113 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Dan, in my opinion there is room for all kinds of viewpoints within the Church, and yours is certainly valid. I’m worried about people today who substitute environmentalism for religion (ie Al Gore and many others), but I’m also worried about taking care of the Earth and do believe that we have stewardship responsibilities. If you re-read Bryce’s post and his comments you’ll see that he is just as worried about the Earth as you are but sees other concerns in the world as well. I don’t agree with your last paragraph because it is impossible to prove, but it is your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. I hope this post does not cause a lot of unnecessary contention. |
Thank you for the post. I also found the M* article disturbing due to some of the points you mentioned. Environmentalism, like any good thing, can become bad if it’s overdone. However, I don’t feel this movie came anywhere near to overdoing it–and, as your links pointed out, the movie’s not about environmentalism. |
If you are a religious and political conservative, be careful to bridle your tongue or you might end up writing a massive tirade attributing an extreme environmentalist Or you might wind up doing something even stupider, like calling Bookslinger a hypocrite. |
Geoff B, The thing is, my religious viewpoint is actually pretty conservative in everywhere but Utah County. I just have a really high bar for what I am willing to consider reliable doctrine. What I think is unfortunate is when people mix religious and political conservatism- it’s a mixture that often ends up being very toxic and volatile, and I think it accounts for a huge number of the incidents of “friendly fire” that occur in the Church, as in the comment damn right (3) referred to above. |
My first response is “that’s crazy talk.” But I am dim so I will have to ask for clarification. How are you distinguishing one from the other in this context? What percentage distribution would you give to conservative and liberal populations in the Church? Would the population of the Church be better served if these conservatives were to shift, en masse, to a more liberal viewpoint? Sort of like Unitarian Universialists, but with some minor doctrinal differences? How would you guarantee not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, would the flavor of our institutions be like salt having lost its savor? If these conservatives are dragging us down in this regard, do they serve any purpose at all? |
That said, it has been my experience that, in many, many cases, the “orthodoxy police” excuse is a straw man used to conceal the real reasons for conflicting feelings about the Church. There are some people who seem to me to have organizational conflict hard-wired into their personality DNA. I sure that most people can think of an example from their own experiences, I bet Anngb could rattle off a few dozen she has noticed without hardly effort at all. |
Damn right (3),
MAC (5),
I think their zeal often serves a good purpose when it’s channeled into apologetic research and such. However, I worked at FARMS (back when it was still FARMS) after my mission, and the people I knew there were for the most part more open-minded and honest about doctrinal perplexities than your typical religious conservative in the Church. |
Well. Well, well, well. I have been reading my scriptures day and night for the past few months and avoiding this filthy cesspool of filth you call the bloggernacle. I sign on today to take one quick little look, and what do I see? A post tearing down a righteous review of a hideous, vile, evil movie. Brother Ellsworth, why do ye continue to kick against the pricks and lead your readers astray? You have obviously descended to a point where the spirit has ceased to strive with you. Because of my righteousness, I have the spirit in great abundance and am well qualified to separate the wheat from the tares. A sister in Relief Society was going to give the cartoon movie about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to her daughter for her birthday gift. When I told here she ought to preview it, just to make sure it’s OK, she laughed me off. Well, fools mock, but they shall mourn. I took it upon myself to preview it for her, and I can tell you that it is nothing but smut. Smut, smut, smut. Imagine this: Seven men, all living together! What does that remind you of? This is all portrayed as being just as normal as can be, but what would you expect from the Disney Corporation, which sponsors an annual so-called Gay Day at Disneyland? And then a beautiful young woman comes and lives with them, all without benefit of eternal marriage! I ask you, is this the kind of message we should be sending to our children, especially at this time when we are called upon to support proposition 8? Then there is an unspeakably wicked part of the plot which deals with witchcraft and the occult, and which sickens me so much I’m not even going to recount it. Finally the beautiful young woman meets a handsome prince, and they live happily ever after. But how can that be, given that they didn’t even go to the temple? I tell you, this movie is so insidious because it has such a blatant anti-family message. It makes a mockery of eternal marriage and the proclamation on the Family. This sewage is marketed to our children right under our noses, and yet there is not a single child in the movie! Doesn’t that make your pro-family, pro-marriage blood boil? The scriptures tell us that the day is soon coming when the wicked shall burn as stubble. Personally, I can’t wait, because then I will be relieved of the heavy burden of crying repentance unto this wicked, perverse, adulterous, and stiffnecked generation. And when you all are in flaming agony, I’ll be standing right there, saying: “I told you so”. |
Prudence, The reason I write librul propaganda is, I was indoctrinated by Disney at a young age. The Seven Dwarfs were a part of that, but there were also a lot of movies such as Beauty and The Beast and The Lion King where the hero receives a “makeover,” whether physical or emotional, from a pair of male sidekicks who live and sleep together. Even in Finding Nemo, we have a male shrimp in the aquarium performing the duties of a beautician on our protagonist in a dark ritual with gay chants. Nemo was made by Pixar and — you guessed it — Disney. Disney also owns ESPN, whose sports analysts coined the term man-crush in an attempt to gay up the American football fan. So if you wonder why I am rebuking conservatives so strongly, you might deduce that it’s because they want to put an end to the sexually liberating influence of the Walt Disney Corporation in my life. |
I really wouldn’t consider that statement any more tolerant than the guys original “massive tirade.” who would not feel comfortable in the Church due to the constant circular firing squad of the conservatives This assumes that liberal is by default more tolerant than conservative. Something that is certainly not a given in all situations. |
MAC, that is a good point- liberals are often just as intolerant as conservatives, and just as heavy-handed in their policing of orthodoxy, especially in politics. |
Dan, #11 That’s fine. Except that isn’t what you said in the original post. “I feel confident asserting that more people have stayed in the Church thanks to the influence of religious liberals than the infuence of religious conservatives, and many more people have left the Church — or refused to investigate in the first place — over the words and actions of religious conservatives” I mean really. I read the tirade and I don’t see anything in it, other than the rejection of the perceived population control message, that suggests any sort of political point of view. Given, I haven’t read anything else the guy wrote or seen the movie for that matter (for no reason other than it isn’t out where I am yet), but why are you labeling this guy as conservative? |
So, the feud begins. I usually let Bryce keep his guns, food and compound in Montana attitude to himself and try to change minds that actually can be changed. There are practicalities to the progressive side and needlessly arguing with the hecklers gets in the way of promoting liberal policies that actually do good. By their fruits… The fruit of the republican tree in the last 10 years has been war, pestilence, fear and famine. It’s not hard to present a positive message in comparison. |
Mac (12), Saying that liberals can be just as intolerant as conservatives doesn’t negate what I said in the post; conservatives have done a lot more damage to the Church because they have a much greater voice in the Church, simply due to their numbers. If liberals were in the majority, I might have reason to reverse my conjecture. My warning to conservatives is in response to this attempt to steady the ark by digging up old conference quotes that our current leaders see fit to not repeat. |
angrymormonliberal, #13 How inclusive of you. Something tells me you missed the point when Dan said “But mixing one’s religious and political sensibilities — liberal or conservative — results in a tendency for more policing of other people’s beliefs than would occur otherwise.” |
