Sunstone?

[RavinMaven]

If you want to know what the Sunstone journal is like, you need to read it.

Elphaba

Couldn't agree more. It's something that you have to decide for yourself. I personally find some of the articles interesting and well thought out. BUT, keep in mind as you read it (if you decide to) that their approach is strictly inellectual, which is not necessarily the best way to approach things of a spiritual nature.

Read it with a grain of salt and remember that we are told to search, ponder, and pray. Also, always keep in mind that they are not General Authorities, so no matter how convincing they may sound, they don't have all of the facts, meaning that if they say something that contradicts the leaders of the church, then it (the sunstone argument) should be disregarded.

Otherwise, it does make for some interesting reading.

[NeuroTypical]

My understanding of the gospel and testimony have grown immensely from my interaction with Sunstone - much more so than, say, from endless, lightweight and uninformative Priesthood quorum lessons.

And here, in concise brevity, is the soul of Sunstone. Talking itself up, and the church down, in the same breath.

Thanks for the illustration Snow.

LM

[aspenmgy]

I don't know...I found their article "When Two Virgins Collide" to be absolute gold. Sad how true it is, too.

Other articles just feel....wrong.

[Moksha]

And here, in concise brevity, is the soul of Sunstone. Talking itself up, and the church down, in the same breath.

LM

So, if Snow says something positive about Sunstone, it therefor constitutes a short and concise indictment of Sunstone???

What would you make of my saying I liked PaleRider and think he is swell?

[talisyn]

I've heard that same thing said about Apologetic in general. And i think I have seen you on the MADB boards.

:D

Hey I love that place. It's my second favorite after this site

[Snow]

Thanks for pointing out the equivocation. At the time I posted post #6, I had read snippets of various articles, as well as heard part of the transcript from one of the discussions (about the inoculations of Church members in regards to history). However, I have never sat down with a copy of Sunstone and read all the way through it. I didn't want to establish myself as some sort of pseudo-authority. I should have been more clear.

However, after posting post #6, I went to Sunstone's website to find another article to read and give the publication a fair chance. I found, and read a large part of, an article entitled Tracking the Sincere Believer: "Authentic" Religion and the Enduring Legacy of Joseph Smith Jr.. I stopped after reaching the author's comment "I don’t know whether Joseph Smith thought he heard the voice of God or not." Something inside of me rejected that statement. I came away feeling my initial ideas correct.

Specifically, the 'article' I mentioned in post #9 was actually the transcript of the discussion on the inoculation of the Saints against Church history. A bad habit of mine is occasionally substituting 'a' with 'a few' or 'some' when I'm in somewhat of a hurry.

As a side note, on my most recent foray to their website to get the link for the article I read, I was sidetracked by an article entitled When Virgins Collide about Mormon sexuality, and another called How the Prayers Ran Dry. The former gave intimate details on the author's wedding night and claimed the Church doesn't talk about marital sex enough (particularly the sexual joy women receive from it); the latter talks about how the author lost her faith in the power of prayer (although she's slowly getting back into the habit). All this combined evidence points to one conclusion: the foundational spirit of Sunstone is not one sent of God.

Then here's the difference between you and me... in addition to attending countless priesthood meetings and teaching many many priesthood lessons, AND reading, not just part of one article by one author, but reading many Sunstone magazines and attending a good number of Sunstone symposiums, I can offer an opinion based on experience and knowledge.

There was a time when the Church didn't produce lightweight, lowest common denominator lessons... for example 1953's Melchizedek Priesthood manual: Divine Church, Down through Change, Apostasy therefrom and Restoration, by James L. Barker or 1957's Approaches to the Book of Mormon. It will be a cold day in Hades before you'd get a lesson like that these days.

Nowadays there is little or no push for intellectual rigor. Pity.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Snow

[NeuroTypical]

What would you make of my saying I liked PaleRider and think he is swell?

Well, I'd think you were paying him a compliment. Of course, if you were trying to compare apples with apples, you'd have to say something like "I like PaleRider and think he's swell. Much more swell than any stupid Elder's Quorum President I've been forced to suffer."

See, there's a difference.

