They see all the problems, they know it doesn't work, but they cling on for sentimental reasons.
They are a half step from leaving. Eventually, they nearly all leave because that sentimental tether is overwhelmed by an arrogant bishop, a nasty new church policy, or a family member who gets abused by the church.
THIS is my problem with Jennings, Dehlin, NOMs, etc
For example with Dehlin, he knew they were racists, he knew they were deceiving people, he knew they were misogynistic and HE STILL wanted to be a part of it.
As long as he could passive aggressive rant online and object and MAKE MONEY FROM HIS NOM groups, he was ethically ok with mormonism, because some his "tribe" bullshit.
This is a hate group. Tell me all the great reasons why the KKK maintains the community, the tradition, how grandpappy was a master dragon and how deep down inside they mean well and i'll give you the same answer as with mormonism:
You are a moral coward.
Spending your life and, honesty, and ethics splitting hairs is just hard to watch. Remember its either true or it isnt. Or in jesus words: be hot or cold, becuase lukewarm will be spat out.
Mormonism is like the uncle who molested you, but bought you a coat once.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2015 10:59AM by sb.
There are many good reasons to leave Mormonism, but I don't think being a moral absolutist is one of them.
I find many of the things America does at home and abroad deplorable. That doesn't mean I'm going to renounce my citizenship or stop paying taxes.
I find that our corporatist economic system is too often exploitative and ethicly bankrupt. That doesn't mean I going to become a hermit and never buy a branded product again.
I always knew about the negatives of Mormonism, but there were enough positives for me personally that I stayed with it. There came a time when the trade-offs didn't work anymore, and I left. It will happen with these people (hopefully). As long as they are heading in the right direction in terms of slowly distancing themselves, I plan to support them.
But our government is a government of the people, and we have representatives and the power of the vote. So even if things are not as we want them, we can change them.
With the LDS church, the members have no rights or power. Whatever the leaders say is law, and if you disagree, well tough.
You know it's not quite that simple, but I don't want this thread to descend into how democratic/autocratic/plutocratic/kleptocratic/etx. our society actually is.
Just saying that it's silly to demand moral absolutism from people, is the same way it's silly for a church to demand moral absolutism from it's members.
He didn't want to leave because he wants TBMs to listen to Mormon Stories Podcast. As an excommunicant, his site is no officially labeled "apostate" and members can be disciplined for listening, commenting, participating or donating to his site.
The purpose of excommunication is to label excommunicants as untouchables. Now if someone mentions Mormon Stories, other Mormons can chasten them for listening to the dark side.
No one is asking them to be absolutists, just moral.
No matter what the reason is, IF the reason to stay is immoral, then you loose ground when you try to be the ethical voice of reason (and get paid for it).
My wife has been involved with several prominent NOMish groups for years. Several years ago we had a meeting at our house with Dehlin and others. My wife got very angry with me because I told my son that they were fence sitters who loved and profited from attention from both sides but lacked the courage to walk away from the nonsense. I used the the hot/cold scripture 'less I spit thee out of my mouth" it made a big impression on my son. Since then she has seen the light and is no longer a Dehlin groupie.
FYI John Dehlin offered a mea culpa of sorts at this past fall's Exmo Conference. You may wish to give it a listen, it's pretty short. Scroll down to the agenda to find the audio link.
Not a fan of this guy's writing style--throwing around a lot of what he thinks are "adorable phrases" that he feels give him "cred."
What the whole article boils down to in condensed form is this:
"I am such a good Mormon that I can take any piece of information at all from or regarding the Mormon leaders, no matter how ugly or damning, and I can always find just the right angle to turn it to in just the right light so that everything looks okay to me. You've got to look at these policies and histories the Mormon way--upside down and sideways while it spins,in dim light with your eyes half closed."
Let's not forget that many mormons see mormonism as part of their identity like gender or race. They won't change no matter what the church says or does.
I think he is still in because he is unable grasp some very basic stuff, such as these that he referenced:
1. That the Kinderhook plate debacle is a huge deal that should be screaming to him that JS was a fraud. It is an open and shut case of JS making up stuff to appear prophetic. But the guy would never leave because of it, he says. He must be a mental midget or deep in denial to make such a statement.
2. That the priesthood ban was a man made practice, not directed by God, he claimed. Uh, hello McFly, it's a doctrine in your scriptures. Wake the h*ll up and read them for a change. The doctrine of racism is clearly and persistently stated throughout the scriptures.
Okay, thats as far as my stomach could stand reading. I find his style of dishonesty revolting, but it is a common trait of Mormons and other religious people I know.
You don't comprehend his point. He knows all of the historical issues. He finds value in the church. He's not claiming that its truth claims are valid.
Kevin Barney is a liar. He claims that God had nothing to do with the priesthood ban. I have a Mormon book titled "Mormonism and the Negro" from Deseret press that says otherwise. God made people black for their past-life sins and denied them temple access and priesthood participation. That was Mormon doctrine until 1978.
Don Bagley is not a subtle thinker. First, the fact that a book was published by Deseret Books has never established its contents as doctrine. Second, Barney actually knows what was presented as doctrine (e.g. the First Presidency statements in 1949 and 1969), but he also knows that the church has implicitly repudiated these beliefs in various ways including in the essays. Third, Barney knows that the church's doctrine change and that he and other members can evaluate the claims of the church accordingly.
That book was written within the doctrinal period (copyrighted 1960) that you just mentioned, WBF. It was presented to me after I complained about the doctrinal priesthood ban. It's a book that contains two essays about the doctrine in question. It is neither a classroom text nor is it canonized. Is that subtle enough for you?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2015 05:21PM by donbagley.
I think you missed the point of what Barney was saying. God didn't have anything to do with the priesthood ban. That's a true statement.
LDS Inc once claimed it came from God. They have recently reversed course, and threw BY under the bus. They had no other choice. Saying they weren't racist, God was, really wasn't going to make them look any better.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't claim God did it in one decade, and then in another decade claim God didn't do it after all. How the hell is that not lying?
One of those two claims has to be a lie. And the guy who covers for the liars is no less a liar himself.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2015 02:43AM by donbagley.
I think Barney is not a subtle thinker but someone who will take any stance to further his personal agenda. I know someone very much like him, Bill Hamblin, apologist and BYU professor.
I've found that most NOM men have devout wives who won't screw them if they don't go to Chuch.
In my my opinion, all of this talk of "nuanced" "subtle" "mature" thinking about mormon doctrine/policy and history is only so much BS.
The mormon church is a blatantly racist, blatantly sexist, blatantly homophobic organisation that probes into, and harmfully meddles in the most personal parts of its members' lives.
I think these subtle thinkers who advocate for ignoring the bad parts and keeping the good parts of the mormon church need to slowly, seriously, and maturely ponder the following oft quoted, and devastatingly (to the mormon church) true statement:
What is good about the mormon church is not unique, and what is unique about the mormon church is not good.