In my last post I talked about the inherent imbalance in negative and positive posts on Mormon Matters. Even if there were equal numbers of them, the types of negative posts had a lot more emotional punch than the positive ones because negatives always have more inherent punch than positives.
In this post, I want to expand on this idea a bit by asking the question “whose side are you on?”. What do we even mean by “sides”?
And since this is a long post, I should let you know that I issues challenges to John Dehlin and Sunstone at the end, once I’ve laid the foundation for my case.
There Are No Sides. Let’s Build Bridges Instead.
One of the cultural tenets of Mormon Matters (and often even the Bloggernacle as a whole) is that we do not have sides. We are all Mormons whether culturally or by belief. I have already expressed my concerns with this aspect of Bloggernacle culture, at least in some cases. Further, it’s only true when it’s true. John Dehlin would regularly talk openly about “believers and unbelievers alike”, though the preferred language is to speak of “spectrums” of belief (a term I find misleading at best, as many factors of belief are literally off or on).  Continue reading
As I mentioned in my last post on John Dehlin, he is hesitant to say too much about what he really believes, likely for fear it might undermine his cause. Even in the comments on my recent post there were some that claimed that wasn’t the case. But recently there seems to have been a change on this front for John. Here are some recent quotes from John.
Ordaining women….LGBT rights…..historical acknowledgment/candor — those are all very important steps for the LDS church that have the potential to dramatically improve the lives of latter-day saints across the globe. I acknowledge this from the outset.
But from where I sit, they are all merely window dressing to the real issue.
Is the LDS church really what it claims to be — “…the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased?” Continue reading
Way back on September 25 of 2012, I started a series of posts called “Why Did You Resign (from Mormon Matters)?” where I started to explain why I left Mormon Matters and came to Millennial Star.
And then I was forced to stop blogging due to personal reasons. Recently I returned to blogging (at least temporarily) because I had recruited Meg Stout to Millennial Star to do her excellent posts on Joseph Smith and polygamy and wanted to be supportive of her.
But before I disappeared I had nearly finished part 4 of that series. (With at least one more part, possibly more, still planned.) So very soon I’ll be publishing part 4 which, as it turns out, is the single most important part of my explanation for why I left Mormon Matters.
And as with all of my opinions, I promise it will be colorful. But this one will be particularly divisive because I’m going challenge the entire paradigm of “dialogue” as currently implemented by Mormon Stories and Sunstone and similar groups. So get ready for a controversy and possibly a Bloggernacling.
But since its been so long, here is your chance to review what I previously wrote:
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Was I DIsrupting Mormon Matter’s Real Purpose?
Part 3: The Question of Balance
I wrote this post way back at the time of Mormon Matters and never published it. I’m throwing it up for fun with only a little bit of tweaking. I probably would handle this different today. For example, I no longer consider the creedal Trinity to be a contradiction per se, but rather to be a set of undefined statements that are used in contradictory ways so as to claim all attempts to understand the Biblical Trinity doctrine are really just forms of polytheism or modalism. But the point I make here is still worthy of some discussion.
I’ve written a lot of posts directly or indirectly dealing with the traditional Creedal Trinity Doctrine. I’ve made the assertion several times that the Trinity Doctrine is a contradiction, not just an incomprehensible paradox.
I wish to give a primer on the difference between something being incomprehensible vs. a contradiction.
Now obviously a contradiction is also incomprehensible. Consider this list of statements:
- Joe is a man and
- Joe is a woman
- A man can never be a woman
These statements, collectively, are incomprehensible because they are a contradiction. Unless I am tricking you by equivocating (i.e. using different definitions for the same word) in some way, the above statements are a contradiction. Continue reading
When Stearns denies caving to pressure, he’s also complicating a common narrative among (often conservative Christian) anti-LGBT activists: that those in the “mainstream” who endorse equality rights are giving in to those who are trying to “force” a pro-LGBT agenda on the American public. It’s a false narrative, but as even traditionally red states find their same sex marriage bans overturned in federal courts, it’s picking up traction again by those who feel threatened when two people love each other without their approval. (from here)
Okay, granted, it’s from the Wire.
Though my own feelings on this issue are complex and not at all obvious, even I know that making gay marriage law is part of a pro-LGBT agenda (she honestly thinks it isn’t? Or is it that she thinks making laws is not force? I’m really unclear here) and that her explanation for why there is some opposition probably isn’t totally accurate. Ah, the liberal media!