Sunstone?

[Dravin]

Here:

Unless you have some proof that the author of 2 Nephi was inspired of God when wrote that and that he specifically had Sunstone magazine in mind when he wrote it, it's irrelevant here.

I can understand the whole referring to the Sunstone half of the comment (interpretation unless from a Prophet/Apostle is always up to debate). I wasn't even necessarily trying to say that Sunstone falls into the condemnation of the scripture* (haven't read it, thus I've not received my own spiritual witness one way or the other), just that it is supposedly learning, which is good if one listens to the council of God, but bad if one doesn't. Certainly nobody is claiming that all writings/speakings concerning the Gospel that are termed intellectual are good, or are they?.

So for somebody who believes the Book of Mormon and believes that the council of God is to heed the promptings of the Holy Spirit then the process Maxel is using isn't really questionable (heed the Spirit when it prompts). The doubt is whether its actually the spirit or not. Thing is, just as Maxel has no proof he can show on a message board that it is (the Spirit), so does Snow have none to prove that it isn't, heck technically Snow can't prove that he hasn't felt the exactly same thing. He can claim he hasn't, just as Maxel can claim he has in the end all either side has is witness, not proof.

*Admittedly that may not have been clear.

[gabelpa]

Not a dedicated of Sunstone by any stretch of the imagination, but after reading a few articles, including the aforementioned article, I find the writing to be of a poor standard. I find the few "scholars" that I read to be unscholarly and derogatory. Also I read some downright un-christian ideas put forward by the authors. If this is intentional, to prompt thought, I do not know, but it's not something that I would be proud to share with my LDS friends. It is a shame.

Heck, they can't even write a website that treats special characters correctly. As a technical person who reads RFC's and European Building Codes, I expect a certain degree of professionalism that Sunstone appears to lack.

Edited March 15, 2009 by gabelpa

[john doe]

Okay folks, let's try to bring this thread back to civility to each other. There is a place for this discussion, but you need to be nice to each other for it to happen. Step back and take a deep breath if you need to before posting.

[Maureen]

...All this combined evidence points to one conclusion: the foundational spirit of Sunstone is not one sent of God.

The Sunstone Education Foundation

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints* is a vibrant religious tradition with a diverse membership that has widely differing needs. For many Latter-day Saints, one of these needs is free and frank exploration of gospel truths as they relate to the complexities of today’s society. Some crave stimulating discussions of contemporary scholarship, literature, and social issues. Others find great comfort being able to read, hear, and share personal faith journeys, including all their twists and turns and occasional uncertainties.

Through its many forums, Sunstone serves these Latter-day Saints and many others for whom life and faith is a wonderful but unique adventure. Sunstone brings together traditional and non-traditional Latter-day Saints, promoting an atmosphere that values both faith and intellectual and experiential integrity.

* Sunstone is an independent organization, and does not have any official ties to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/about.html

Maxel, would it be fair to say that you view what is of God by your own perception of how you think God works? If a fellow LDS is very non-traditional in their religious views, would you think that God could still be a part of their life?

M.

[Connie]

Holy cow, people! What's the big deal? Some people like Sunstone, some people don't. So what!? Let's not get our underwear all in a bind because of it.

[Maya]

IMHO

We are all different and we can endure different things. IF someone is warned by dark feeling it means, that person should not go there, were as someone else it even be good and awakening.

I started going to this horrible board... hehe not THIS one:p.... and it woke me up. They used bad language against us LDS and told we were..... what ever animal is bed in your culture to be called like... also it told bad things about JS and LDS balief... yet it was called mormonism.

I whent there, even though many told me not to and said I will loose my testimony there, but I went, and today the board is almost funktioning. Many of my friends could not go there at all it was soooo bad. There is a person, and when that person is around... I can feel the darkness.... and I get out and wait til that person has gone.

But main thing is, that this site awoke my interest in the gospel and the Church defence.

So keep the Spirit with you when you are out there!

[applepansy]

I have a testimony, its alive and well and I trust the promptings of the Holy Ghost. I'd even go as far to say that I know Christ is my Lord and Savior (despite what Snow may claim to the contrary). If you read earlier in the thread I was backing Maxel up.

