- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
The problem is that most Church leaders apparently think they shouldn’t change much of anything to at least try to retain more members or get more “lost” members to come back to the fold and the “rescue” effort so far has mostly been about expecting rank-and-file members to try harder to repent or get other members to repent of their lack of conformity to Mormon traditions without ever daring to question the actual need for some of these traditions nowadays. That’s why the Church could really end up digging itself into a hole by the time Church leaders finally realize this approach is just not going to work quite as well as it used to anymore.
I disagree a whole bunch with this. I don’t feel or see this at all. I have seen leaders from ward Auxillary leaders to the very top of the Leadership make a conserted effort to reach out to less active and inactive members. Perhaps some wards are struggling and not taking the right steps but I feel the church as a whole is making grande strides to be our brother’s keeper. I wish I could share some concrete examples but suffice it to say In the last year I have seen the rescue at work from apostles, Seventys, Stake Leaders, ward level (I have personally seen the rescue at work.
Now whether it fails or succeeds is a different story but I don’t see the approach you describe from my vantage at all. I see an large effort to reach out and help folks struggling in their testimonies and in their lives.
We just disagree with each other on this, DA, as you already know. I think there is a bit of confirmation bias going on with both of us – but more with you than with me. 😆 Ray, I agree that the internet is affecting all churches but I also think the potential is there for our church to be affected more. Maybe something like what happened to the RLDS church? That is why I think the future might hold more pain for the lds church. Imagine if the leaders fessed up about some major historical issues to the membership at large and just admitted some things were flat out wrong? What would happen? Brian wrote:Imagine if the leaders fessed up about some major historical issues to the membership at large and just admitted some things were flat out wrong? What would happen?
First, my chin would drop down to my toes. Then I’d get warm fuzzy feelings of joy as I processed the possible (possitive) future of the church. Then I imagine you’d have a whole lot more middle way Mormons as they came to grips with it as well…And many more leave as well.
Quote:Imagine if the leaders fessed up about some major historical issues to the membership at large and just admitted some things were flat out wrong?
Like the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Pretty much nothing happened. Like changing Elder Packer’s statement implying that God would not make people be born gay – although he never said that explicitly in his talk? Pretty much nothing happened. Like stating unequivocally in the Seminary and Institute manuals that Joseph Smith instituted and practiced polygamy? Pretty much nothing happened. Like changing the “primary ancestors” wording in the intro to the Book of Mormon? Pretty much nothing happened. Those are four instances that are fairly “major” – and they came to mind immediately with no real thought to try to think of lots of examples.
Sure, there are other examples where more might happen, but I don’t think the result would be nearly as drastic as you think.
Also, I can’t expect anyone to “fess up” to anything if they don’t believe like I do. They have to be lying intentionally to “fess up” to sometihng, and I just don’t see that.
eman wrote:Brian wrote:Imagine if the leaders fessed up about some major historical issues to the membership at large and just admitted some things were flat out wrong? What would happen?
First, my chin would drop down to my toes. Then I’d get warm fuzzy feelings of joy as I processed the possible (possitive) future of the church. Then I imagine you’d have a whole lot more middle way Mormons as they came to grips with it as well…And many more leave as well.
I think that happen once with the adam God theory when president Kimball said to quit teaching what old prophets said
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Imagine if the leaders fessed up about some major historical issues to the membership at large and just admitted some things were flat out wrong?
Like the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Pretty much nothing happened. Like changing Elder Packer’s statement implying that God would not make people be born gay – although he never said that explicitly in his talk? Pretty much nothing happened. Like stating unequivocally in the Seminary and Institute manuals that Joseph Smith instituted and practiced polygamy? Pretty much nothing happened. Like changing the “primary ancestors” wording in the intro to the Book of Mormon? Pretty much nothing happened. Those are four instances that are fairly “major” – and they came to mind immediately with no real thought to try to think of lots of examples.
Sure, there are other examples where more might happen, but I don’t think the result would be nearly as drastic as you think.
Also, I can’t expect anyone to “fess up” to anything if they don’t believe like I do. They have to be lying intentionally to “fess up” to sometihng, and I just don’t see that.
Good point. Maybe I just can’t understand how tbm’s think anymore. They seem to be at a place where facts and truth don’t matter. I know I used to be there but I can’t even comprehend it anymore.
I also don’t think the change to the intro in the bom was understood by the typical member and I think their not understanding was intentional. (meaning they didn’t realize the church was saying we lost. it was a lie. the nephites didn’t come from Israel.)
Old-Timer wrote:We just disagree with each other on this, DA, as you already know. I think there is a bit of confirmation bias going on with both of us – but more with you than with me.
