OK…we’re trying something new. We’re going to invite you, our listeners, to call in and join us for Mormon Matters tomorrow.
- The time: 8:30pm – 10:00pm Utah time
- The process: Email me with your name, phone number and/or skype ID, and the topic you want to discuss — and we will call you as the show progresses. We can handle the approximate time via email.
Thanks, and we hope some of you will call in!!!
Comments 36
any specific topics?
Whatever ya’ll want to talk about!
Rumor has it both Equality and Mayan Elephant are making an appearance on this episode. As a conservative Mormon, I look forward to hearing what they had to say as I am sure compared to the panelists on the Sunstone panel and follow-up podcasts, these two persistent ex-mos will come across as bitter and antagonistic, and only help the Church’s cause when people hear them kick against the pricks.
Many people that understand the issues within Mormonism are well-spoken and rational, Conservative Mormon. Pre-judging anyone as bitter and antagonistic, before hearing what they have to say, may be a bit detrimental to the cause of truth. You may want to hold off on your judgments until you have a more complete knowledge of what Equality and Mayan Elephant have to say. I for one certainly hope that Mormonism will always be an open forum for discussing critical issues and concerns. Wait, did I say Mormonism? I meant to say Mormon Matters. Maybe you could withhold judgement until you have actually heard the evidence. That’s how the legal system works you know.
Sure no one wants to pre-judge.
But you’d have to admit Mr Lincoln that the persons mentioned by this republican here are usually bitter at the church and at whatever the church says; this based on previous podcasts?
Has either Equality or Mayan actually spoken on any of the previous podcasts? Each has made comments, some of which might be construed as negative. CM describes Equality as an exmormon, I wasn’t aware Equality had resigned or been excommunicated, though Equality has clearly indicated he’s not an orthodox believer and sees some serious social problems in the church. Is pointing out problems tantamount to being an exmormon and is it necessarily the result of bitterness. I wonder whether it’s a matter of not liking either the message or the messenger. I would actually like to hear Equality and Mayan address issues from their perspective. Some might find them to be as fair and balanced as Blake Ostler. There are multiple constituencies withing the greater Mormon community that may deserve to listened to instead of summarily shut down.
Hey, no one is summarity shutting them down, nor saying that they are excommunicated or resigned or whatever. Off course they should be heard, if possible. But there is also some history here too and a trend has been established by them already. But we all agree: they do deserve to be heard in a forum like this one and people should exchange ideas as we do, and should be permitted to express opinions without being vilified?
Thank you, Carlos. We agree! What John is doing here in giving voice to a wide range of perspectives on Mormonism facilitates understanding and fosters goodwill. It is great to hear people with different opinions on current topics of interest regarding Mormonism sharing those different ideas in a spirit of civility and amicability. It is good to see that folks like you and Conservative Mormon desire to hear what folks like Mayan Elephant and I have to say regarding the Church to which we gave so many years of time, toil, and treasure. I do appreciate it.
So John, When’s this one coming up?
to the administration,
I am curious, do you feel the perspective of Mayan Elephant and Equality are given as people who do hold Mormonism to be a good thing? Or did you change your focus because it was felt to be too limiting? I thought Equality was very civil and well spoken and argued his points well. And I am happy to have no qualms about giving them an opportunity to voice their perspective.
That said, Mayan Elephant is well-Mayan Elephant. He is so drenched in sarcasm, pain and contempt that ugly things are going to creep out of his mouth no matter how hard he tries. The “load of crap” comment about the pamphlet he was sore about was sadly, probably restrained from what he really wanted to say.
I am curious though if there is any difference in focus with this podcast and Mormon Stories. Perhaps the only difference is that it is a roundtable rather than having others tell their story and the object is the same. Just curious.
Doc,
We are striving for a similar voice on Mormon Matters as w/ Mormon Stories. In the future, I hope to not allow any disrespectful language to slip by — especially when dealing w/ top church leaders. I didn’t realize the “crap” comment made it through the final edit — I definitely would have edited that out (but I didn’t do the editing this time).
Anyway, thanks for asking. Sorry for the blip.