I was taking Snow's line of reasoning and running with it, mostly his demand of proof that that scripture is inspired. If a Mormon doesn't accept scriptures out of the BoM I'm not sure why an appeal to the additional scripture is gonna do anything. It'd be like quoting President Monson to a member of the Church of Christ.

Dravin, I apologize. I read through the whole thread. I didn't catch your sarcasm if that's what it was. I'm glad you have a testiony of the Holy Ghost and Christ.

Still. . . I probably would have chosen different wording to make the point.

applepansy

[pushka]

I read both articles referred to in this thread and enjoyed them both, the one about marriage and the one Snow posted a link to:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/066-36-38.pdf

I didn't find anything particularly derogatory towards the church, just suggestions of additional things that a person could do/learn about in order to get a more fulfilling experience.

[Maxel]

This will be my last posting on this thread, as I've been drawn into defending personal, sacred feelings from those who would abuse them to satisfy their own lusts. More than that, I am continually misrepresented by those who are attacking my statements.

A bit hypersensitive tonight?

1. You are using the phrase ad hominen incorrectly. It refers to, essentially, to attacking the man rather than the argument. I am not much interested in you or in attacking you. It is your argument that God revealed his distaste in literature to you that I am attacking.

2. You are incorrectly claiming that I am attacking your motivations. That is false. I have said or implied nothing about your motivations. They are of no interest to me.

Elphaba did attack my motivations- the remark about the ad hominem attacks were aimed at her. Though she has since removed some of the inflammatory remarks, the bulk of the argument she made was an ad hominem attack against my motivations. I wasn't referring to you with that sentence, Snow. In hindsight, the sentence was more than confusing and I apologize for it- I was fighting fatigue to get that post out before I went to sleep.

You, I accused of attacking my spiritual feelings- which you still are. I don't expect you to agree with it if you don't feel the same way; I was hoping for an agreement to disagree. I appreciate your attempt to teach me about the nature of ad hominem arguments, but I already know.

Also, I never made the claim that God revealed His opinion on Sunstone to me. I have only maintained- and I still maintain- that my spirit has been repulsed in almost every Sunstone article I've read, especially the ones I've read while most recently going to their website. I don't remember who advanced the idea that my feelings were 'sent of God'.

*Time lapse of 5 minutes*

After looking back over the thread, it appears you did, Snow. So, I ask that you don't create my own opinions and experiences for me. It's actually easier to come to a civil disagreement because I didn't receive a witness of the Holy Ghost, but it was only my own spirit that rejected the Sunstone articles I've read.

Now your claiming that Laurie Maffly-Kipp is fighting against the truth. Prove it: I'll wait.

Really? I can't see me saying that. I believe her article is fine tuned to carefully lead a Mormon away from the Church, but I never claimed to be able to prove it beyond my own reaction to the article. You are well aware that I can't prove it the way you want it to be proven, so why ask?

You think that you are being attacked when I state the truth. You do feel that God has "magically" revealed his will about Sunstone to you. Don't you?

Nope. You made up that position for me. I never claimed the Holy Ghost witnessed anything to me- only that my own spirit rejected the Sunstone article. You're not stating the truth at all, and you're also attacking me for it.

As I recall you also thought the article author was attacking the Church when she made a factually true statement about not knowing about JS's sincerity. Can you explain how that works?

Certainly. The general feeling I got was that here was a Mormon author writing history about Joseph Smith, arguing that his original sincerity doesn't really matter, and the author explicitly states she doesn't know about his sincerity. I feel that knowing Joseph Smith's sincerity is vital: if he wasn't sincere in his convictions, then he could not have been a prophet of God. When she (in my own opinion) makes it plain she doesn't have a testimony, I get the feeling the entire situation is the blind leading the blind into apostasy ("Oh, his sincerity and whether he actually heard the voice of God doesn't really matter...").

And now you want me to buy that the value of an organizational endeavor is not based on what they publish, but rather on what authors submit as original work? Care you explain that one a little bit?

