RE: Elder Cook’s talk-Can Ye Feel so Now?

Frankly, he’s right – for SOME people, in the first instance, and “many” in the second. He’s not accruate for some others and many others, respectively.

If his description wasn’t accurate for you, I’d recognize that he was talking to someone else. He wasn’t talking to or about you, so don’t take offense.

It’s not always easy, but it is pretty simple.

I started reading this conference talk, and I am already offended. I don’t think Elder Cook has ever been in my shoes. It’s like he is saying: “I don’t care how you feel.”…I don’t really want to go to church. I am going to church for the sake of the kids…It’s always repentance, when we are spiritually apathetic? What if you are just burned out. Sick of it all. Ticked that I have to go three hours of meetings…Where are the comment boxes at church…Now, I don’t care if people join the church…Who else got offended by this talk and feels the same way I do?

Frankly, he’s right – for SOME people, in the first instance, and “many” in the second. He’s not accruate for some others and many others, respectively…If his description wasn’t accurate for you, I’d recognize that he was talking to someone else. He wasn’t talking to or about you, so don’t take offense…It’s not always easy, but it is pretty simple.

I was offended by this talk and I thought it was a terrible cult-like and un-Christian message overall. It really does sound like he was talking about members like me that basically “lost” their testimony and didn’t feel nearly the same level of commitment to the Church anymore as a direct result. The general idea is that if you don’t happily go along with everything the Church teaches for whatever reason then you are automatically wrong and need to repent. In other words, if members have a problem with the Church then it supposedly has to be their fault because many Church leaders think it couldn’t possibly be something wrong with the Church. Sure if I honestly don’t see and understand why I should repent then I can say that as far as I’m concerned there is no problem that I should worry too much about and I don’t need to try to apply this talk to myself.

However, if TBMs I need to deal with hear this idea and buy into it then it basically tells them they are completely right to judge me in a disrespectful way because I supposedly made “unwise” choices, had the wrong priorities in life, and exaggerated and “invented” shortcomings of past and present Church leaders. From a practical standpoint I think overzealousness, relatively high costs of active membership, and expectations that all these doctrines absolutely need to be accepted by all active members have actually had more to do with members falling away from the Church permanently than lack of testimony. For example, many members have the impression that it is not acceptable in the Church to have serious doubts, drink beer, say no to callings, etc. so then they feel like they have no choice but to stay away from church and I think this talk mostly encourages and reinforces this intolerant and inflexible environment that basically limits the Church’s influence.

However, if TBMs I need to deal with hear this idea and buy into it then it basically tells them they are completely right to judge me in a disrespectful way because I supposedly made “unwise” choices, had the wrong priorities in life, and exaggerated and “invented” shortcomings of past and present Church leaders.

Interesting point. If we are trying to build up Zion, and be of one heart and one mind, then the Church is only as strong as its weakest member. It’s the concept of the 99 and the 1 that Jesus spoke so plainly about. Elder Cook’s remarks give the opposite impression – specifically equating a struggle with faith as sin that requires repentance, which only serves to alienate members who are already struggling. These incorrect accusations push them into deeper doubt and pain, effectively pushing them away rather than seeking them out. The last thing someone struggling with any kind of faith struggle – whether it’s brought on by legitimate doubts, past mistakes, being offended or abused, or any other cause – is an accusation that they have the wrong priorities, are “drawing incorrect conclusions” and need to repent. It’s so insensitive, and IMO, counter-intuitive to the teachings of Jesus Christ. How about a little bit of nonjudgmental, unconditional love and acceptance? Pretty sure Jesus never talked about that…maybe that’s just my opinion.

For example, many members have the impression that it is not acceptable in the Church to have serious doubts, drink beer, say no to callings, etc. so then they feel like they have no choice but to stay away from church and I think this talk mostly encourages and reinforces this intolerant and inflexible environment that basically limits the Church’s influence.

Agreed. This is another of my beefs with LDS culture. Who did Jesus seek out? The sick, the wounded, the sinners, those who had been neglected or shunned from society. He gave them dignity and hope without belittling them or making them feel awful about past mistakes. One of my favorite stories in the Bible is the man who says “Lord, I believe. Help thou mine unbelief.” And Jesus did. He accepted that man’s faith – even as imperfect as it was. Jesus met him halfway because he knew that he was trying. That’s the attitude the GAs of the church should be modeling for members. “We accept you as you are right now. None of us is perfect. We’ve all had different experiences and different trials and are at different levels of belief. Let’s all rely on Christ and each other and try together.” But that’s not the attitude we get. It’s Elder Cook’s attitude: “You aren’t trying hard enough. You made mistakes. You don’t believe enough. You are rebellious for questioning us. Therefore, you are sinning and need to repent.”