Just to give some context to the way Corey’s words have been paraphrased, here is what he said exactly:
“What I would love, is to show my kids to the temple where i got married. It will never happen, because I am not willing to agree with what Hinckley says about Homosexuals and Women and Tattoos and whatever it is. It is not worth it to me to go along with the crap that he says and that he put out in his pamphlet a few days ago to to Bishops and so that i can take my kids back and show them where i got married.”
John and Doc,
Eric’s post is what i said. there was no “load of” included (though, your assumption that it was there says a lot about your own vocabulary :)). there was no reference to the quorum of the twelve. much of what has been discussed here does reflect the tone or the comments made on the call. if you choose to take my comments out of context, and create a sideshow, then go for it. if it is acceptable to call people jerks, but not say “crap,” then so be it. if it is acceptable to tell people to not be friends with a homosexual person, but it is not acceptable to consider that position and counsel rotten, so be it. if that’s what you want in an institution, and in a publication, so be it. however, it is also naive and simple to also judge the response that others may have to those homophobic positions.
hey doc. i love old cars. love them. i have a car that may be older than you. it may be the single greatest piece of american automobile history rolling the streets of this great city. and yet, the transmission is crappy and it would never pass a smog test. i still love that car. see what i mean, vern?
Since I was the one who called you a jerk, let me say that the jerk came after the “crap.” It is not acceptable to call anyone names, period, But as you should accept responsbility for offending people with your statement about Pres. Hinckley, I can certainly apologize for calling you a jerk.
What I fail to understand is why you think that someone with a same-sex attraction issue should be relieved of his or her responsibility for being chaste as any unmarried member of the church? There are plenty of straight men and women who never get the opportunity to marry who are also expected to be chaste. And why you think everyone is a homophobe just because they don’t accept the homosexual lifestyle?
jayspec,
keep it up and this thread will certainly get closed or deleted.
i said crap for a reason, i accept responsibility for that.
i NEVER excused the responsibilities of any other person, gay or straight.
i NEVER referred to someone that is gay or lesbian as having a ‘same sex attraction issue.’ and more, i would be forever regretful if i were publicly accused of having said that and did not refute it instantly and forcefully. I NEVER said that and i never will. do you understand that?
in this venue, i never called anyone a “homophobe.” why would you say that? why would you say i think that?
i do not think one is homophobic based on their acceptance of a prescribed or proscribed lifestyle. again, what is your basis for that accusation? did it have anything at all to do with comments made on the podcast, or are you relying on other sources?
this is a sideshow to the topic at hand. I intend to address the topic in greater detail, and i will. in the meantime, i insist on making a fast and furious response to your comments related to homosexuality and homosexuals.
thanks for listening to the podcast jay.
This “sideshow” as you call it is the respond to the podcast. I asked you to accept responsbility for offending people, and you accepted responsibility for saying it. I already knew that. Here is the quote from your above post:
“however, it is also naive and simple to also judge the response that others may have to those homophobic positions.”
—————————————-
If I read your comment above right, you were saying that if members agree with the church position on “same sex attraction” (my term, not yours) and the counsel not to associate with other homosexuals as outlined in the new pamphet, they are homophobes.
Did I read that right?
BTW, I am going to listen to the podcast again.
Jayspec,
there are still many questions left unanswered. yes, i said homophobic positions. i stand by that as there are suggestions in the pamphlet that seam to be based in a fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. additionally it prescribes behavior based on such a feeling.
speaking of homophobic, i got a little homophonic there.
seam, seem, its all good. i little homophonica never hurt anyone.
I didn’t read it that way. I thought for a church pamphlet it was pretty well done. Can’t imagine what it would have been like if Joseph Felding Smith had written it.
And if Corey would have said that the pamphlet was poppycock, you all would still fall over yourselves to condemn him. At least be honest that it isn’t about him using a quasi-swear word. It is about someone having the gall to say that President Gordon B. Hinckley isn’t perfect in his pronouncements.
Epstein:
Not true, at least for me. It would not surprise me if some thought the pamphlet was lousy. It’s all in your point of view. If you want the church to accept the homosexual lifestyle as legtimate along side the hetrosexual one, which is ordained by God, you would object to the pamphlet.