[Maxel]

Then here's the difference between you and me... in addition to attending countless priesthood meetings and teaching many many priesthood lessons, AND reading, not just part of one article by one author, but reading many Sunstone magazines and attending a good number of Sunstone symposiums, I can offer an opinion based on experience and knowledge.

So, the spiritual darkness I feel whenever I sit down to attempt to read a Sunstone article doesn't count because I don't subject myself to reading the entire article? And, when I do read the whole article, the fact that I come away feeling like I've just witnessed an underhanded slap in the Church's face doesn't count for anything either? Maybe I've just read a bad batch of articles... Could you link one that you found particularly uplifting?

There was a time when the Church didn't produce lightweight, lowest common denominator lessons... for example 1953's Melchizedek Priesthood manual: Divine Church, Down through Change, Apostasy therefrom and Restoration, by James L. Barker or 1957's Approaches to the Book of Mormon. It will be a cold day in Hades before you'd get a lesson like that these days.

Nowadays there is little or no push for intellectual rigor. Pity.

Maybe another difference is I don't care so much for the 'intellectual' side of the Gospel as much as the side that feeds and strengthens testimony. There's plenty of resources available for anyone wanting to delve into deep Mormon theology, I think the goal now is to strengthen testimony because the members need that more. Again, you get as much out of it as you put in: there's been plenty of very theologically profound lessons in my home ward thanks to a couple of guys who study Mormon theology and history extensively.

[Elphaba]

As a side note, on my most recent foray to their website to get the link for the article I read, I was sidetracked by an article entitled When Virgins Collide about Mormon sexuality, and another called How the Prayers Ran Dry. The former gave intimate details on the author's wedding night and claimed the Church doesn't talk about marital sex enough (particularly the sexual joy women receive from it); the latter talks about how the author lost her faith in the power of prayer (although she's slowly getting back into the habit). All this combined evidence points to one conclusion: the foundational spirit of Sunstone is not one sent of God.

And yet you read them. They must not have been all that bad.

Elphaba

[Maxel]

And yet you read them. They must not have been all that bad.

Elphaba

No, they were "all that bad". However, they were short enough that I could finish reading before being utterly repulsed. I found the latter article especially bad. Edited March 14, 2009 by Maxel
Clarification

[Snow]

So, the spiritual darkness I feel whenever I sit down to attempt to read a Sunstone article doesn't count because I don't subject myself to reading the entire article? And, when I do read the whole article, the fact that I come away feeling like I've just witnessed an underhanded slap in the Church's face doesn't count for anything either?

So you think God is magically causing you to feel spiritually dark when you read Sunstone. I could easily claim that God supernaturally told me that you are mistaken. I'm not much swayed by internet people's dogmatic claims to supernatural enlightenment.

I am secure enough in my commitment to and love of the Church that I don't get all bent when someone writes an article that has an alternate point of view from mine.

Maybe I've just read a bad batch of articles... Could you link one that you found particularly uplifting?

How about An Olive Leaf: The True Nature of Real Love by Elder Neal A. Maxwell.

Maybe another difference is I don't care so much for the 'intellectual' side of the Gospel as much as the side that feeds and strengthens testimony. There's plenty of resources available for anyone wanting to delve into deep Mormon theology, I think the goal now is to strengthen testimony because the members need that more. Again, you get as much out of it as you put in: there's been plenty of very theologically profound lessons in my home ward thanks to a couple of guys who study Mormon theology and history extensively.

... and I think that testimony that built upon a firm foundation when it is rooted in real history and reason and understanding with an appreciation of the "intellectual" side of the Gospel is in keeping with what God revealed to JS when JS wrote: "... the glory of God is intelligence..." and, "And, verily I say unto you, that it is my will that you should hasten to translate my scriptures, and to obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion. Amen"

[Dravin]

So you think God is magically causing you to feel spiritually dark when you read Sunstone. I could easily claim that God supernaturally told me that you are mistaken. I'm not much swayed by internet people's dogmatic claims to supernatural enlightenment.