Yes, I'll explain. I think the value of a periodical is based on the bulk of what they publish, and what they advertise as 'quality work'. Like men, organizations can occasionally have strokes of genius or foolishness, despite if they regularly exhibit genius or foolish behavior. Same goes with spirituality. It reminds me of a passage of Alexander Pope's Essay on Man:

"Virtuous and vicious ev'ry man must be,

Few in the extreme, but all in the degree:

The rogue and fool by fits is fair and wise,

And ev'n the best by fits what they despise."

Looking back, the writing of mine that you quoted was a weak argument- my fault. I feel that the type of work that authors submit to a periodical more accurately reflects the general philosophy of the periodical. The fact that a randomly selected article from a back issue made me feel spiritually dark; as well as the fact that the two articles advertised on Sunstone's main page that were condescending to the Church and were deemed examples of the 'great Mormon writing' Sunstone offers; lead me to believe my initial feelings about the magazine were correct.

Of course you are in no position to weigh the "bulk of work" in Sunstone since until a day ago or so, you had never read it, but if you want a recommendation, I opened up an issue at randon and the first thing I saw was The Moral Component of Religion by Lowell Bennion.

Thanks. I mostly liked the article, but two things caught my eye and seem to support my view, even in this article:

1) The editors decided the phrase:

How would we feel if the prophet said for God:

"I hate your baptisms, temple ordinances, priesthood ordinations. Your prayers and songs and I cannot endure because sacrament meetings you love pleasure and material goods more than you love the poor"?

Was a pithy enough statement to devote a significant portion of the last page to it, written in huge text. In context, it's not so sensationalistic, but taken out of context... What the heck? What are they implying? Maybe others see it differently, but I see it as a slap in the face to the Church. I feel the editors are saying Mormons have become too ritualistic. I see no defense (other than the author explaining, rightly so, that they are symbolic in nature) for those ordinances and rituals hurt by the statement.

2) At the end, the author equates "participating in Sunstone symposiums" with "identifying with religious history" and more shockingly, "beliefs, theology, ritual, church activity, [and the] worship of Deity". He lists all these as ways to feel 'religious'. If the author is seriously suggesting that participating in a Sunstone symposium is as spiritually nurturing as the worship of Deity, or should count as faithful religious activity, then I'm at a loss on how to respond. Even if the author is suggesting such is in the same category, then I'm at a loss to respond- other than to 'see previous comments'. Again, others may- and will- interpret it differently.

In terms of modern orthodox Mormon thought and theology, they don't get much more relevant or bigger than Bennion. The same issue has an article by Eugene England.

This is one of my problems with Sunstone. Modern orthodox Mormon thought and theology does get more relevant and bigger than Bennion. Modern orthodox thought and theology draws its being and substance from counsel and doctrine given by the prophets of God- or, at least, it should. It's the act of setting up non-authorities as valid authorities that I don't like. The very idea of looking to those not in authority to help define orthodox Mormon "thought and theology" is foolish, as we are all supposed to strive to live the Gospel according to the revealed word of God through the prophets. The addition of a 'filter' on that light is, in my opinion, a bad move.

That's a claim with no basis in fact.

How have I not shown what I believe to be the evidence? That claim is based in evidence, but you do not wish to accept it. Additionally, everything I've stated that you quoted- except for the 'I fail to see those in Sunstone' sentence- is indeed an accurate reflection of the state of existence. To say it is not so is to disagree with the General Authorities, as their talks, combined with scriptures, have been where I learned those truths.

To clarify, what I mean by 'those truths' is the following statement:

Agreed. However, as one moves forward, one must keep the spirit of charity, which includes humility and trust in God... Many Mormons have 'intellectualized' themselves into apostasy. In fact, it's one of Satan's greatest tools: force upon a person more light than (s)he is ready to handle, and that person will blink at the light and reject it. I've given examples of why I feel Sunstone is a sad example of Neal A. Maxwell's quote that "brilliance by itself is not wholeness, nor happiness".

The bolded ellipsis is where I've omitted the sentence I feel Snow is taking exception to.

People have different opinions. By creating motivations you are supposing that your opinions are superior and that "theirs" are a result of some harmful "intellectualizing." How about this... they just disagree.

They disagree with me, like you and I disagree. Yet, you are not content with letting me disagree: you have to try to pound me into the ground and mock me before you're content to let the matter go. You attribute false claims to me that make me seem absurd and deluded.