But that’s not the attitude we get. It’s Elder Cook’s attitude: “You aren’t trying hard enough. You made mistakes. You don’t believe enough. You are rebellious for questioning us. Therefore, you are sinning and need to repent.”

I’m pretty sure he is talking to this group in that talk…

While anything that lessens commitment is of consequence, two relevant challenges are both prevalent and significant. The first is unkindness, violence, and domestic abuse. The second is sexual immorality and impure thoughts. These often precede and are at the root of the choice to be less committed.

If those describe you, heed his direction and repent and it will bless you.

If it doesn’t apply, then OK. It doesn’t apply.

Having said that, newdirections, when I heard the talk it was not inspiring to me. I understand your frustration. I can see the direction his comments point towards…which seem to be that lessened commitment is a lack of strength from the individual (did I say…sigh?).

But in Oct 2010, Elder Cook said:

Let me be clear that all voices need to be heard in the public square. Neither religious nor secular voices should be silenced. Furthermore, we should not expect that because some of our views emanate from religious principles, they will automatically be accepted or given preferential status. But it is also clear such views and values are entitled to be reviewed on their merits.

The moral foundation of our doctrine can be a beacon light to the world and can be a unifying force for both morality and faith in Jesus Christ.

So, maybe we should take him for his word…let his religious words stand on their own merit. Let other voices not be silenced. Let us not give preferential treatment to his words because he is an apostle…but let all good words from all sources be a beacon of light to us and others in and out of the church, because they can be judged on their own as good or bad for us…and we don’t have to silence other voices.

Evaluate all words from conference on their own merit…which means, some will have not merit to us. Period.

Amen, jamison.

I figure I have eternity / all eternity / the eternities to get to the end, and the only thing that will make it “the end” will be when I stop trying to grow or get to the point where I can’t grow any more.

That comforts me greatly.

4. Intense cultural or political views to weaken allegiance to the gospel. [What does this mean?]

I apply this to the oft made statement “church culture is not the same thing as the gospel.” I sat through an interesting priesthood lesson one time when the teacher was saying:

We hear false doctrine in almost every meeting we go to. We hear false doctrine in general conference.

I hold the most fundamental and true definition of Gospel as “truth.” Just because some teaching or popular counsel in the church is widely shared, that doesn’t automatically make it right and true. Popular doctrine doesn’t always make true doctrine.

Sometimes even our allegiance to popular church culture can weaken our allegiance to the true gospel. I see evidence of this in the faith crisis wave that is sweeping over the church. I see my own previous allegiance to popular church culture playing a key roll in my personal faith crisis. Today I realize my house of expectations had been built on a mound of sand, but I don’t think it has to be that way. I see our unique theology as one open to truth – wherever that may take us. We can stand on the rock of defensible truth and remain uniquely Mormon.

The talk is problematic for folks like us on the fringes. Having read through it again, I think the worst of it is directed at those who commit abuses in their families. That *IS* a problem and I don’t have a problem with them pointing that out in GC, and calling people to repentance over it. I fully agree. I think the talk is a little muddled on that point, but it seems clear enough to me…The problem with a lot of GC talks, IMO, is they drift around between topics too much. I think it’s perhaps unclear in his points about lack of commitment due to faith crisis vs. lack of commitment due to being a pervert and wife/child beater! (impure thoughts and violence). It’s a little unclear separating those ideas by only a couple paragraphs.

I don’t have a problem with them telling anyone doing real harm they should repent. What I have a problem with is them trying to connect and correlate loss of faith and commitment with the general idea that these less faithful members must have done something wrong such as being sexual perverts, wife beaters, etc. To me this looks like it is mostly just a smokescreen to distract from and avoid facing the real issues. As far as I’m concerned the truth is that most of the less faithful members and ex-Mormons are not any more “perverted” if you want to call it that than many if not the majority of outwardly obedient, faithful, and highly committed members; the main difference on average is simply that TBMs will typically pretend this is not the case and refuse to admit it at all costs.

It is perfectly normal for people to have sexual feelings they can’t always control; trying to suppress this to the point of complete elimination and giving people such a guilt-trip about it is what is really unhealthy and abnormal in my opinion. As far as the domestic abuse claim, some of the most hardcore and strict TBMs I have known were abusive. So if the idea that this typically leads to spiritual drought and lack of commitment was actually true then I don’t understand how they would manage to remain so devout and zealous with respect to the Church year after year. It’s easy for Church leaders to come up with half-baked explanations like this to try to dismiss and marginalize any disaffected members as if their primary concerns have no validity whatsoever but what happens when these excuses don’t withstand honest scrutiny or the test of time very well?