Its called the Holy Ghost, its supposed to warn us.

and I think that testimony that built upon a firm foundation when it is rooted in real history and reason and understanding with an appreciation of the "intellectual" side of the Gospel is in keeping with what God revealed to JS when JS wrote: "... the glory of God is intelligence..." and, "And, verily I say unto you, that it is my will that you should hasten to translate my scriptures, and to obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion. Amen"

2 Nephi 9:28-29

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

One of the councils of God is to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Intellectual pursuit of the Gospel is fine, it's a good thing (I enjoy it). However if that pursuit results in a loss of the spirit its bad, if Maxel feels spiritual darkness when reading an intellectual pursuit of the gospel I for one wouldn't be first in line to mock him, actually I wouldn't even be in line to mock him.

[Snow]

Its called the Holy Ghost, its supposed to warn us.

Not exactly. People claim or believe that it is the warning of the Holy Ghost. The evidence that it is actually the Holy Ghost supernaturally enlightening someone about Sunstone is exactly equal to zero.

It's pointless to argue a point by stating your dogmatic opinion.

2 Nephi 9:28-29

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

blah, blah, blah.

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.

One of the councils of God is to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Intellectual pursuit of the Gospel is fine, it's a good thing (I enjoy it). However if that pursuit results in a loss of the spirit its bad, if Maxel feels spiritual darkness when reading an intellectual pursuit of the gospel I for one wouldn't be first in line to mock him, actually I wouldn't even be in line to mock him.

Oh please. He claims that God supernaturally warned him when he read a line where the author says makes a factually true statement about not knowing whether or not Joseph Smith actually heard and believed he heard God's voice - in an article about the role of sincerity in faith. The exact same thing is true of you and of Maxel. Neither of you know it either.

[NeuroTypical]

So you think God is magically causing you to feel spiritually dark when you read Sunstone. I could easily claim that God supernaturally told me that you are mistaken. I'm not much swayed by internet people's dogmatic claims to supernatural enlightenment.

I am secure enough in my commitment to and love of the Church that I don't get all bent when someone writes an article that has an alternate point of view from mine.

Snow continues to demonstrate my issue with Sunstone. It seems like no matter how intellectually stimulating the notion, it's always coupled with an uncharitable sneer. Ivory tower boogie-flicking at it's most biting.

Yeah, we're merely put-off because we can't handle alternate points of view. And since we're too weak or stupid to admit the truth, we seek refuge from our fears by convincing ourselves that God doesn't want us to read Sunstone. Dang Snow - you pegged us. Anyone who claims they don't like the spirit eminating from Sunstone can never be anything more than weak-kneed, superstitious, dull-witted, fools in denial. It's not possible to have a legitimate gripe, we're just 'bent'.

Phooey.

LM

[Elphaba]

No, they were "all that bad". However, they were short enough that I could finish reading before being utterly repulsed.

Right.

When Virgins Collide was 54 paragraphs, not so short to realize the subject matter was sexually explicit. In fact, that was apparent from paragraph three, yet you continued reading it, and 51 paragraphs later, you had finished the "short" and "repulsive" post.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't immediately catch on to the sexual content, but I can't imagine you missed it after she screamed at Prince Albert.

Apparently you had to read the entire article before you realized it was repulsive. In face, it's very convenient that you then realized it was not of God. After all, you couldn't admit you had actually enjoyed a Sunstone article, given the disdain you had expressed, more than once, on the thread.

I found the latter article especially bad.

I can't access this article, so I take your word for it you found it repellent. But I wonder again, why you finished it if it was that bad? Especially since it, and the first article, both came from Sunstone.

Elphaba

Edited March 15, 2009 by Elphaba
Removed sentence that came out wrong.

[Just_A_Guy]

So you think God is magically causing you to feel spiritually dark when you read Sunstone. I could easily claim that God supernaturally told me that you are mistaken. I'm not much swayed by internet people's dogmatic claims to supernatural enlightenment.

Snow, I'd like to preface this by saying that I have a huge amount of respect for you and enjoy reading your postings.

That said: I am extremely troubled to see a church member speak so dismissively of a fellow church member's spiritual experience, shared in good faith. It's one thing to say "well, that's your revelation; but I'm not sure it applies to me." But to mockingly someone else's experiences as "dogmatic claims to supernatural enlightenment"?