All that being said, it is possible that God divinely intervened in your life and revealed to you that Sunstone was up to no good...

I would be quite surprised if this were (somehow) the truth, as it's not. Nor have I ever claimed something like this happened. Furthermore, I find your constant dismissal of the possible workings of the Holy Ghost and abuse of (what you think to be) my personal revelations shocking and appalling. I have never received a witness of the Holy Ghost about Sunstone. Yet, you claim that I have, and then fiercely attack that false assumption. Moreover, your way of describing these nonexistent revelations- 'magical', 'supernatural', etc.- is unfair and markedly cruel.

I'm going to turn in tonight. Thanks for the discussion thus far. I check back tomorrow.

Wait... We were having a discussion? All I've seen from you, Snow, is a dismissive diatribe of condescension and abrasive cruelty, where you constantly brush aside my statements with a wave of your rhetorical wand. Moreover, you've treated Just_A_Guy and Dravin with the same disrespect you've shown me. I don't want to start a fight; I hate confrontation, and I'm sad this has devolved into what it has. That's why I'm taking my leave.

Maxel, would it be fair to say that you view what is of God by your own perception of how you think God works? If a fellow LDS is very non-traditional in their religious views, would you think that God could still be a part of their life?

Thank you for your attempt at reconciliation. Actually, I agree with everything you've just said. I readily admit my own reactions to Sunstone have been my own personal reactions, and that the Holy Ghost has not witnessed to me about it one way or the other. By reason of that fact, of course my view on Sunstone is directly affected by my view on God and the Church. And of course God could be a part of non-traditional Mormons' lives! I feel- strongly- that God is a part of the life of every person who seeks to do what is right, no matter their faith or their placement within said faith.

I take my leave of this thread.

[Just_A_Guy]

Nope. You made up that position for me. I never claimed the Holy Ghost witnessed anything to me- only that my own spirit rejected the Sunstone article. You're not stating the truth at all, and you're also attacking me for it.

Snow may have been responding to some of my remarks, which were based on my own (mis)interpretation of your post. My apologies if I've added to the confusion.

[Snow]

This will be my last posting on this thread, as I've been drawn into defending personal, sacred feelings from those who would abuse them to satisfy their own lusts. More than that, I am continually misrepresented by those who are attacking my statements.

Oh the drama - now your feelings about Sunstone magazine are sacred and I am lustful... little over the top don't you think.

Elphaba did attack my motivations- the remark about the ad hominem attacks were aimed at her. Though she has since removed some of the inflammatory remarks, the bulk of the argument she made was an ad hominem attack against my motivations. I wasn't referring to you with that sentence, Snow. In hindsight, the sentence was more than confusing and I apologize for it- I was fighting fatigue to get that post out before I went to sleep.

k.

You, I accused of attacking my spiritual feelings- which you still are. I don't expect you to agree with it if you don't feel the same way; I was hoping for an agreement to disagree. I appreciate your attempt to teach me about the nature of ad hominem arguments, but I already know.

Also, I never made the claim that God revealed His opinion on Sunstone to me. I have only maintained- and I still maintain- that my spirit has been repulsed in almost every Sunstone article I've read, especially the ones I've read while most recently going to their website. I don't remember who advanced the idea that my feelings were 'sent of God'.

*Time lapse of 5 minutes*

After looking back over the thread, it appears you did, Snow. So, I ask that you don't create my own opinions and experiences for me. It's actually easier to come to a civil disagreement because I didn't receive a witness of the Holy Ghost, but it was only my own spirit that rejected the Sunstone articles I've read.

If you are saying that your so-called "spiritual darkness" is not a function of the Holy Ghost, rather just your own personal feelings on the matter, then much of what I said is not applicable, obviously.

Really? I can't see me saying that.

Here's what you said: "No, I think I've developed my own spiritual self enough to know when a person has fine-tuned an article to fight against the Church, even if said article appears to be in support of it."

I believe her article is fine tuned to carefully lead a Mormon away from the Church, but I never claimed to be able to prove it beyond my own reaction to the article. You are well aware that I can't prove it the way you want it to be proven, so why ask?

Because I think your claim is nonsense and wanted to illustrate that it is based on nothing.