That doesn’t surprise me. Anyone can analyze what has already happened with varying degrees of accuracy and statistics are notoriously easy to interpret almost any way you want but it takes special insight and talent for speculation to accurately predict what is going to happen ahead of time. I think what you describe is also what still gives many Church leaders a false sense of security because the Church is still technically growing and they haven’t had to start shutting down wards or stakes on a large scale yet in Utah at least so on the surface the Church looks as strong as ever and it makes sense why Church leaders would continue to mostly avoid facing these problems with their story and hope that most members won’t notice as long as they possibly can. However, if it gets to the point where it is really impossible to ignore the difference the internet has already made will they be able to do anything to make up for all the damage already done that could have possibly been prevented or reduced if they had done something different earlier?
DBMormon wrote:Quote:The problem is that most Church leaders apparently think they shouldn’t change much of anything to at least try to retain more members or get more “lost” members to come back to the fold and the “rescue” effort so far has mostly been about expecting rank-and-file members to try harder to repent or get other members to repent of their lack of conformity to Mormon traditions without ever daring to question the actual need for some of these traditions nowadays. That’s why the Church could really end up digging itself into a hole by the time Church leaders finally realize this approach is just not going to work quite as well as it used to anymore.
I disagree a whole bunch with this. I don’t feel or see this at all.
I have seen leaders from ward Auxillary leaders to the very top of the Leadership make a conserted effort to reach out to less active and inactive members.Perhaps some wards are struggling and not taking the right steps but I feel the church as a whole is making grande strides to be our brother’s keeper. I wish I could share some concrete examples but suffice it to say In the last year I have seen the rescue at work from apostles, Seventys, Stake Leaders, ward level (I have personally seen the rescue at work… Now whether it fails or succeeds is a different story but I don’t see the approach you describe from my vantage at all. I see an large effort to reach out and help folks struggling in their testimonies and in their lives.I’m not saying Church leaders don’t care about losing members or that they haven’t tried to do anything about it. I just don’t think the rescue effort will make much of a difference based on what I have heard about it so far because it doesn’t really do much to change the primary reason why so many members become completely inactive to begin with. It looks to me like the primary reason members typically become completely inactive is simply that they were not satisfied with their experience with the Church mostly because they didn’t like the meetings, associating with other members, and/or being told what to do quite so much.
My guess is that the single most common deal-breaker is the WoW; so why not change the lessons to focus on the spirit of the law more than the letter of the law and stop asking about this in baptism and temple worthiness interviews? Because they apparently feel like they can’t ever re-evaluate established Mormon traditions like this, that’s why. The general idea is that the Church is already more or less the way it should be so if members don’t like this then that is supposedly their problem unless they repent. This general attitude also extends to things that wouldn’t be seen as a very big change (compared to messing with any current temple worthiness points) such as possibly trying to make the meetings more “edifying” or enjoyable instead of just doing what we always have and expecting members to endure it all to the end.
Quote:(meaning they didn’t realize the church was saying we lost. it was a lie. the nephites didn’t come from Israel.)
The change in the ancestry wording didn’t say any of those three things, especially the “lie” comment. I can make a strong argument against all three of the statements above, despite the change in the wording – since I can make a very good argument that the primary ancestry is Jaredite and not Israelite and since there is plenty of reason to believe that Joseph believed the original wording. The change simply said that the Native American population isn’t “primarily” descended from the Nephites – that the prior assumption was incorrect. The Book of Mormon itself never makes the original claim, so the change says nothing more, in practical terms, than: “Our prior assumption, taught and believed by prophets, was wrong. Our prophets are not infallible and were wrong about the principle ancestry. They extrapolated too much from what’s not in the book itself.”
Seriously, that’s all the change said. Everything else is extrapolation and further assumption – and, to say this directly and not sugar-coat it in any way, it’s important to understand that what I quoted above is exactly the same type of extrapolation as the original wording – an assumption based on perspective that isn’t backed up by the actual wording in the Book of Mormon itself.
I think I get what everyone is saying. People at all levels are concerned and people at all levels are trying to help. The institutional church is making changes at an impressive rate right now (press release on caffeine, priesthood ban no longer sanctioned by God, and missionary age announcement just being the most recent).
OTOH, the product that the church distributes (to include both our doctrine and our culture) does not seem to change very much or very fast. There are significant practical barriers to doing this even if the decision makers didn’t have a vested interest in maintaining tradition. There is the feeling that our generation faces a unique challenge with the internet etc. The internet is surely new but these types of challenges are not. In my mind I am thinking of the Catholic Church and the renaissance, the church fought the tide but ultimately adapted (recognizing that within large organizations you will have different people – some acting as change agents and others resisting the change- at any given time). I wouldn’t be surprised if history repeated itself in our own time.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:(meaning they didn’t realize the church was saying we lost. it was a lie. the nephites didn’t come from Israel.)