Dan, I agree with many things you say, but I have to take issue again with your last paragraph and also your introduction claiming that certain opinions are “damaging to the Church.” What you are really saying when you boil it down is, “religious conservatives, be careful what you say because you can embarrass the Church and drive away potential investigators.” There are several Edsel-sized problems with this argument. 1)What is a liberal, what is a conservative, and who decides which is which? 2)What you are really saying is that people should not express opinions that may embarrass you because you think those opinions will potentially drive people away from the Church. 3)If you boil your argument down to its most basic level you are defining your own orthodoxy as including people only expressing opinions with which you agree and do not find personally embarrassing. Personally, I think the uncharitable and un-Christian responses to Bryce’s post are much more likely to drive people away from the Church than the post itself. When people see somebody expressing an unpopular opinion — and then see supposed Christians insulting the writer and calling for his opinions to be censored — they are likely to say, “what is it with these Mormons?” (I am not including this particular post in that category, btw, although I don’t agree with your repeated use of words such as “insane” and “tirade” but for the most part you are making cogent, addressable arguments in a relatively polite way). But my point is that I don’t like it when people hide behind the rubric of “XXX opinion embarrasses the Church” when what they really mean is, “I don’t agree with XXX opinion and find it embarassing.” Can you see how anybody can take any opinion and say it embarrasses the Church? That whopper about a 14-year-old boy finding those golden plates is certainly pretty embarrassing. That one about women not having the priesthood is definitely behind the times. And what about the opinions of individual members: personally, I find it incredibly embarrassing that so many members are against the war on terror and against giving Iraqis the freedom that all God’s creatures deserve. I also find it embarrassing that so many members support raising income taxes when the Book of Mormon clearly warns against taxation in general. So, Dan, you’re completely on solid ground to argue that, according to your reading of the scriptures, the words of the prophets, the words of High Nibley, etc, it is really the right thing to do for people to protect the environment. I may not agree with you on the issue, but it is a solid argument and one that is defensible. (You may be interested to know that I personally believe that Nibley was an environmental extremist, and I don’t get Bryce’s argument opposing that). But you are not on solid ground arguing as you do in this post that certain opinions do “damage to the Church” because what you really mean is that they are opinions with which you disagree and find personally embarrassing. |
I think that’s a bit of a caricature of the conservative view just and Rush Limbaugh’s portrayal of environmentalists is a caricature of environmentalist concerns. Certainly there are people who are like that. But I’d not say it was the “political conservative’s” view. I think the conservative view is that in making environmental decisions we also have to include economic issues into our calculus. Many (but obviously not all judging by House support and polls) don’t want to do this. So someone may come up with some wild plan without particularly caring about economic issues. Or if they address it they do so in a dishonest way. (i.e. any drilling site doesn’t matter because it would provide at most a 1% increase neglecting the fact that if you add up a bunch of 1% increases it amounts to a lot) Don’t get me wrong, I really dislike the way many conservatives have attempted to confuse the science and environmental concerns with economic ones. The issues are separate. Because of their economic concerns and, I believe, the view that economic concerns won’t get a fair treatment by the press and debate they then obfuscate the science. However on the other side I see something similar going on. The economic concerns are simply brushed aside which is why, I think, conservatives tend towards the kind of sophistry they engage in at times. |
Dan, #14 That argument might have held water if your post (and angrymormonliberal’s comment for that matter) was based on the steady the ark talk and not an attack on Bryce’s anti-population control post. I am pretty sure that “conservatives have done a lot more damage to the Church” is a subjective statement. If I am to assume that the “damage” you are talking about is from the policing others points of view, regardless of political point of view (which is generous, considering the title of the post), then my response would be “poppycock.” There are many members of the Church who hold both strong conservative or liberal views who don’t go around haranguing those who disagree with them. If the greater damage is simply a function of greater conservative representation in the ranks, and a strongly liberal individual has the same potential and propensity to damage, then why warn only the “conservatives?” |
What a preposterous movie review that was. Blasting environmental oversensitivity through a religiously oversensitive rant. And somehow turning it into a zero-population issue. That’s what the kids call “wack”. Beautiful. Can we maybe, just maybe, assume that WALL*E was satirical in nature? Can we also assume the fairy tale nature of an animated film? And can we have the common sense to assume that Hollywood very rarely produces anything that should have any influence on our moral framework?
The problem often exists that one’s politics become one’s religion- a philosophy of man that one can attach some quotes and scripture to for supporting evidence. I have a feeling that Satan really likes this one nowadays in the church. As for the environment being a big issue for LDS, we should all be environmentalists. Being liberal or conservative is entirely irrelevant. I have 32 pages of quotes from scriptures and general authorities from Joseph Smith til now about environmental stewardship and caring for the Earth being a reflection of our spiritual stature.
There’s still 31 1/2 pages of this stuff. Gorean climate change is a political issue. Environmentalism is a moral issue. |
Here’s a high standard: 3 Nep 6: 13 Some were lifted up in pride, and others were exceedingly humble; some did return railing for railing, while others would receive railing and persecution … and would not turn and revile again, but were humble and penitent before God. I’ve though quite a lot about this in regards to tacks I sometimes take (or want to take) on blogs, and found myself wanting. ~ |
Clark, You point out the great flaw in fiscal conservatism: What value does the environment have in economics? What value does an endangered bird species have in economics? None. Our economics is based on margin and GDP rather than quality of life. I don’t advocate throwing out our economic systems, I advocate updating them to internalize all costs- environmental costs, especially. I think we’ve come a long way in that sense, but mostly because of things like the love canal and kids getting sick. Until our thinking generally reflects a valuable environment and earth, we are hardly sophisticated economists. |
Geoff, I think that’s a fair critique of what I’m saying. 1) I’m not so much concerned with embarrassment to the Church as I am with people going farther than our current prophets and apostles go to promote ideas that might exclude others. Our faith is not very inclusive in terms of our truth claims, and that is just the reality we deal with in the Church. But I have a feeling that if I were an investigator with some liberal ideas about various things, I would feel a lot more welcome in the Church after a conversation with any of our apostles than after a conversation with a number of people in Utah County. And as in so many conflicts, intolerant extremists shout much louder, and cause a lot more collateral damage, than reasonable people who place more value on understanding other points of view. Again, I’m not nearly as concerned with embarrassment to the Church as I am with misportrayals of what we are and what our mission is as a Church. 2) On the environment, I just did exactly what I condemn, in a sense. I decided to play “cafeteria Mormon” and I cherry-picked old quotes from people whose commentary are viewed as having some credibility, to support a pet concern of mine. The difference is, with the exception of the Church’s recent statement on nuclear power, I don’t view those quotes as binding on anyone today at all; I can only speak in the first person and say they are useful to me. Again, in weighing whether an old talk or quote is relevant to — or binding on — today’s Church membership, the only reliable standard is are our current prophets and apostles saying the same thing today? 3) As far as defining liberals and conservatives, there is no question that is very problematic. I am religiously and politically very liberal in Utah County, but conservative in both respects in New York. Here in Charlottesville, VA, I’m smack in the moderate middle. There is certainly a problem of definition, as there was when Harold B. Lee gave that talk warning liberals in the Church. I consider myself a Liahona Mormon, with a very high bar as far as what I consider reliable doctrine. Some people see that and conclude that I am liberal, because I’m unsure of whether the Garden of Eden was really in Jackson County or whether every form of life was really represented in Noah’s Ark. But as far as I’m concerned, if our current leadership doesn’t feel comfortable teaching it, I don’t feel comfortable saying it’s doctrine. I think that is a conservative position, but I have also heard it labeled as faithless. |