I don’t know anyone in the church that thinks President Hinckley is perfect. I do know that his jokes are pretty good. I also know that he is the Lord’s Prophet on the earth and warrants respect from that standpoint.
jayspec said, “I don’t know anyone in the church that thinks President Hinckley is perfect.” Fine. Please tell me what you think his three biggest mistakes as President of the church have been.
1. Allowing the Brigham Young manual to be printed without the mention of Polygamy or some of his more esoteric teachings.
2. Not allowing men to serve in the Temple if they have a beard.
3. Not buying the Kirtland Temple from the Community of Christ who now make more money off of Mormons visiting it than having a real use for it.
PS: I probably don’t know his bigesst mistakes. I suspect you don’t either.
#24: Trading Sammy Sosa.
Oops. Wrong President.
Sending the three nephites to Logan when they would have been more useful in Heber City? I hear that one was a huge mistake.
jayspec, those are pretty weak. They are all “sins of omission”, so to speak. Similarly, I could list my three greatest failures of the past year: 1) Failed to earn $10,000,000. 2) Failed to hit 700 home runs. 3) Haven’t found a cure for cancer. Yet.
How about some real criticisms of some of the things he did do, that you consider wrong? Like agreeing to spend $1B, oops, make that more than $3B now, for a boondoggle mall. How about putting his name on a hateful, mean, pamphlet? How about telling Larry King a lie, and then winking to the membership in GC that he really knows what he is talking about?
Sorry, I probably wasn’t to clear. I was referring to the way people here have complained about Corey using the word crap, when all know that people would just as loudly complain if he used a less-offensive word (if that is even possible.) People often like to pick nits about “anti’s” negativity or pottymouths while neglecting to address the substance of why their ideas are wrong. (I’m not referring to you, jay, BTW.)
For some reason, this whole discussion reminds me of this snippet from the Simpsons:
Lawyer: Robert, if released, would you pose any threat to one Bart Simpson?
Sideshow Bob: [barely in control] Bart Simpson? Ha! The spirited little scamp who twice foiled my evil schemes and [maliciously] sent me to this dank, urine-soaked hellhole?
Officer: Uh, we object to the term “urine-soaked hellhole” when you could have said, “peepee-soaked heckhole”.
Sideshow Bob: Cheerfully withdrawn.
Nathan:
Hay, they were the best I could do at the time….. 🙂
I would agree on the mall, to some extent, but I understand why they are doing it. The pamphlet, mean and hateful? I think not. Just not the answer some want to hear. Larry King? Wait I have it: Milk before meat, or is it Casting pearls before swine? I am sure there is a faithful explaination somewhere? :0) Actually, that is a nit to me.
Like I said, we probably never know his real three biggest mistakes unless he tells us sometime.
You know, I didn’t care about the word “crap.” It was the context in which it was used in reference to Pres. Hinckley. I did go back and listen to the Podcast again and i do have to apologize to Corey, he wasn’t a jerk after all.
but I do have to say that we view this whole issue from the viewpoint of the US, where the church was founded. Corey and Eirc attribute the “simplification of the Church history” to the leaders trying to hide it. But, I think that it is really to help the International Church and the newest members gain a grasp of gospel and what happened to the Church throughout the years.
Many of us in the US feel compeled to know every detail of every event, action, speech given in and about the church. Not sure the newest members think that way. They are imbracing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the history of the church.
Jay,
Ann Porter did a great job of responding to that point on the podcast. Apply her comment regarding converts to ALL converts.
Whether or not it is your intention, you should know that at least for me, and I am aware that it is the case for others, the rationalization that the facts need to be simplified into neatly packaged snippets for converts, because they cant handle the truth, implies that converts are too dumb for the truth.
This would be a great question for Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Jeffery R. Holland, both members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – Did Chile and the Philippines fall into near catastrophic levels of inactivity because the converts and members knew too much about the church, or because they didnt know enough?
If John Dehlin’s very first podcast is still available, I would recommend it for anyone interested in this topic.