The change in the ancestry wording didn’t say any of those three things, especially the “lie” comment. I can make a strong argument against all three of the statements above, despite the change in the wording – since I can make a very good argument that the primary ancestry is Jaredite and not Israelite and since there is plenty of reason to believe that Joseph believed the original wording. The change simply said that the Native American population isn’t “primarily” descended from the Nephites – that the prior assumption was incorrect. The Book of Mormon itself never makes the original claim, so the change says nothing more, in practical terms, than: “Our prior assumption, taught and believed by prophets, was wrong. Our prophets are not infallible and were wrong about the principle ancestry. They extrapolated too much from what’s not in the book itself.”
Seriously, that’s all the change said. Everything else is extrapolation and further assumption – and, to say this directly and not sugar-coat it in any way, it’s important to understand that what I quoted above is exactly the same type of extrapolation as the original wording – an assumption based on perspective that isn’t backed up by the actual wording in the Book of Mormon itself.
Teaching that you are a prophet and you talk to god and he tells you things (Joseph Smith) and then teaching that Indians are Jews that escaped from Israel and were cursed to have dark skin is a lie. Where is the wiggle room here? You said you received revelation from the ultimate authority (God) and yet you are wrong. Somewhere in there is a non truth (lie). It is dishonest to preach something that is not true as revelation.
Making the claim they are Jaredites? Sure if the Jaredites were from Asia and travelled across the Bering strait. No if the Jaredites are people coming from a tower in a story meant to explain why people speak different languages. The primary ancestry of the Indians has been proven by DNA science.
Unfortunately Joseph Smith had no way of knowing this was a possibility.
I can see where Ray is coming from but I can also see where Brian is also coming from. I don’t really know who is right but I’m sure grateful that we can discuss it here and have a safe place to do that. Being open to others and not having them judge you and to even take the time to think about whats others believe and consider their point of view is so refreshing. Brian, there is a HUGE difference between something being a non-truth and being a lie – especially in the realm of religion that includes, for ALL of us, incorrect but sincere beliefs. Just because someone says something that is not true does not mean they are lying, no matter the authority claim they use. I’m not willing to call myself a liar just because I believe and teach / claim some things that probably will be shown to be incorrect down the road at some point, and I’m not willing to call you a liar just because I am 100% positive you believe and teach / claim things that are incorrect, as well.
That wouldn’t change in the slightest if either I or you was a prophet – or if either you or I believed we were prophets – or if God actually did talk with either of us about some things but left us to figure out other stuff – or lots of other scenarios I could describe.
To put it differently, are you willing to call your charge that it was a lie another lie if it could be proven that the people who said it really believed it? I don’t believe you are lying in making that charge, and I don’t believe the leadership was lying in any way before they made the change. I believe you and they believe(d) what you and they claim(ed) – but I believe both you and they were incorrect. Again, I believe both statements are incorrect (“non-truth”), not lies – and
I think it is incredibly important to understand and acknowledge the difference. In summary, I understand the core of what you are saying, but I really don’t like using the word “lie” in this case. As I said, it’s only a lie if the people who wrote it and then left it there knew it was incorrect but continued to say it – and I just don’t believe that was the case. I believe they believed it – thus, perpetuating a non-truth but not a lie.
To tie this directly to the point of the OP, if I want the Church to be “open to others” – and if the central point of that is to be open to me and you and those who participate here – I can’t turn around and not be open to others who see things differently than I do – and, especially, I can’t call them liars for believing things that turn out to be “non-truth”.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:(meaning they didn’t realize the church was saying we lost. it was a lie. the nephites didn’t come from Israel.)
The change in the ancestry wording didn’t say any of those three things, especially the “lie” comment. I can make a strong argument against all three of the statements above, despite the change in the wording – since I can make a very good argument that the primary ancestry is Jaredite and not Israelite and since there is plenty of reason to believe that Joseph believed the original wording. The change simply said that the Native American population isn’t “primarily” descended from the Nephites – that the prior assumption was incorrect. The Book of Mormon itself never makes the original claim, so the change says nothing more, in practical terms, than: “Our prior assumption, taught and believed by prophets, was wrong. Our prophets are not infallible and were wrong about the principle ancestry. They extrapolated too much from what’s not in the book itself.”
Seriously, that’s all the change said. Everything else is extrapolation and further assumption – and, to say this directly and not sugar-coat it in any way, it’s important to understand that what I quoted above is exactly the same type of extrapolation as the original wording – an assumption based on perspective that isn’t backed up by the actual wording in the Book of Mormon itself.
Following this thread Ray… again you and I are on the same page.
Best way to explain is this. We have been set up by the church to see it a certain way. That framework at some point fails Ex: prophets are falliable, some supposed Doctrine is actually not, ect… so in an effort to stablize our struggle with this new framework we accidentally go too far the other way. There is a healthy realistivc way to view the church that does not require us to jump through hoops or perform mental gymnastics and still have the church be beautiful and true. But…. and it’s Big but, but we have to want it. And we have to be willing to accept it, and make peace with it, and not look for evil in the church’s leaders but rather allow them to be imperfect. It take effort but worth it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.