heh, this makes me giggle. lets change a few words in this
ahh, that’s better. dan, great post! this is awesome:
i do wonder if folks that are getting hung up on this paragraph are assuming you mean “democrat” when you say liberal? i understood it(religious liberals) as those individuals who keep their religious views to them and theirs and don’t try to force everyone else to comply. |
# 15 MAC angrymormonliberal just proved that point. |
ggggrrrr… i don’t have editing powers! totally sucks to have to carefully read my comment BEFORE i submit them. and i’ve slipped all the way down to # 13 in the top commenters list. well, i will try to make up for that in the coming months. |
mfranti (23),
Yes, that is what I mean. If Geoff or anyone else disagrees with my views on doctrine, politics, issues, etc., I would hope that I would be able to be just as welcoming to people who disagree with me as I am to those with whom I agree. It is not my job to police the orthodoxy of other people or remind them of how they should believe, but I do think it is our duty as members of the Church to point out when someone’s treatment of others — especially those not of our faith — crosses a line and damages the inclusive, Christ-centered view of the Church that the Brethren are trying so hard to communicate to the world. |
I’m on record as saying that I wouldn’t be caught dead as a full-fledged member of either the Republicans or the Democrats. The sorry state of their record on the environment is one of the reasons I can’t embrace Republicanism (which I constrast with conservatism). |
This whole thread (and many others over on BCC that seem to have disappeared) are reasons why I’m really glad the Church leadership strives for political neutrality. YMMV, but in my ward in North Texas, we seem to have done a really good job of stifling political talk of any stripe in Church meetings. |
mfranti,
If I am a poor member missionary I am also a religious liberal? Or are you saying that liberal/progressives are, by their nature less, likely to advocate their religious (and I assume political) views to others? Dan,
I am struggling to accept that the original post would have been written had it been addressing a member admonishing others to be more environmentally conscious and not warning them against buying into population control arguments. One can’t accuse others of being impolite in the same way that one can’t brag about one’s obvious humility. |
mfranti, #25 Dang it. You would notice just when I was catching up. |
NO i believe there is a difference between answering questions someone might have about our religion, or even passing out a BOM to them after said discussion and turning every meeting/conversation with an individual as a potential testimony meeting/conversion opprotunity. sometimes, it’s just nice to connect with individuals as people that might end up being your friend and not feeling like they are an “opportunity”. my dh said to me during one of our first meetings, that he liked that i was lds and could answer his questions, in detail, but he never felt like i was trying to convert him. he never felt like he was some project that needed fixing. i am… a religious liberal. i like to let people beleive what they want to believe and should they feel inclined to know more, i’m there. but it is never my intention to convert someone. they can see right through you, just like you can see right through a car salesman and smell the desperation. |
Queuno (28), I maintain that politics and religion make a toxic and volatile brew. I think it’s much healthier to be be religiously conservative and politically liberal, or religiously liberal and politically conservative, or best of all, moderate in all things. Some years ago, I was at a stake conference and one of the speakers was a recent convert. She was a social worker, and as she was investigating the Church, she felt like a lot of what she was being taught was true, but when she attended Church, the discussions and presentations there seemed to wrap issues up so tidily that she felt the Church didn’t accurately address the complexity of human experience she knew as a social worker. She said she felt like the Church presented a “Pollyanna” view of the world that didn’t represent reality. Anyway, she kept praying about whether to join, and one day, she came to Church and the Sunday School teacher was not there, so someone volunteered to give the lesson and for his lesson, he pulled out a Sunstone article on the priesthood ban. She said that during that class, she was blown away by the thoughtfulness and sensitivity shown as the class wrestled with a difficult issue. She decided that meeting was a sign from God that the Church was a place she could feel comfortable, and I believe she was right. |
That’s not a flaw of conservatism. That’s a “problem” with markets and democracy. Because the people decide what the value is and many environmentalists don’t like that since they value it differently. Thus the sophistry on their side. Conservatives worry about the effectiveness of sophistry (and anyone who follows politics know that people becoming informed is the rarity) and thus engage in the same kind of behavior. I condemn it on all sides. But it does bug me when one side calls kettle black, if you catch the reference. At least the conservatives are being more democratic about it all. My sense is that you think environmentalists ought be able to decide by fiat what the value of the environment is and damn everyone else? That’s exactly what bothers people about environmentalism. I’m very concerned about the environment but I really dislike the behavior of many environmentalists simply because they refuse to allow shared values.
I’d probably agree. And under Bush it got much worse – no doubt about it. However Republicans aren’t nearly as bad as Democrats like to portray.
I’d agree but I think you must admit that there is some disagreement about what is going farther than the brethren.
I confess I think that most portrayals of Utah County in LDS blogs tends to be fairly distorted. There’s no doubt that this area politically is more conservative than many other places in the country. However it also has a fair bit of diversity over what conservativism means. There are plenty of libertarians along with Limbaugh Republicans. As for religious views, I think the close proximity to BYU and the number of students means that people here are exposed to more thinking about the Mormon faith than those outside of Utah county. I’m not in a BYU ward by any means but our Elders Quorum lesson last week had someone bringing up Rough Stone Rolling and some of the controversial issues in it. No one batted an eye and most people appear to have read it. Is that true of other wards you’ve been in? Just a plea to stop the silly distortions of what people in the Provo area in general believe. I’m sure you have met some overly conservative (politically and religiously) people. But I suspect there are probably just as many very liberal religious people. I confess I’ve lived a lot of places and the only place I’ve ever met self-identified marxist Mormons is here (outside of a few bloggers). |
MAC (29),
I definitely expressed a disagreement with the author’s environmental take on the movie, but my primary complaint is his wielding the hammer of conservatism against someone of another faith, to the detriment of the Church. I see that happening much more on the part of religious/political conservatives, but again, that is probably just due to how much more the religious/political conservatives are represented in the Church, numerically speaking. |
Clark (33),
I stand reprimanded- I’ll try to do better about avoiding stereotypes in the future. |
Dan, 32 Let me break out for you what sticks out to me in this comment What you wrote
What I hear Religiously conservative members are less capable of being sensitive to heavenly direction, less capable of thoughtfulness and sensitivity. What you wrote
What I hear Religiously liberal wards (I would argue if there truly was such an animal, either liberal or conservative) are more capable of producing miracles.