If this is the "fruit" of regular Sunstone readership, I want none of it.

You were obviously intrigued by the articles, even though they were repulsive to you. I wonder why.

Elphaba, what I said in my initial remarks to Snow, I repeat to you. I like you a lot.

But I think that the hints you're dropping about Maxel's interests are wholly inappropriate here.

[Snow]

Snow, I'd like to preface this by saying that I have a huge amount of respect for you and enjoy reading your postings.

That said: I am extremely troubled to see a church member speak so dismissively of a fellow church member's spiritual experience, shared in good faith. It's one thing to say "well, that's your revelation; but I'm not sure it applies to me." But to mockingly someone else's experiences as "dogmatic claims to supernatural enlightenment"?

In the Church you can hear lots of people claim all sorts of spiritual experiences and "I" (they) KNOW (by virtue of the Holy Ghost) that this is true or that such and such in KNOWN to be true but in many such circumstances, an rational listener understands how bogus some of it is... as the Holy Ghost doesn't testify of things that aren't true, but people get emotional or dogmatic or habitualized and so attribute their own opinions to God.

Apply a little reason. Do you believe that God will negatively prompt you when you read a factually true statement? Did you read the article? It's a simple academic look at the role of sincerity; something you might read in a textbook.

Besides which, your phrasing: "well, that's your revelation; but I'm not sure it applies to me" is saying the same thing as I am but dolled up in the trappings of social nicety. I say that watering down the message detracts from insight and truth.

If this is the "fruit" of regular Sunstone readership, I want none of it.

Now I'm curious... Were you laughing to yourself when you wrote that? You certainly couldn't have been serious that you believe reading Sunstone magazine causes readers to be blunt and abrasive. Or could you? Seriously?

[Just_A_Guy]

Apply a little reason. Do you believe that God will negatively prompt you when you read a factually true statement?

YES. If the overall effect of the statement is to drive a wedge between me and the Lord or His Anointed, then absolutely.

Besides which, your phrasing: "well, that's your revelation; but I'm not sure it applies to me" is saying the same thing as I am but dolled up in the trappings of social nicety. I say that watering down the message detracts from insight and truth.

Umm, no. My phrasing acknowledges the validity of the revelation, and only raises questions as to its scope. Yours, by implication, denies its validity outright.

You certainly couldn't have been serious that you believe reading Sunstone magazine causes readers to be blunt and abrasive. Or could you? Seriously?

It's not your bluntness or abrasiveness that irritate me. It's your suggestion that the Spirit should take a backseat to intellectual inquiry, your willingness to pit Sunstone against your local community of Saints and declare your preference for the former, and--above all--the manner in which you tear down the spiritual experiences of a fellow believer.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Dravin]

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.

Oh, okay. Show me the proof that, " "... the glory of God is intelligence..." and, "And, verily I say unto you, that it is my will that you should hasten to translate my scriptures, and to obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion. Amen"" is talking about Sunstone.

By: Just_A_Guy

If this is the "fruit" of regular Sunstone readership, I want none of it.

Ah, but do you have proof that Christ was inspired when he gave the sermon on the mount and that it applies? I mean hard proof, none of this namby pamby Holy Ghost stuff.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Dravin
Chopped of part of the post.

[Elphaba]

But I think that the hints you're dropping about Maxel's interests are wholly inappropriate here.

I read my post to see what you meant, and it popped right out me. I promise, that is not how I meant it.

I'll go reword it.

Elphaba

[Maxel]

I don't like being attacked. I don't appreciate the fact that you have devolved the conversation into ad hominem accusations about my motivations and questioning my own spiritual witnesses, Elphaba and Snow. Interestingly, I find nothing backed up by logic or reason. It seems the fact that if I feel I have been given revelation from God that violates your understanding of the world, you feel the most appropriate route is to attack me and those promptings.

So you think God is magically causing you to feel spiritually dark when you read Sunstone. I could easily claim that God supernaturally told me that you are mistaken. I'm not much swayed by internet people's dogmatic claims to supernatural enlightenment.