Nope. You made up that position for me. I never claimed the Holy Ghost witnessed anything to me- only that my own spirit rejected the Sunstone article. You're not stating the truth at all, and you're also attacking me for it.

Acknowledged.

Certainly. The general feeling I got was that here was a Mormon author writing history about Joseph Smith, arguing that his original sincerity doesn't really matter, and the author explicitly states she doesn't know about his sincerity. I feel that knowing Joseph Smith's sincerity is vital: if he wasn't sincere in his convictions, then he could not have been a prophet of God. When she (in my own opinion) makes it plain she doesn't have a testimony, I get the feeling the entire situation is the blind leading the blind into apostasy ("Oh, his sincerity and whether he actually heard the voice of God doesn't really matter...").

1. I don't know if she is LDS or not.

2. Her point is an academic one - and valid. What if it turns out that JS wasn't inspired of God to do... whatever, like institute polygamy. Is the Church still true? Yes - I should think. The Church/gospel is true even some of the actions of it's leaders are insincere.

Yes, I'll explain. I think the value of a periodical is based on the bulk of what they publish, and what they advertise as 'quality work'. Like men, organizations can occasionally have strokes of genius or foolishness, despite if they regularly exhibit genius or foolish behavior. Same goes with spirituality. It reminds me of a passage of Alexander Pope's Essay on Man:

"Virtuous and vicious ev'ry man must be,

Few in the extreme, but all in the degree:

The rogue and fool by fits is fair and wise,

And ev'n the best by fits what they despise."

Looking back, the writing of mine that you quoted was a weak argument- my fault. I feel that the type of work that authors submit to a periodical more accurately reflects the general philosophy of the periodical. The fact that a randomly selected article from a back issue made me feel spiritually dark; as well as the fact that the two articles advertised on Sunstone's main page that were condescending to the Church and were deemed examples of the 'great Mormon writing' Sunstone offers; lead me to believe my initial feelings about the magazine were correct.

Thanks. I mostly liked the article, but two things caught my eye and seem to support my view, even in this article:

1) The editors decided the phrase:

Was a pithy enough statement to devote a significant portion of the last page to it, written in huge text. In context, it's not so sensationalistic, but taken out of context... What the heck? What are they implying? Maybe others see it differently, but I see it as a slap in the face to the Church. I feel the editors are saying Mormons have become too ritualistic. I see no defense (other than the author explaining, rightly so, that they are symbolic in nature) for those ordinances and rituals hurt by the statement.

2) At the end, the author equates "participating in Sunstone symposiums" with "identifying with religious history" and more shockingly, "beliefs, theology, ritual, church activity, [and the] worship of Deity". He lists all these as ways to feel 'religious'. If the author is seriously suggesting that participating in a Sunstone symposium is as spiritually nurturing as the worship of Deity, or should count as faithful religious activity, then I'm at a loss on how to respond. Even if the author is suggesting such is in the same category, then I'm at a loss to respond- other than to 'see previous comments'. Again, others may- and will- interpret it differently.

Of course - I have a different perspective - having actually been to such symposiums. It's quite something when thousands of Mormons, ex-Mormons, scholars, lay folks etc get together and share their passion for all things Mormon. You average LDS/Sunstone aficionado is a heck of a lot more educated about the Church and gospel than just your average LDS member. Put that kind of passion and knowledge in a room and interesting things happen - sometimes profound and spiritually uplifting things.

This is one of my problems with Sunstone. Modern orthodox Mormon thought and theology does get more relevant and bigger than Bennion. Modern orthodox thought and theology draws its being and substance from counsel and doctrine given by the prophets of God- or, at least, it should. It's the act of setting up non-authorities as valid authorities that I don't like. The very idea of looking to those not in authority to help define orthodox Mormon "thought and theology" is foolish, as we are all supposed to strive to live the Gospel according to the revealed word of God through the prophets. The addition of a 'filter' on that light is, in my opinion, a bad move.

You do know who we're talking about - right?

You may be able to think of someone who was more influential in shaping LDS thought and teaching/interpreting LDS doctrine and theology in the last 70 years but I doubt you can think of very many.