These two sentences contradict each other. I would argue that in a religious context there is not a ‘correct” political view, whether it be absolute or a function of ones religious orthodoxy. Overlap yes, one can be politically and religiously pro-marriage, but no ‘correct’ correlation. You can’t cancel out your politically liberal views with religiously conservative views and call yourself a moderate in either one. |
At the end, we cannot wait for every person to be able to make that distinction in their own fashion. We must be able to religious sense, pick out that which in the most true and in a political sense pick out that which will best serve our society. The difference being, in the religious sense there is a right and wrong, in a political sense we have more leeway for personal preference and style. In this specific case, in a religious sense, there should be a correct answer, either population should be growing or population should be restricted for ecological reasons. By discounting the authors religious argument against population control, by accusing him of having political sensibility that you find distasteful, you are guilty of the same thing you claim to be against, mixing religious and political arguments to attempt to gain the higher moral ground in a argument. |
Mac– |
Given how the Lehi area has grown I’d be very, very surprised were it that different. That’s partially because I know of at least 7 families from my ward alone that moved to bigger houses in Lehi. But also because Rough Stone Rolling was for sale widely in Utah County and sold very, very briskly. They weren’t all BYU students purchasing it. (Cost Co in particular sold a ridiculous amount) |
MAC, if Bryce and I had an argument about this environmental issue, I would gladly let him have the last word if he wanted it, and I would shake his hand and move on. Where I will not allow someone the last word is when they use the Gospel mixed with conservatism to trash the work of good people of other faiths, or to slam people within our own faith. If an Evangelical were to use his or her faith mixed with politics to bludgeon me for trying to promote Christianity in a film, as was done with Wall-E, I would hope that reasonable Evangelicals would rise to my defense and say that the offensive screed is not representative of how all Evangelicals think. When Mormons do that kind of thing, especially in public on the Internet, I think it should be challenged. |
Timj, 38 No, I am not making that confusion. I never said anything about trashing the planet. |
Dan, 40
I don’t neccesarily agree that that is the best plan of action in all situations, but in this particular situation it fits, that is why I challenged your slamming of Bryce’s post, with quotes by authoritative LDS voices, on a public blog. |
My point in telling this story is, there are hundreds of wards where this kind of experience — the fellowshipping of this fantastic sister — could not have happened because members of the ward are too religiously conservative to allow God to work among them in this way. In a religiously liberal ward, you might have more trouble maintaining focus on the core doctrines of the Church, but I think in those wards, you see a lot more miracles like the conversion of the sister I just referred to. I welcome that tradeoff. I think that’s presenting the argument of “boy, we need to be customer-focused if we want to convert people”. I don’t think we need to water down Church doctrines to appeal to anyone. I don’t think we need to invent new standards, but I don’t think we need to water them down, either. And I prefer having a standardized, pollyanna-ish GD class. It probably helps keep more people in the Church than the alternative ever converts. I think the problem is that you (or anyone else) has adequately defined “religious conservative” in the context of Church membership. In fact, I’d prefer to put in terms of “orthodox”, where there are people who are less than orthodox and hyper/super-orthodox (who invent standards that don’t need to exist). Using terms like “conservative” and “liberal” in a Church setting gets conflicted with politics. |
MAC- |
There seems to be a certain confusion about what the terms “liberal Mormon and conservative Mormon” actually mean. As far as “policing the internet” goes, see D&C 20:54, where the priests (and those with higher authority) are given the duty to “see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, nor backbiting, nor evil speaking.” That would include especially “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”, i.e. the First Presidency and the Twelve. Will that do, or is more specific authorization required? To my mind, the Gospel gives no one, liberal or conservative, faithful or doubting, the license to act like a troll. I’ve had my own bitter (offline)experience with some of the excessively doctrinaire conservative types, but the kinds of things some of the self-identified liberal Mormons wrote in response to Bryce Hammond on his Temple Study blog rcently, or angrymormonliberal in #13 above, are every bit as bad. If Mormon liberals include those who openly declare that leaders of the church are in the wrong, the practices and teachings of the church are hateful and oppressive, and the scriptures are fiction, and in general endorse the opinions of avowed Anti-mormons and other enemies of the Church, while still retaining their church memberhip, I want nothing to do with them. If conservatives include those judge and condemn anyone who doesn’t agree with their own (usually 19th century) understanding of the gospel to the last detail as apostate, I don’t want to be called one of them, either. On the other hand, does the term “liberal” mean that one accepts the well-established findings of science and history and suspends judgement, awaiting further revelation or evidence, when these appear to contradict scripture? Does it mean that one seeks two or three witnesses of high reliability before accepting something, even if found in the scriptures, as settled doctrine? If that’s what a liberal means, then count me as one of them. But, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it has been transmitted correctly (I think that word better expresses what Joseph Smith meant), and the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Peral of Great Price are also the Word of God. I also believe the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve to be wise, intelligent, and holy men of God, acting by His authority and with His approval. If that makes me a conservative, count me in. If that mean I’m neither liberal nor conservative, or somehow both at once, that fits. (Amusingly, though that’s a bit of a private joke). If that in turn means that “liberal” and “Conservative” are not and should not be allowed to become mutually exclusive polar opposites to divide the Church like the Democrats and Republicans divide the US Congress, absolutely. I would be much pleased to be described simply as as a true follower of Jesus Christ and hope He can accept me as one in spite of my many shortcomings and failures. |
Thanks confutus. |
Anybody want to get a good close look at what self-righteous insanity looks like? Go here and have a look. Then come back here and try to defend it, and say it isn’t harmful to the church. |
#47., he lost me after the first paragraph. of course, that doesn’t say much (i know y’all were thinking it) I could tell it was gonna get way to thinky for my little brain what with all them quotes. it seems lately, i have a low tolerance for that kind of talk. nothing makes me click the little X in the right hand corner faster when i sense a post is going to have the “us vs” them attitude. sigh |
I think this conversation has been interesting and healthy. The trend across several blogs seems to be toward better understanding, cooler heads and calmer voices. But, when I sit down in GD with my Iron rod, Liahona, conservative, liberal and intellectual brothers and sisters, this great debate seems to melt away as we all strive for better understand of the gospel. |
My 2 cents worth… This point may have been made before; I tried to engage Bryce with it on his last attack…er, post about religious liberals which as been previously linked. I submitted the way Bryce presented the talk by Elder Lee (he was at the time Elder, not yet President, right?) was as a message of fear, and he responded that the Prophets never talk fear. What do you think Article of Faith 9 meant when it states “…we believe that He will yet reveal may great and important things…”? I see it as we don’t have all of the answers pertaining to the Kingdom of God at this time. To me, the talk about “liberal vs. conservative” is another tool of division. I don’t know if I agree completely with the original post’s last paragraph, but I understand it. I personally think Christ is more accepting than what is commonly thought of (I take full responsiblity for that statement!). MAC (42), I disagree with you. Yes, Bryce posted an “authoritative LDS” talk on his website; nothing wrong with that, I agree with Elder Lee’s statements. What I have a problem with is Bryce’s passive-aggressive calling out of people he thinks doesn’t fit his mold of “religious conservative”. Bryce would make an aggressive remark, then hide behind the statement of “I’m only directly quoting a Prophet, GA, etc…” I don’t know Bryce, I am not making any judment call on him as a good or bad person. I simply don’t think he was posting that particular post (Iron rod…?) objectively as he stated he was. It is up to him to determine his integrity. |