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. This is part of the spiritual gift of discernment, which I somewhat possess.

I am secure enough in my commitment to and love of the Church that I don't get all bent when someone writes an article that has an alternate point of view from mine.

Yet, you're not secure enough in your commitment to let my own view stand and not attack me with phrases like "you think God magically [caused] you to feel spiritually dark when you read Sunstone?" Where's the appeal to reason and logic? Furthermore, my issue with Sunstone is not that its articles have a different view than mine, per se. Frankly, I've felt much more at peace with articles explaining Islam theology, although I don't believe in the Islam religion. My problem with Sunstone is the fact that I fear the underlying spirit of it is the same that leads to apostasy.

How about An Olive Leaf: The True Nature of Real Love by Elder Neal A. Maxwell.

I appreciate the reference. However, the article wasn't written specifically for Sunstone, but was taken from his book Sermons Not Spoken, and seems to have been printed in the November 2006 edition of Sunstone- long after the death of said Elder Maxwell. Perhaps you are referring to another Sunstone article of his that also begins with 'An Olive Leaf' (there are three, apparently). However, both of those were originally printed or spoken somewhere else and are reprints in Sunstone. That's not to say printing those talks shouldn't be evidence in Suntone's favor, merely that I don't see this as an example of what contributing authors of Sunstone see as faithful work. Personally, I contrast it to the three articles I have recently mentioned, which have all been spiritually darkening for me- all those articles were written, as far as I can tell, for Sunstone itself.

Let me state here that I'm sure there's uplifting articles that have been printed. However, I think it's the bulk of the work that should be examined, not just individual articles. If I seem to have implied that earlier, my apologies. If you have another article you think epitomizes Sunstone's role of spiritual nourishing periodical, I'd love to read it.

... and I think that testimony that built upon a firm foundation when it is rooted in real history and reason and understanding with an appreciation of the "intellectual" side of the Gospel is in keeping with what God revealed to JS when JS wrote: "... the glory of God is intelligence..." and, "And, verily I say unto you, that it is my will that you should hasten to translate my scriptures, and to obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion. Amen"

Agreed. However, as one moves forward, one must keep the spirit of charity, which includes humility and trust in God. I fail to see those in Sunstone. 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".

Right.

Awesome! We agree.

Wait...

When Virgins Collide was 54 paragraphs, not so short to realize the subject matter was sexually explicit. In fact, that was apparent from paragraph three, yet you continued reading it, and 51 paragraphs later, you had finished the "short" and "repulsive" post.

Actually, it's 57-58 paragraphs (I keep getting one or the other by my personal count). And I realized it would be sexually explicit when I saw the title and the attendant picture of a newly married couple. I thought, however, that reading it (as it was advertised on their main page, and was touted as an example of 'Great Mormon Writing' after the article proper) would give me an insight into the type of writing Sunstone is aiming at its audiences. It wasn't the sexual explicitness that repulsed me so much as it was the manner in which it was presented. Where did the author find the answer to her worries? The evil TV that she 'wasn't supposed to watch', as she claims. She thanks God for the people engaged in illicit sexual relations that generated the immoral advice. She compares her husband's genitals to Burt Reynolds'. Throughout the article, the author paints herself as an innocent naive girl that has fallen victim to the Church's suppression of discussion about the physical act of sex. She also portrays the secular world as the one that taught her how to enjoy sex. We see a triumphing of the secular world over Church government.

Perhaps your objection comes by assuming that my phrase 'utterly repulsed' meant that I wasn't "repulsed" at all until the end when I sat back and understood what the article was about. What I really meant was that I was repulsed, but not 'utterly' (which according to dictionary.com means "in an utter manner; completely; absolutely.") repulsed until afterward when I mulled over the article and saw the subtle craftiness in which the author demeaned the Church and talked up the secular world. The same process happened with the other article, which chronicled the author's journey from believing in prayer to not believing in prayer.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't immediately catch on to the sexual content, but I can't imagine you missed it after she screamed at Prince Albert.

