I believe the church will soon change

I agree with Mom3. I was watching a documentary on Netflix called “The Seventies” and they went into the Women’s Lib movement, stances on same sex attraction, Equal Rights Amendment, and all the other social movements of the seventies. I was amazed at how the church is still on the traditionalist’s plan and how much society has changed, with the church hanging on to its own ways of doing things.

On one hand, (in defense of the church) having a clear set of values works to really define who you are. It provides stability to the internal membership who agreed with it in the first place when they joined the church. There is certain value in being “true to the course”. It’s when the membership itself adopts the attitudes of society that you see real change, coupled with declining metrics and clear signals about what is causing the lack of good metrics. Threaten the church’s assets in ways they cannot avoid, and you see fast change.

But counter to this, is the fact that the LDS church really is the tortoise in the race. Our gerontocracy (succession of elderly men who serve until death at the top) really makes for slow change. Also, the widespread belief that it’s all inspired makes it hard for anyone to challenge the status quo. Add to that a strong dose of organizational ego and unwillingness to admit past prophets or current doctrine is wrong, and you have a church that moves at a snail’s pace.

DHO outright said that ordination of women “ain’t gonna happen”, so if it does happen, it will have to be in decades upon decades from now after people have forgotten what he said.

Mom3 — how did female ordination hurt the Community of Christ?

I am aware of how the COC went one direction and lost a huge chunk of their membership (Thanks nibbler for the link on where a bunch of them went). So they moved to be more progressive and lost a bunch of their more conservative members.

I think the LDS church in November nudged the steering wheel to the right and many on the left have (and are) falling off the wagon because of that. (what a dang good analogy for so early on a Monday morning! :yawn: ) Given that as of yet they are not trying to “correct” that turn, it could be the near term direction going forward and it could keep moving more to the right. In that case more and more those that don’t see things that way will feel more and more uncomfortable at church and continue to leave until you have an even more conservative group than we now have. Now it could be that the turn gets corrected at some point, but it could be after quite a shift takes place.

I remember hearing a podcast that Patrick Mason (just published “Planted”). He did drop a line in there where he can see one path that the church would go down where they double-downed on some issues and he hoped it didn’t go that way. But he admitted he thinks it was a possibility.

It will be interesting to see as the next 2 apostles in line to be president (IMHO) don’t seem to be the “let’s get back to center” mentality.

AP wrote –

At some point, the church is going to need to address it.

I think the church has. To most the hemorrhage is in the past. They wrote some essays, they cleaned out the agitators, and in firesides and non-GC meetings they are boldly steering the boat toward the right. Those of us that do stay won’t get a large hand assistance in being nuanced etc. Sadly even yesterdays events won’t soften the non-GC opinions about LGBT. There has always been a left wing of the membership. Just look at the years since Sunstone and Dialogue were born (roughly 1964). Leadership has had years to make changes and it really hasn’t. For me this is not a downer. It’s just a fact, like arthritis, the sooner I accept it the sooner I can move on.

SD asked-

Mom3 — how did female ordination hurt the Community of Christ?

Nibbler added some terrific links. :clap: I also know from talking to one of their female Bishops and attending my local CoC church. Many congregants felt, and for me it shows in their services, that once women can be Bishop’s etc., then their church is really no different and truer than any of the other churches. It is a terribly strange effect but it really does take all the magic out of it.

On the flip side, I love the slight rumblings of left leaning leaders, Uchtdorf, Kearon, Eyring, I think even Christofferson has it he just hasn’t used it. But the full body change thing won’t happen like most Transitioning Mormons yearn for, their pain will not be validated in any top down way. and the theological reversals that even scholars like Bushman and Givens keep pushing for won’t happen. It’s kind of a Mormon glass ceiling.

I do think some bold changes could happen and we would roll better but I don’t expect them. No need to set up disappointment.

I think there will be significant changes in the relatively near future. I see too many small, incremental changes occurring right now that I believe are preparatory to think otherwise.

Handful of thoughts here.

On the CofChrist and their disaffected. Nibbler menthioned the Restoration Branches (loosely organized people who have left the CofChrist but have no FP/Q12, following local congregation leadership mostly). He also mentioned the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But there is also the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints).