so umm… where’s bryce? perhaps he should be here too? |
mfranti, Bryce is much too righteous to associate with the likes of us. It is a heavy burden for him to even be in the same church with such a bunch of losers. You really should skip to the end of his post, though. There, he bears testimony of your sinfulness. |
Bryce is, or is setting up to liveblog the Fair Conderence. He’s also been composing his own post on the The Grossest Form of Church Criticism which damns a substantial portion of the Bloggernacle. Watch the trolls come out. |
Is this the Dan Ellsworth I know? |
53-He closed comments on that thread. Heaven forbid somebody actually comment on that screed. Pretty soon he may veer off into his own “apostasy” wherein most church members are much too “liberal” for his tastes and he has to start his own group of people who share his antediluvian views. Either that or his head is going to explode soon. |
actually, i did scroll down and did catch the testimony. i even started to post about the highly personal nature of testimonies. that’s why i ended my last post with a sigh. there’s just so much to comment on…. |
just remember that if we are all destined for hell, we are all in good company. |
Confutus (45), Welcome. Your views sound a lot like mine, but were stated better than I am able. damn right (47), It’s amazing that someone would take that much satisfaction in the idea of people being kicked out of the Church. His whole post seems to revel in some future day when people with doubts and questions will be “cast off forever,” or something along those lines. I don’t think I’ll be posting about Bryce anymore, as he has descended into the realm of parody. Candace (54), Yes, it’s me. Howdy. |
1. Response to Comment #3: I deserved that hypocrite comment. I over-reacted to Brother Haymond’s comments on a Catholic blog, and made some accusations towards him (in public and in private) that I should have softened before hitting the submit/send button. To quote the song: “Everybody plays the fool, sometimes. No exception to the rule.” Including both me and Brother Haymond. Bottom line: we _all_ need to be more _DIPLOMATIC_ with everybody, both inside and outside the church. Steve EM had a good line before he left: “Fanaticism leads to apostasy.” I don’t know if that’s universal, but there’s quite a degree of truth in it. I suppose one could be fanatic about pointing out others’ fanaticism. Dan E, I think your original post here at least enters into “strident” territory. 2. I’m all for good stewardship of the earth, but why are most environmentalists and practically all radical environmentalists also secular humanists, and/or pro-abortionists, and/or atheists? 3. Here’s a point where so-called environmentalism does cross into global secular politics which are intended to reduce global population (and I mean actually _kill off_ people): The gradual banning of freon and it’s replacement with a higher-priced refrigerant has priced refrigeration out of the range of much of the world’s population who could previously afford the freon-based refrigeration. There are two schools of conspiracy thought on this: a) Dupont’s patent on freon expired and they have promoted the freon-causes-ozone-depletion idea to promote their costlier freon replacement, and: b) the Ted Turners of the world want more of the developing world to die off from diseases caused by less widespread use of refrigeration. (There’s a pretty clear-cut overall correllation between refrigeration use and less food-borne diseases across the world.) Ted Turner has openly favored a global population _reduction_ and not _just_ through a lower birth rate. He’s on record saying that lowering the birth rate won’t reduce world population fast enough. Google it yourself. 4. Dan E, It’s not just conservative Christians who mix politics plus environmentalism plus religion. If you think the “sin” of such mixing is mainly on the conservative/Christian side, then you likely haven’t been paying close enough attention to the deeper trends of the global-warming and ozone-depletion issues. It’s the Al Gores and Ted Turners who have _made_ environmentalism a religio-political issue. I’d go as far as to say that they are using environmentalism as a religious vehicle to institute statism and exercise greater control over people. They are not promoting freedom or good stewardship of the earth. The Kyoto Protocol was mainly about _controling people_: giving governments more control over the daily lives of their citizenry. And China and India did the right thing in response to it, when they told the Kyoto Protocol backers “go take a hike.” In fact, the extreme environmental hypocrisy of the “leaders” on the liberal side of politics astounds me. I have tons more respect for the deodorant-shunning bearded sandal-wearing organic-food-eating vegans than the hypocrites (oops, there’s the pot calling the kettle black) such as Al Gore, Ted Turner, and John Edwards. At least the sandal-wearing vegans make great attempts at practicing what they preach, and aren’t knowingly trying to kill off a certain percentage of the world by denying them affordable refrigeration. If the liberal pro-environmental politicians in congress were serious about environmentalism, they would ban imports from China and India until those countries instituted environmental controls upon their manufacturing industry similar to (or even 1/4th of) what we have in the western world. Without the US as a market, they would manufacture less, and pollute less. But in fact, we subsidize excessive pollution in China and India, because we don’t exercise the necessary influence wherein they would imnplement even the most basic _cost-effective_ common-sense measures that would have the greatest pollution-reduction per dollar spent. Maybe conservatives should be more willing to hold hands with people and sing “Kumbaya” and “We are the World”, but dagnabbit, freon does not cause ozone depletion (one single volcanic eruption puts more ozone-depleting chlorine into the upper atmosphere than 500 years of freon use would), but banning freon really does kill people. Dan E: Please go to my blog and follow the “Leave private feedback (email)” link to leave me a message. I want to go private with something. |
Bookslinger, It’s not necessarily the views on the environment that I object to, honestly. What I see is 1) the Church going to great pains to demonstrate pluralism, openness, and willingness to engage people of other faiths, and 2) members of the Church countering those efforts by using our religion to slam the good work of people of other faiths, and publicly salivating over an imagined future day of mass excommunication of “dissenters.” Check your blog comments… |
that’s the equivalent of saying you have a secret in front of a group. |
Dan (58) |
queuno, I couldn’t disagree more with your pollyana Sunday school lessons comment. My experience is that many members know nothing of the history of the priesthood ban and are universally fascinated when told about it and given a chance to discuss it. I was teaching a gospel essentials lessons several weeks ago and the subject came up in the middle of the lesson and we ended up talking about it the rest of the class. I didn’t even bring it up and had no intention of bringing it up. Afterwards all the people there approached me and said how much they enjoyed that part if the discussion and wondered aloud why they’d never heard any of that information before. Similarly I gave a lesson this year in EQ on all the accounts of the First Vision. I got a number of compliments. We’ve developed a strange pollyana culture in Sunday school that does not serve the members well, especially the ones that aren’t out reading about stuff on their own time and are flabberghasted when they fund stuff out onthe Internet or from |
Confutus (62),
If I believed that were true, I would feel the same way. Over the past few years, I have become aware of many of the uncomfortable facts of Church history, and I have chosen to investigate those things not to tear down others’ faith, but to be able to answer the difficult questions other people might have as they come across those things. Here’s another point, though- honestly, how many people who attend Church have faith that is well-grounded enough to do missionary work, home teaching, etc.? Aren’t those things the best indicators of whether someone actually believes what the Church is teaching? |
