exceptions, and was way too harsh on myself and others.

And yet there are others, who go too far the other way and turn the exeptions into the rule.

I don’t need to know if someone is a 100% home-teacher or visiting teacher before I’ll read their posts/comments on the blogs. But I do want to know if they acknowledge the HT/VT program as an important ingredient in the gospel, or whether they totally blow it off. I want to know if they believe the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. I want to know if they believe in personal revelation. I want to know if they believe that they have actually received personal revelation, of any type or level or degree.

If there is a poster/comment who claims to be LDS, but doesn’t believe there was a civilization called the Nephites, and doesn’t believe that Jesus visited them, then I want to know that before I decide whether to allow myself to be influenced by their other opinions.

And from the other end of the stick, for those who don’t believe the historicity of the BoM, and are struggling with the decision on whether to remain active in the church, they might be more attacted to, and be more comfortable with John Dehlin’s reasons to stay active once they know his beliefs.

We have to realize the PBS documentary was made for a general audience, not just LDS. If they were to label Dan Peterson, they could have said “BYU Professor of Islamic Studies,” or “Mormon Apologist,” or “Mormon Polemicist.” They could have labeled him as “Former (fill in priesthood leadership position, such as bishop).” Heck, if they got cynical about it, based on his involvement with FARMS, etc., they could have labeled him as “LDS Propaganda Specialist.” My point is, like many of the speakers in this documentary, Dan Peterson could be described in many very different ways. You might have been more unhappy about a label they chose, than you are about no label at all.

The same thing applies to non-LDS speakers. Harold Bloom is about as even-handed as they come in his attitudes toward the LDS church. He’s a great admirer, but also a critic of some things. He could have been labeled “Author,” or “Sterling Professor of the Humanities at Yale University,” or “Admirer of Mormonism,” or “Critic of Modern LDS-ism,” or my personal favorite, “Goofball Who Once Wrote that Thomas Monson was the Most Brilliant Mormon Leader Since Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.”

Labels are all about avoiding real thought, and having things categorized FOR us. For rat poison, that’s a good idea. For people, I’m not so sure.

During an online question and answer, a woman asked Helen Whitney why she didn’t identify the speakers in this way. In asking the question, this woman noted that “most LDS tend to discount” the opinions of those who are not members of the LDS church. In other words, she wanted to know where each person supposedly stood, so she could know who to ignore!

Helen Whitney noted this, and said that she avoided such labels precisely for that reason. She wanted viewers to listen carefully to each speaker, and come to their own conclusions. She pointed out, as well, that within a few minutes, most of the speakers were rather easy to categorize on your own.

I think both the questioner and Helen Whitney had a point. In my experience, many LDS *do* disregard anything said about LDS-ism by those who are not members of the LDS church. They seem to take it for granted that any such persons will misrepresent, misunderstand, or even outright lie about the LDS church.

I completely agree on the context issue and the PBS special was a great example – you label someone a poet – that does not tell me anything useful about their views or expertise on Mormonism…