As an intellectual he ranks with Joseph Smith, BH Roberts, Orson Pratt, James Talmage, Sterling McMurrin, Widstoe and Nibley. As someone who has contributed to the orthodox understanding of the gosel and Church, he's absolutely huge. An entire generation and more was raised up on his manuals and lessons.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/066-31-35.pdf

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/066-24-30.pdf

Prophets and apostles are called of God and speak for Him in guiding the saints but many leave no particular lasting legacy of contribution to the corpus of doctrinal understanding. Not so with Brother Bennion.

Wait... We were having a discussion? All I've seen from you, Snow, is a dismissive diatribe of condescension and abrasive cruelty, where you constantly brush aside my statements with a wave of your rhetorical wand. Moreover, you've treated Just_A_Guy and Dravin with the same disrespect you've shown me. I don't want to start a fight; I hate confrontation, and I'm sad this has devolved into what it has. That's why I'm taking my leave.

See what I mean about being over the top. Reel it in a little.

Thank you for your attempt at reconciliation. Actually, I agree with everything you've just said. I readily admit my own reactions to Sunstone have been my own personal reactions, and that the Holy Ghost has not witnessed to me about it one way or the other. By reason of that fact, of course my view on Sunstone is directly affected by my view on God and the Church. And of course God could be a part of non-traditional Mormons' lives! I feel- strongly- that God is a part of the life of every person who seeks to do what is right, no matter their faith or their placement within said faith.

I take my leave of this thread.

Thanks again for the discussion

[Snow]

Snow may have been responding to some of my remarks, which were based on my own (mis)interpretation of your post. My apologies if I've added to the confusion.

I was referring to Maxel. Apparently I misunderstood one of his points. He wasn't claiming that the Holy Ghost influenced him, just that he has personal feelings on the matter.

[Moksha]

...but if you want a recommendation, I opened up an issue at randon and the first thing I saw was The Moral Component of Religion by Lowell Bennion. In terms of modern orthodox Mormon thought and theology, they don't get much more relevant or bigger than Bennion.

Yay for Lowell Bennion! He was truly a credit to his religion.

[pushka]

I just wanted to jump back into this thread, having skimmed thru a list of articles from Sunstone in late 2006/early 2007, and having read radomly selected ones.

I read tonight: The Borderlander's Gift :

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/144-70-71.pdf

I've only been a member of the church 13 months, and admit that I'm still trying to build my testimony of some of the doctrines etc. I found the suggestion of a response to a question during the temple recommend interview, in Jared's story, particulary comforting:

'So we went to our bishop for recommends,

where, of course, I had to face the

questions: “Do you believe. . . ? Do you accept.

. . ? Do you have a testimony of. . . ?

You wrote that one approach was to level

with the bishop, to say essentially:

I do not want to be duplicitous

about any of this, but I really do not

know anything for sure. But I am a

loyal and dedicated member of this

church. I want to work for it and

serve others, and I do believe the

basic tenets are true at one level or

another. I choose to have faith. I

choose to believe, or at least not

disbelieve. There are many things I

do not “know,” but I am willing to

suspend disbelief and accept them

on faith.

I tried that approach on our bishop, ending

with, “That is what I mean when I reply in

the affirmative about those questions.” And

he said, “That is totally acceptable.” '

What I found comforting about it was that you don't have to pretend to have a perfectly formed testimony of the church in order to partake in its work, callings etc. as long as you are honest in your response to the Bishop's questions, and as long as you do have a little faith that the subject matter being referred to may be true, and that you're willing to live your life as if it is true.

I just wanted to link to that article as an example, in my opinion, that Sunstone isn't necessarily trying to lead church members into apostacy.

[Janice]

Oh my.

This thread has made me sad. I can't believe the judgmental tones, the name calling, the back biting, the sarcasm... I'm sorry I even started the thread.

The reason I asked about Sunstone in the first place is because I'd heard they take a more intellectual approach to the Gospel then you will find in most other Church corners. And frankly, I think this is something that is lacking by some Mormons. I for one would like to see more good-old-fashioned logical *thinking*, with conclusions backed up by prayer and inspiration from the Holy Ghost. I really do feel that too often we skip the thinking-for-our-selves step and jump right to the "What does the Holy Ghost have to say?" part.