(59) Bookslinger “I deserved that hypocrite comment….To quote the song: “Everybody plays the fool, sometimes. No exception to the rule.” Including both me and Brother Haymond.” Bookslinger, that’s decent of you to approach it that way, but I’m pretty sure Bryce isn’t including himself in the hypocrite category. He has no problem rolling in the mud, I think he enjoys it. He thinks you’re a hypocrite based solely on your comment about your membership status, nothing else. He doesn’t know anything about you, so when he throws around accusations like that, he reveals himself to be an ignoramus. (63) Confutus, “I think the ones he would like to see gone are those who know perfectly well they are disbelievers, but pretend belief in order to raise doubts and questions in the minds of those less sophisticated in order to lead those after them.” If that is all he means, I agree with him. However, I don’t know anybody who fits into that category, and I doubt that very few of them exist. Mormonism sets a pretty high bar for somebody who just wants to feign belief in order to lead someone else away. However, I know plenty of people whose belief is weak and failing, and whose continued participation in the church is made all the more difficult by people like Bryce. His zealotry is objectionable because it is harmful to the body of Christ. Also, assuming there actually are great numbers of people around who are faking church attendance, performance of callings, paying tithing, working in the temple, going home teaching, and overall behaving like good members, how do you know what their motives are? How can you tell? You speak pretty confidently about people you don’t even know in person, but whose bishops and stake presidents deem worthy to enter the temple. |
Interesting. In the load of horse manure Bryce just dumped, he says he knows that the prophet speaks face to face with the Lord. That would have certainly come as news to Gordon B. Hinckley, who stated explcitly that he had never seen Jesus. Several of the apostles have also said that this belief is false. If Bryce thinks he knows this, he knows something that is false. He is at odds with the established church leadership, and is guilty of spreading false doctrine and leading the weak and unsophisticated astray. I call upon him to repent. |
Norm, |
Norm (66), Very true. See J. Stapley’s post here: http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/02/an-interesting-letter/ Joseph Smith’s visitations were a radical departure from the “special witness” pattern most commonly found in the scriptures, where a dream or vision of Christ is presented and explained by a heavenly messenger. Pres. Grant’s letter is not surprising for that reason. |
Some quotes from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: Section Four 1839-42, p.155 Ever keep in exercise the principles of mercy, and be ready to forgive our brother on the first intimations of repentance, and asking forgiveness; and should we even forgive our brother, or even our enemy, before he repent or ask forgiveness, our heavenly Father would be equally as merciful unto us. Section Four 1839-42, p.155 Again, let the Twelve and all Saints be willing to confess all their sins, and not keep back a part; and let the Twelve be humble, and not be exalted, and beware of pride, and not seek to excel one above another, but act for each other’s good, and pray for one another, and honor our brother or make honorable mention of his name, and not backbite and devour our brother. Why will not man learn wisdom by precept at this late age of the world, when we have such a cloud of witnesses and examples before us, and not be obliged to learn by sad experience everything we know? Must the new ones that are chosen to fill the places of those that are fallen, of the quorum of the Twelve, begin to exalt themselves, until they exalt themselves so high that they will soon tumble over and have a great fall, and go wallowing through the mud and mire and darkness, Judas-like, to the buffetings of Satan, as several of the quorum have done, or will they learn wisdom and be wise? O God! give them wisdom, and keep them humble, I pray. ——————— Section Four 1839-42, p.156 I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn other, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. —- |
The parable of the tares would seem to apply in the Church as well as to the rest of the world. There are good reasons the Church has not gone out of its way to enforce doctrinal orthodoxy, because of the very difficulty of discerning true disbelievers and dissenters from those who have momentary doubts but are loyal at heart. Also, because there is a sense that once they become ripe, they will reveal themselves. It happened time and again among the Nephites, where dissenters came out joined the Lamanites or Gadianton robbers. It happened in Kirtland and MIssouri 1837-1838, and again in Nauvoo in 1844. It does not surpass belief that it could happen again in the not too distant future. Since the General Authorities in their directions to Stake authorities and Bishops seem to have set rather generous limits on how much dissent is tolerable before somewhat is excommunicated for aspostasy, I don’t think it’s my job to go out there and try to narrow the limit. Taking names and measuring doctrinal orthodoxy is not my job. Raising rash or false accusations against particular individuals is certainly not my job. In justice, what people say in print or on the internet also has to be measured what they do in real life, a task which I am neither able nor inclined to do. Overall, I’m willing to trust God to watch out for the Church, and clean His own house how and when He sees fit. However, speaking in general terms: Once a prophet has said something openly, as Bryce has quoted, I don’t see how it’s so far out of line to say “it’s still true”. Sometimes, general terms are enough. For instance, Joseph Smith in Nauvoo before his martyrdom said, “There’s a Judas among us”. William Law, one of his counselors, jumped forward and said “How dare you accuse me of treason?”. Joseph said, “I didn’t name you. Why are you jumping like you were hit?” Law promptly came out in open rebellion. But it most certainly is my job to watch and not be deceived. As Jesus said, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” When someone gets on the internet and says, for instance, that the First Presidency is wrong to oppose gay marriage, or that the church oppresses women by not giving them the Priesthood, opines that the scriptures are fiction, or sneers at the TBMS, Molly Mormons, and Peter Priesthoods, then yes, I think they have of themselves given reason to question their loyalty and faithfulness. Whether people have temple recommends and the like is certainly not a sure guarantee of their inner faithfulness. Shocking as is may be, there are some few people who do lie in order to get a recommend. Even about whether they have a testimony. There are very likely more who fail to disclose attitudes, beliefs, or behavior that just might generate close, uncomfortable inquiry into specific details. I don’t think the partly hidden dissenters within the church outnumber the faithful saints, by any means. But “I don’t think they exist” is all too reminiscent of a certain scene in “The Princess Bride”. I’ve seen a few. |
What is TBMS? |
TBM = “True Blue Mormon”. My mistake in capitalizing the S. |
Mfranti (25) I was making good progress toward passing you up but, alas, my employer has locked out this site as “inappropriate” so I can only post outside of work, and I just can’t force myself to the computer during off hours… |
Confutus: RE: #70. A friend who has served in bishoprics tells me that no one is excommunicated for apostasy these days. It is only when their apostasy leads them to speak out openly against, or act openly against the church, do church leaders then even consider convening a disciplinary court. It’s about words and actions, not thoughts and ideas. And, if my understanding is correct, it’s not even about spoken words, but the published word against the church and its leaders. ————– At first I thought Dan E’s original post was about politics, but I realize now that that wasn’t his intent. I say that Dan E has a point. The scenario he’s painting has some truth in it. If one loses the Spirit, then it can be difficult to put up with some abrasive members who come across as condescending and holier-than-thou. (The abrasive condescenders could actually be anywhere on the political spectrum.) The Spirit acts somewhat like insulation, which protects us from the offenses of others. If we lose the Spirit (through our own sin), those paltry offenses get magnified to the point where we don’t want to put up with them, and some people then leave the church over those offenses. So there can be sin on both sides, on the part of those who lost the Spirit and took offense, and on the part of those who gave offense. So it’s like President Monson and Elder Bednar said a couple conferences ago: a) don’t give offense (Monson), and b) don’t take offense (Bednar). I must have lost the Spirit, because I took offense at some things someone recently wrote, and I reacted inappropriately. This whole question relates somewhat to my current status. At the time I left the church 21 years ago, I pointed the finger at people who offended me. It took me many years to realize how my own sins and flaws played a big part, and I flip-flopped back into the church, but still didn’t seem to resolve things. It took me a few more years to “synthesize” and figure out “oh yeah, they were still jerks too.” So in essence, the offenses were real, not imagined. But it was my sins and flaws that caused me to allow those offenses to drive me away. One of the principles is that we should not revile the revilers, and should not hate the haters, whether they be in the church or out. Matt 18:15-17, and DC 42:88-89 outline the proper way to handle offenses within the church. I think it’s important to realize that those who give offense in the church most often don’t know they are giving offense, and don’t intend to give offense. Matthew 18:15-17 gives a nice 3 step process: 1) tell the person yourself, 2) if that doesn’t work, take another person/witness with you to talk to your offender, and 3) if that doesn’t work go through proper church leadership. |