I think we all too dumb to deal with some issues in a mature manner until we find the inner foundation to approach them in a more open manner than our passoins and prejudices allow. The outlook you are criticizing is human growth and development. We start out learning necessarily concrete in our thinking. As we grow and develop, we learn that concrete pictures are limiting and have less value than deeper, richer, fuller ideas. The catch is that those fuller, richer deeper ideas can only be reached by passing through the shallower ones first. Otherwise, we just reject everything out of hand. If we don’t learn the basics of gospel of Jesus Christ first, what good does a less literal faith, more abstract faith do us anyway?
I don’t hear anyone saying converts are dumb, just that you have to naturally work your way from one “naivete” to the next, and Blake Ostler would say.. Oh, and Mayan, I am glad to hear somewhere in your heart exists a fondness for your old jalopy. I suppose if it didn’t you would never have any trouble letting it go. 😉
Doc,
there is an enormous fondness indeed. and yes, if and when the day comes to part with her, it will be a sad and prolonged separation.
I couldnt agree with you more about building on foundations where the foundation may be basic principles. no contention there. where the issue lies, and what led to the topic of ‘inoculation’, is where the foundation was built with unsound or untrue pieces. i dont hear anyone claiming that the deepest and darkest subject matter needs to be the starting point, rather, that the starting point should be accurate and true.
doc, i picked up my kindergarten-age son today and he was busy in the cafeteria. he had an audience of adults and children surrounding him. when i arrived i was worried that something was wrong. but, when i walked up to the table and looked over the other adults and kids i could see my son laughing and commanding everyones attention. there was a teacher turning flashcards for my son, and he was firing off the answers without any mistakes. they had never seen a kid in kindergarten doing this addition level, and multiplication so accurately. they were shocked. and quite frankly, i was too.
just as he is learning math by starting with basic addition, we all can do the same with other things. where it goes wrong, is when we teach kindergarteners that 1 +1 = 48, and then consider what is the best inoculation for telling them the truth later in life.
human growth and development is much more efficient with good info. knowhatimean, doc?
hey, are you still upset that eric and i were on the podcast? did you listen to it yet?
ME, I was never upset and I listened before I posted. I think I complemented Eric. I appreciated the measured and reasoned tone, though I remain unpersuaded by the main thrust. I wouldn’t dream of trying to shut you down, I can appreciate a civil discussion with anyone. It is much more productive if less vitriolic, sensational and Jerry Springer like.
Would that great spiritual truths were as simple as addition, but not really, that would be dull. I have the feeling that though I agree there are some tough truths and some counterproductive approaches taught in Church, we are coming from a different set of assumptions. I don’t see any of these truths as obvious as 1+1=48, and certainly I have a certain amount of comfort in 24 billion divided by the square root of seven equals I don’t know. I have of feeling many of the things you label as “false” I would simply label as “true but…” There is a utility in line upon line, milk before meat, and yes, we do need to get to the meat somehow. I think growth by its very nature is painful and uncomfortable. I am not sure throwing that pain in before one can really start to know Christ, Love, Charity, service and the other REAL foundations of the gospel helps anyone.
Doc,
Thanks man. i dont know that i can really identify a spiritual truth from a spiritual untruth, especially as it applies to another person. what feels true to you, may not feel the same to me. i long ago gave up on telling people what is a true spiritual sensation for them. now you have piqued my interest and i feel like maybe i should go back and listen to the podcasts.
i dont recall being part of a discussion, or commenting on a discussion, that was based on spiritual truths. rather, i thought the inoculation topic was related to actual events and historical records and how they were presented to members.
Doc, what pain are you referring to in your final sentence?
I dont think it is possible to really love and serve others when one is limited to one model of person and one outcome, that is my issue with the mormons – they are not all alike and should be loved in their diversity. there are people sitting on those benches that believe as i believe but they cant really speak about their feelings, cuz its not allowed and they are just trying to keep the peace. there a people like dehlin. there are people like my mother who was a single parent for much of my childhood. there are all sorts of people that believe all sorts of things. do you see a forum for them to speak to their beliefs in your meetings? gosh, they cant even mingle and dialog with believing mormons online, they dang sure cant open up some of these topics at church.