I am NOT saying that the Holy Ghost is not important. NOT AT ALL. I'm saying that using our brains is also important, and I fear we overlook that step sometimes. I'm also afraid that when people try to use their brains, or advocate that others do the same, some people point fingers at them and say things like, "Oh dear. You have lost your testimony. You should go see your Bishop."

That being said, I have followed the links on this thread to Sunstone artciles and briefly read them. I've not really enjoyed what I've found... too much focus on what the Church is doing wrong, or could be doing better. While I may even agree with some of the points, they strike me not as intellectualism, but as airing-dirty-laundry-ism. What I was *hoping* Sunstone would be about: Tackling a gospel principle and examining it from every possible angle, including spiritual, theological, ethical, political, etc. Instead, it seems to be about: My most recent idea on what The Church is doing wrong.

That being said, I fully acknowledge that this is only my first (and very thin) impression, and it very well could be wrong. Once I was able to look past what I felt was sarcasm and rudeness in Snow's post, I saw that there was actual substance to what he was saying, and that I perhaps should give Sunstone a deeper look.

But, my dear friends... the overall tone of this thread... really? Making fun of others personal inspiration? Telling people they have lost their testimony and need to go see their bishop? And the one that has so frustrated me in other posts when people do it to me: Implying derogatory meaning in other's posts that was never, ever there in the first place? I can relate all too well to Maxel when he says, "I am continually misrepresented by those who are attacking my statements." (I've not felt that way in this thread where I've hardly commented, but in past threads.)

I gotta say, I am really saddened by the overall mean spirited tone of this (and other) thread(s).

Janice

Edited March 17, 2009 by Janice

[Snow]

Oh my.

This thread has made me sad. I can't believe the judgmental tones, the name calling, the back biting, the sarcasm... I'm sorry I even started the thread.

...I gotta say, I am really saddened by the overall mean spirited tone of this (and other) thread(s).

Janice

But apparently not so sorry that you don't want to judge and criticize others?

Ms Gander, allow me to introduce you to Mr Goose.

[WANDERER]

I'm not LDS. I've read bits and pieces. It's interesting reading...people being people wherever they are on their journey and working things out and going through the processes. I think the general feeling is of helpfulness and reflection. It reaches out to people. It shines a light.

It's a little 'out there'...but hey...what rows your boat and doesn't sink it.

[Elphaba]

.Elphaba did attack my motivations- the remark about the ad hominem attacks were aimed at her. Though she has since removed some of the inflammatory remarks, the bulk of the argument she made was an ad hominem attack against my motivations.

Oh please, it was nothing of the sort.

My post questioned why you read and finished TWO complete articles from Sunstone, when you had previously insisted you thoroughly disliked Sunstone, (even though you first said you’d never read it).

It makes no sense to me that you finished each of the TWO Sunstone articles when you found them so repulsive. I did not, and do not buy your excuse that you only found them repulsive after you had read BOTH of them and then thought about it.

Frankly, I believe you couldn’t admit you liked the TWO articles because if you did, you’d have to admit you liked something from Sunstone, which would not have been popular in the thread since you had already bashed it a few times. That is what my post was about.

I also made it clear that I could only bring up When Virgins Collide to read, but not the other story. That is why my comments talked about WVC only, as I had no idea what the second article was about.

Additionally, I could hardly talk about When Virgins Collide, without mentioning sex, since that was what the article was about. You had referred to the article's sexual theme in your posts as well. To expect to me not to have done so is absurd.

Finally, I did not remove "some" inflammatory remarks. I removed the last sentence, which means my post is essentially complete as it stands.

My last sentence read: "I wonder why?" I was still questioning why you had read the TWO entire articles given it was in Sunstone, and that it was repulsive. It still doesn’t make sense to me.

But I could see how readers could infer "I wonder why?" meant I thought your motivation was sexual, so I deleted that. I did not delete anything else.

Finally, you need to realize your posts, especially given how substantive they are, are going to be challenged. Not everything you write will be accepted without question. To me, you were dissembling, and I was calling you on that, and that only.

Elphaba

Edited March 18, 2009 by Elphaba
Removed last sentence, as it wasn't appropriate.