Bookslinger, For various reasons, I do not expect one of the General authorities to appear and administer correction, verbal or otherwise. But I seriously doubt whether you would have been singled out and commended if someone weren’t paying attention. It’s not only the immediate influence of the Spirit of the Lord that affects one’s propensity to give or take offense. It’s also the degree to which one has incoporated principles of charity. After all, we are told that charity is longsuffering and kind (not prone to give offense), and not easily provoked (not prone to take it). I could give an entire discourse on how and how not to judge righteously, and how and how not (nd when not) to administer correction, but I think I’ll save that for another time and place. Beyond that, I pretty much agree with what you wrote. Well said. |
bookslinger, did i piss you off? because i often do that. (maybe not so much at this blog…maybe?) |
..oh yeah, insert stupid smiley face. |
Bryce is right. Liberals always care more about this earth than heaven. It’s like they think that the earth is more important than our ultimate goal: to become like God. There’s a reason that the mission of The Church is not to clean up the Jordan river and end carbon emissions. If God were worried about the environment, He would tell a prophet to give a general conference address about SUVs. There are a ton of those in Utah – including ones that the prophets drive. Environmentalism is just silly. Religious liberals always want people to doubt and lose their testimonies. Environmentalists are all about doubt. “Were not sure that humans activity is heating the globe, but it can’t hurt to cut carbon.” Malarky. It distracts us from more important things. |
aRJ (63): We’ve developed a strange pollyana culture in Sunday school that does not serve the members well, especially the ones that aren’t out reading about stuff on their own time and are flabberghasted when they fund stuff out onthe Internet or from We’ll have to violently disagree about the value of non-pollyanna GD. GD doesn’t exist — shouldn’t exist — delve in advanced topics. GD is NOT a replacement for people who won’t do their own reading. It does — and should — cater to a level slightly above the common denominator. |
Dan– |
Bookslinger and Confutus, Those are very good points. I personally don’t take offense to the posts I referenced, simply because I think they are the misguided and their author seems to have interpersonal problems and insecurities that prompt the behavior. Dan (78), queuno (79), |
mfranti: you’re cool. |
Confutus: (#75) I think the only reason Elder Ballard was aware of my blog was that another blogger, who has a connection with him and knows how to contact him, brought my blog to his attention. Based on web-releases I’ve read there, the folks at the “newsroom” section of LDS.org also apparently read parts of the bloggernacle. Occasionally, my tracker service shows readers of my blog at a church-owned IP, “ldschurch.org”, but that could also include public terminals at the Family History Library, and full-time church employees outside of ecclesiastical matters. As everyone can now exert a presence in online media, I expect further generalized instruction and counsel from the Brethren will be coming, as to how members can best represent themselves and the church online. |
queuno, Generally it goes well below the common denominator and thus creates a culture in which people are afraid to teach/comment on worthwhile things that they know that don’t meet the pollyana criteria. You wonder why the 20-something activity rate is what it is? Perhaps the fact that many meetings insult your intelligence and waste your time could be a contributing factor. |
Dan (81) arJ (#84) |
Confutus, from your comment (45), “If that’s what a liberal means, then count me as one of them.” You do realize, don’t you, that the only thing required to get on Bryce’s list of candidates for church discipline is to be a self-confessed liberal? Those are his words, and he doesn’t allow us do do any interpreting on our own. I’m quite certain that if you identify yourself as a liberal for any reason, he puts you in the same category as the September 6, and holds you in the same contempt. I will take your word for it that you know people who feign belief in order to deceive others and lead them from the church. I personally do not. However, in every ward I have ever been in, there have been a few self-appointed jot and tittle monitors who make it their business to see eveyone’s faults but their own, and who are always ready and willing to announce where their fellow saints fall short. They do incredible damage to those who are weak in faith or who are struggling with repentance. They are poison to the church. The zealotry on display in the posts we are talking about does great damage as well. Bryce claims to be a Nibleyophile, but he shows no evidence of ever having read Zeal Without Knowledge. http://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONKC/Zeal%20Without%20Knowledge.pdf “this zeal tends to breed…insufferable, self-righteous prigs and barren minds”. Nibley got it exactly right. He would be shocked and disgusted at what Bryce is doing in his name. |
Norm (86) You mock yourself, and evidently do not know it. |
Norm (86),
I don’t either, though I admit maybe I’m not seeing those kinds of people because I’m not looking for them. Confutus (87), |
Dan Ellsworth, that is exactly how I approach the Gospel-’foundational propositions of our faith’-(I refer to the 4th A of F). I am still immature in the Gospel, and am in the process of learning. There are a lot of members I refer to as ‘doomsday’ members who focus on the negative aspects of the last days-famine, destruction, governmental conspiracies, etc…which I know in my particular wards and also it appears evident when I visit the bookstores by the Temples; there are whole walls of books dealing with those aforementioned signs of the times. Now, I believe it is a human, or mortal tendency to focus on such things, and not native to Mormons only. However, what do you think of focusing on the ‘great’ things of the last days: the Restoration, living Prophets, the Priesthood, the chance to live with an eternal family, Temples, etc…? I remember hearing a quote from Elder Maxwell stating something like (my paraphrasing from memory-faulty memory!) “Yes, there will be Armageddon, but there is also Adam Ondi-Ahman!” Again, this is my opinion, but if I were to focus my efforts on those things, my mind will become more open to the Spirit and I will be better prepared to meet those “wolves in sheeps’ clothing”, if they exist. I would submit my testimony of the Gospel would be stronger and I wouldn’t even need to bother with them. I may be thinking in terms too generally. I know people in my ward who are like B. H. I believe they may have good intentions, a good heart, but I still think they are mistaken(ed?). In my opinion, everyone is at different levels of growth and learning w/in a Gospel context-it is not up to me to point out what I believe are others’ faults or foolishness. Norm Al Mormon 86: Thanks for the link; it is very inspiring. |
Confutus, Could you please expand on your comment 87? I have no intention of mocking anybody, but I am willing to be corrected. Please help me understand. |
Dan (88) If Norm had not been so apparently certain of what Bryce thinks or what departed brother Nibley would think of Bryce’s comments, it would not have been nearly so perfect a demonstration of the zeal without knowledge that he was accusing Bryce of. There are other terms to describe this kind of thing, but they’re usually fighting words. I don’t go looking for dissenters. In person, I probably couldn’t tell them from anyone else. But to my perception, when they get on the anonymous internet and post comments, they stand out like yellow dandelion flowers on a green lawn. I’m not going to try to account for differences in perception. I’m perhaps more familiar than I ought to be with some of the reasons people may go to church for other reasons than vigorous testimony. Habit, social conformity, and community prestige will do, especially in majority-Mormon Utah as contrasted with other places. I’m also perhaps more familiar than I ought to be with the temptation to think I’m ten times smarter and wiser than anybody else in the ward, and wanting to “Clear up misconceptions”, while not wishing to go too far beyond what’s socially acceptable. Not that that’s one’s primary motive, but while one is there anyway….that kind of thing. I’m also perhaps more familiar than I ought to be with how easy it can be to slide by with minimal effort and pretend your way through the forms of church activity. If I were concerned with a good public image, good at social interaction, and untroubled with a conscience about such things at professing what I don’t really believe or lying to the Bishop, I could probably get away a with a lot more pretense than I do. |
