I am of the opinion that there are many “ambiguous and unclear” gospel topics, and I think it is a good thing for us (that is, the LDS) to struggle with them. There are also “fundamental” doctrines that should unify Latter-day Saints, but I don’t think those doctrines are a long list. Think about the questions asked during a temple recommend interview. They are pretty minimalist. We LDS can’t and don’t agree with each other on everything. We do need Apostles and Prophets to establish boundaries, but I think one of their primary jobs is to get us reading the scriptures and thinking for ourselves. The Holy Ghost can guide us, and ultimately we will be brought to a unity of the truth. But, we are far from that point currently. The Bloggernacle is a living testament of the broad range of thinking among loyal Latter-day Saints.

Some degrees of freedom are important. For example, I am glad I have the freedom to study and teach evolution. I realize this topic drives some of the LDS nuts, but there are also a LOT of LDS scientists (like SteveP) who take the topic completely seriously, and who do NOT see much disharmony in the topic. Again, I see this diversity of thought as good.

I am just stating an opinion, and I am glad I have the freedom to do so.

By the way, I love YOUR diversity of thought. You have a distinct voice, and I am glad you express it.

Hilarious. And as with all things unwritten, only about half the folks involved are ever going to agree the unwritten order actually exists; the other half is going to think it’s all bollocks.

I have it on good authority that certain unnamed members of the 12 once cornered Elder Bednar and gave him an atomic wedgie because of his dissenting view on the location of Kolob.

I looked it up out of sheer curiosity. I was unsure whether or not I was welcome to contribute comments, so I just lurked. Then I started hitting the links and somehow found my way here.

I agree with #1. I know there was joking about a decision making body for the bloggernacle, but there is an authority held by some to delete comments and to decide who can post and perhaps remove somebody from posting. Removing somebody from posting could be viewed as making “final decisions on these types of conflicts”.

I like your thoughts, BiV. I’ve been thinking about this issue too, and you’ve spurred me to come up with another comparison. (Sorry for the tangent.) How about the Bloggernacle is like Christianity? Different Christians have different ideas about who does and doesn’t qualify, and of course this raises the question of who appointed them to be the guardians of the term. But of course there’s also merit to the argument that if it’s defined too broadly–is Hinduism Christianity?–then it loses meaning.

Similarly, we Bloggernacle participants each have our own definition of what’s part of the Bloggernacle and what’s not, and while there’s likely a lot of overlap between our ideas, there are also sure to be idiosyncratic parts as well. And the same question can be raised: who appointed us (or anyone) to be guardians of the term? How are we so sure that anyone defining the term qualifies as in or out in the first place?

I understand one of the arguments against Mormonism being defined as Christian is historical: it’s outside the historical chain of Catholicism and Protestantism. I wonder if you could do a similar thing with the Bloggernacle, that is, use a historical criterion to decide who’s in and who’s out. Perhaps it could be defined as the set of all blogs that traces their roots to some small set of “original” Mormon blogs (T&S, FMH, etc.). I know ZD, for example, was inspired largely by FMH, as well as by T&S and BCC. (I’ve borrowed this idea from Ardis, who suggested representing the Bloggernacle graphically to show which blogs were inspired by or offshoots of which others).

Of course, there are problems with this approach, as blogs can start without being inspired by existing Bloggernacle blogs, and then be integrated later.

Quite the contrary, S. Faux. You’re right on. Reminds me of Elder Wirthlin’s talk “Concern for the One”. He addressed “the erroneous belief that all members of the Church should look, talk, and be alike. The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole.”
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=f1c1558fcc599110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

Great thoughts. I hope that the Bloggernacle is merely an empirical testament to the fact that Latter-day Saints embrace diversity of thought and individuality of expression. Traditionally, the LDS as a group have resisted creeds and catechisms. Again, I hope this resistance is because our religious society has degrees of freedom. It seems the LDS are open to learning and to new revelation, and those processes need to take place NOT only at the Church level but at the individual level.

While I am happy to strive to be like Jesus, I feel NO NEED or desire to be like every other Latter-day Saint, in terms of behavior or belief. The latter would be impossible, in any case.

Latter-day Saints are not sheep and are not homogenized. We are a world Church that embraces a wide variety of cultures and ideas. Yes, there are foundational ideas, but they carry with them a lot of latitude.

Am I off base?