It’s a little bit of an oversimplification to say that the one reason was the ordination of women. There were a lot of shifts in the RLDS/CofChrist Church in the late 70’s to the present day. W. Wallace Smith, who was a grandson of JS and son of JSjr, retired as Prophet-President in 1978, at the age of 77. His son, Wallace B. Smith, effected a lot of change, announcing not only the ordination of women, but the building of the controversial temple in Independence (beautiful temple, btw, and a must see if you are in the area). He also was Prophet-President at the time of the name change to Community of Christ. Finally, when he retired at the age of 66, he named W. Grant McMurray, as his successor, but McMurray was not a descendant of JS, breaking one more long-standing doctrine/policy on his way out. McMurray, resigned eight years later, citing “inappropriate choices” and that “the circumstances of my life are now such that I cannot continue to effectively lead the church.” McMurray didn’t name a successor, so the Church leadership chose Stephen M. Veazey, also not of JS ancestry.

But, more than those specifically identifiable changes, the CofChrist has undergone some more subtle, but significant changes. There definitely seems to be a devaluation of distinctive Restoration Movement doctrines in the Church as they try to become more mainstreamed. The BofM seems to be significantly waning in promenance, at least as far as I can tell from my outside observations. They currently accept either the Inspired Version of the Bible (JS-translated version) or the NRSV (you can purchase either version from their heraldhouse publishing), and they declare the Bible to be the “foundational scripture” of the Church. From their website:

With other Christians, we affirm the Bible as the foundational scripture for the church. In addition, Community of Christ uses the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants as scripture. We do not use these sacred writings to replace the witness of the Bible or improve upon it, but because they confirm its message that Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God

So, there has been an ongoing shift in the direction of the CofChrist that has left many feeling that it had lost its way and they have left.

On the LDS Church and losing members. I would like to point out that over the last 150 years, most breakaway sects have accused the LDS Church of being not conservative enough. Meanwhile, many of the disaffected of the current apostasy, feel that the Church is too conservative. IMO, among religions of the world, I see the LDS Church as right of center, but not very right.

On the LDS Church and the ordination of women. I think it will eventually happen, but it’s a way out still. I don’t think it will be sooner than anyone expects. It’ll be beyond the lifetime of most people on this site today. Future generations of StayLDS will celebrate a new day, and they won’t even think of us

The issue is as SD laid out. Church leadership is all old men. More than that, they all get to the positions they are in specifically be being all-in with the way the Church is today. Dissenters aren’t called. People who wonder about what should be changed aren’t called. People who think the Church is something less than perfect in its present state are not called.

In reading the history of the church, it can be pragmatic when poked hard by a sharp stick.

I don’t know if the current “hemorrhaging” is bad enough to create the pressure for any big changes. As I was coming into my faith crisis 4 years ago, about 2 years ago I thought change was around the corner. Well in one way I was right, but it was not in a positive direction I was hoping for. So I have less optimistic view that the church will change. You can hemorrhage for a while and not die. The question in my mind is if the bleeding slows down as most of the liberal minority in the church leave and only those that want the church to be conservative are left. If that is the case, I don’t see much change anytime soon.

I think Ann’s husband has a bit of a point, but is that a reason to not bless women? I find it kind of offensive as a guy also. “You pathetic guys.” Other religions have not turned into nothing but female leaders when they have allowed women into their leadership ranks.

Minyan Man – I can remember where I was and what I was doing when the 1978 Priesthood Ban news spread. It was like a wild fire.

For me that is one of my struggles. The 1978 change went really well, but it took forever. When I was growing up it was doctrine. Now in the essays it was a policy. Those minor post Ban changes make me wonder about a lot of things.

* If the ban went so well, why not try some other big steps.

* If the ban wasn’t doctrine, what is doctrine.

* And if we acknowledge man’s fallibility in the ban, is it possible fallibility holds unnecessary feet to fires that don’t need to exist.

Yes I too would love change, but I am nearly a decade in and the types of changes that would reconnect the broken pieces don’t appear to be on the list at present.