Confutus “I’m not going to try to account for differences in perception.” That covers a lot of ground, doesn’t it? But I’m curious about how you can be so certain about the motives of people you claim to know are faking it just so they can lead people out of the church, and yet don’t offer an opinion about what Nibley might think of Br. Haymond. I base my conclusion, which I realize may be wrong, on the way Nibley singles out for ridicule in the essay I linked the people who claim that their testimony alone entitles them to pontificate, and who haven’t done the hard work of academic drudgery. In my opinion, that description fits Bryce perfectly. Go read his intro on his site. If you have a different interpretation, please share it. I think you are right when you say that there are lots of people in the church who appear to be along for the ride. But I think the best explanation for their lack of valiance is laziness rather than desire to deceive. And even though our actions are not a perfect measure of our beliefs, I continue to think they are a much better measure than what we say we believe. Any bishop in the church would much rather have a guy in his ward who goes home teaching, pays tithing, and shows up for work assignments, but who can’t tell the difference between terrestrial and telestial, than a guy who does none of those things who is also an expert at doctrinal ping-pong. I think we need to admit that the church is full of them, too. There are all kinds of scriptures passages which support this view. “By their fruits…”, “Not everyone who sayeth…but he who doeth…” “Doers of the word” are just a few. And that is why I find Bryce’s enterprise so objectionable. He is willing to cut people off over the interpretation of a word, or their understanding of a parable. I think that is indefensible, and well outside of any established order of the church. John A. Widtsoe proudly labelled himself a liberal Mormon. David O. McKay said that Mormonism is a religion of intellectualism. My perception is that if Bryce had the power, he would run me right out of the church, after fist subjecting me to his special brand of love in a disciplinary council. After reading his latest screed, where he raises that prospect three times, I think he is practially salivating over that possibility. My sin would be heresy, based on my rejection of the doctrinal straitjacket he wants me to wear. |
“I’m not going to try to account for differences in perception.” I will add that differences of perception do not appear to be welcome in the church Br. Haymond has in mind. If your perception doesn’t match his, you are wrong, a hyporcite, and part of the DAMU. Just ask him. |
Norm |
Well, there’s no accounting for differences in perception, is there? In (81) Dan Ellsworth said: “I personally don’t take offense to the posts I referenced, simply because I think they are the misguided and their author seems to have interpersonal problems and insecurities that prompt the behavior.” That is my perception, too. |
Of course Mormon doctrine mandates that we care for the environment! Who could think otherwise? Everyday I carefully monitor my environment, to ensure that Satan’s minions do not exercise their devilish influence on me. Which is why I refuse to fraternize or comment on this blog, ever! |
P.S. #96 was Prudence’s first comment on this thread. Prudence at #8 is an impostor, and will be thrust down to Hell. |
Wow, I had no idea this lovely conversation was going on. Why didn’t someone invite me to the party? Hugh Nibley once wrote: “All my life I have shied away from these disturbing and highly unpopular—even offensive—themes. But I cannot do so any longer, because in my old age I have taken to reading the scriptures and there have had it forced upon my reluctant attention, that from the time of Adam to the present day, Zion has been pitted against Babylon, and the name of the game has always been money—’power and gain’” (CWHN 9:58). |
Zion being thee and Babylon being WALL*E. Got it. The Gospel of exclusion. |
Bryce, |
Tim, |
Yep. |
Bryce (98), With that quote in mind, I think it’s important to point out that Nibley’s idea of Zion was characterized by a spirit of collectivism and strident environmentalism that are anathema to modern political conservatism. I guarantee you Nibley would have seen the Christian message in Wall-E. |
I don’t think he would have Dan. Nibley was not a proponent of extremism. Nibley’s advocacy of environmental protection was given at a time when nothing at all was being done about the environment. Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme. The apocalyptic imagery that WALL-E presents is an environmentalist extremist view that I don’t think Nibley would have been fond of, particularly since it is in contradiction with the scriptures and modern prophets. Sure, the movie is sugar-coated, calculated to make it go down easier, but that doesn’t negate its specious message. |
Bryce, What was the extreme message? A reference to Gorean global climate change? Peak oil? The evils of fossil fuels? Mother Earth retaliating for years of over-consumption? There are movies like that and this bears no resemblance. Nibley was a quintessential liberal by today’s standards. He was an absolute proponent of the united order. One of the more interesting things I heard him speak about was the social detriment caused by Americans injecting technology into Native American societies. Such socially-defining rituals as the walk to the springs by women to collect water were destroyed by the advent of plumbing. That sounds pretty extreme. Now if you mean extremism in terms of the negative activism we see today, you would be more right in saying so. But then your review and comments reflect such things more than Nibley’s do. |
Nasamomdele, The extreme message is that humanity will eventually kill itself off by overpollution, overwaste, and destroying the life-producing elements of the earth. This is not the wars and rumors of wars that the scriptures teach will accompany the end of days. The environmentalism movement is trying to rewrite the prophecies of the prophets to suit their own political agendas, to get “power and gain.” It’s unfortunately ironic too, since I don’t believe these environmental activists have the best interests of the Earth or humanity in mind anyway. It is the epitome of Chicken Littleism for the ends of gaining power and control over people. |
Remind me again, why do we care what Brother Nibley thinks or wrote about in this area? I prefer what Prudence has to say. |
I agree- Prudence is a more reliable authority than Nibley on pretty much anything.
It’s not an intentionally environmental message at all. |
# 106, So movies about wars and rumors of wars rub you better? You may be right to an extent, and I think it is important to realize the extent- there exists a sort of cult of environmentalism, and there may be some as diabolical as you say, but the majority are more interested in their children not having asthma or paying terrorists for oil, or having to fight wars for oil, or being self-sufficient (a prime motivator). Most of the motivations of mainstream environmentalists are decent enough. You explicate the small, perverse minority. The problem is that throwing the blanket statement that “one is such, therefore all are such” puts you to the extreme of the other side, which has just as many faults. One being the ranting about an animated feature. Careful watching “Footloose”, my man. Another fault being the uncanny ability to expound on the words of religious authority to support one’s agenda. Sound like a case of “you are what you eat”. Moderation in all things. |
Dan, It doesn’t need to be intentional to be there. Stanton was just jumping on the bandwagon. Nasa, I believe the cult of environmentalism is much larger than you might think. The ways of the adversary are small; he pacifies, lulls, and ultimately corrupts. (2 Nephi 28:21) |
I think it’s quite obvious that you believe that. Sorry to “lull” you. |
How does envirionmentalism being a cult to which it will lull us by the adversary? Would this include the LDS Church when its leaders admonish its members to be righteous stewards over the earth? Being led by the adversary is when we do not protect the earth that sustains us. |
Environmentalism becomes a cult when false science is preached (such as ozone depletion, man-made global warming, CO2 as a cause of global warming), and when people are persuaded to accept those falsehoods on faith |