Ironically, I missed the 'Prince Albert' reference. I looked it up online after seeing you mention it here. I wish I hadn't.

Apparently you had to read the entire article before you realized it was repulsive. In face, it's very convenient that you then realized it was not of God. After all, you couldn't admit you had actually enjoyed a Sunstone article, given the disdain you had expressed, more than once, on the thread.

I explained earlier why I felt I needed to read it. I must repeat I did not enjoy it.

I can't access this article, so I take your word for it you found it repellent. But I wonder again, why you finished it if it was that bad?

You were obviously intrigued by the articles, even though they were repulsive to you. I wonder why.

It is one thing to endure spiritual darkness to attempt to come to a fair conclusion of something. If I were called to jury duty for a murder case, I wouldn't not listen to the testimony of the convicted killer, even if I was told by an angel that he did it. No righteous person judges something which they have not heard.

Before you try to use that truth against me, let me preempt by saying that before this thread was ever started, I was familiar enough with Sunstone and its products that I felt I had 'heard' the evidence. My recent foray back to the website was to re-evaluate to see if I came to a different conclusion. I didn't.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Maxel
Removed comment in response to Elphaba's editing

[Snow]

I don't like being attacked. I don't appreciate the fact that you have devolved the conversation into ad hominem accusations about my motivations and questioning my own spiritual witnesses, Elphaba and Snow. Interestingly, I find nothing backed up by logic or reason. It seems the fact that if I feel I have been given revelation from God that violates your understanding of the world, you feel the most appropriate route is to attack me and those promptings.

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.

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. This is part of the spiritual gift of discernment, which I somewhat possess.

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

Yet, you're not secure enough in your commitment to let my own view stand and not attack me with phrases like "you think God magically [caused] you to feel spiritually dark when you read Sunstone?"

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? 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?

I appreciate the reference. However, the article wasn't written specifically for Sunstone, but was taken from his book Sermons Not Spoken, and seems to have been printed in the November 2006 edition of Sunstone- long after the death of said Elder Maxwell. Perhaps you are referring to another Sunstone article of his that also begins with 'An Olive Leaf' (there are three, apparently). However, both of those were originally printed or spoken somewhere else and are reprints in Sunstone. That's not to say printing those talks shouldn't be evidence in Suntone's favor, merely that I don't see this as an example of what contributing authors of Sunstone see as faithful work. Personally, I contrast it to the three articles I have recently mentioned, which have all been spiritually darkening for me- all those articles were written, as far as I can tell, for Sunstone itself.

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?

Let me state here that I'm sure there's uplifting articles that have been printed. However, I think it's the bulk of the work that should be examined, not just individual articles. If I seem to have implied that earlier, my apologies. If you have another article you think epitomizes Sunstone's role of spiritual nourishing periodical, I'd love to read it.

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. 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.

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

Agreed. However, as one moves forward, one must keep the spirit of charity, which includes humility and trust in God. I fail to see those in Sunstone. 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".

That's a claim with no basis in fact. 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.

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... however, supernatural revelation is the least likely of all possible explanations.

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

Edited March 15, 2009 by Snow

[applepansy]

I mean hard proof, none of this namby pamby Holy Ghost stuff.

Dravin, To me the promtings of the Holy Ghost is anything but "namby pamby." I'm sorry you have lost your testimony or the Holy Ghost.

I would appreciate it if you'd quit attacking those who know differently.

I would also suggest you talk with your bishop about how "namby pamby" the Holy Ghost is.

applepansy

[Dravin]

Dravin, To me the promtings of the Holy Ghost is anything but "namby pamby." I'm sorry you have lost your testimony or the Holy Ghost.

I would appreciate it if you'd quit attacking those who know differently.

I would also suggest you talk with your bishop about how "namby pamby" the Holy Ghost is.

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.

[BenRaines]

Is it an issue that the scripture was inspired or is it an issue of if the scripture is in reference to Sunstone? I think what has been said, and I haven't read it all, is that it can be a person's own individual opinion if it is a reference to any publication.

I have read Sunstone over the years. While I find it interesting reading along with other things I read and it does stimulate thought it does not threaten my testimony.

Ben Raines