- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My wife pulled me aside and told methat Hallstrom gave a good talk. Quoted some teaser phrases like his repeated questions “how can a person who has served a mission be less active? How can a man who has served in high profile positions be less active?” or similar. She also peaked my interest when she said he commented that “The Church is not the gospel”. It sounded like Elder Poelman’s talk from decades ago that was edited and re-recorded or so I thought. For me, there were some good quotes, but they were eclipsed by a highly offensive set of comments. My wife sat looking at me nodding her head with a twinkle in her eye when he answered his own questions about how formerly active members can fall away.
His answer? “They were never committed to the gospel in the first place”.
OUCH!!! As soon as he said that, I completely disengaged. How crass to give a blanket statement like that to cover all people who may have grown dissaffected. And how completely unappreciative and non-cognizant of the fact that there are a lot of flaws in our organization and even the doctrinal gospel that make it hard for people to continue believing in what was originally explained to them in the milk-before-meat missionary discussions.
I was so flabbergasted that my wife was even buying into all this stuff, and felt THAT was what I needed to hear. Frankly, I’m quite comfortable with the fact that I was once highly committed to the pure gospel, and that the imperatives of the Church confused that for me, leading to misplaced priorities, overcommitment, and then burn out as I tried to further the aims of the Church, thinking it would help me live the pure gospel.
So, while Hallstrom’s comment “The Church is not the Gospel” is a true statement, I thought it was deeply offensive that he would asset so confidently that people who grow disaffected were never committed to it or understood it in the first place.
SilentDawning wrote:
His answer? “They were never committed to the gospel in the first place”.OUCH!!! As soon as he said that, I completely disengaged. How crass to give a blanket statement like that to cover all people who may have grown dissaffected. And how completely unappreciative and non-cognizant of the fact that there are a lot of flaws in our organization and even the doctrinal gospel that make it hard for people to continue believing in what was originally explained to them in the milk-before-meat missionary discussions.
I was so flabbergasted that my wife was even buying into all this stuff, and felt THAT was what I needed to hear. Frankly, I’m quite comfortable with the fact that I was once highly committed to the pure gospel, and that the imperatives of the Church confused that for me, leading to misplaced priorities, overcommitment, and then burn out as I tried to further the aims of the Church, thinking it would help me live the pure gospel.
So, while Hallstrom’s comment “The Church is not the Gospel” is a true statement, I thought it was deeply offensive that he would asset so confidently that people who grow disaffected were never committed to it or understood it in the first place.
Wow, I totally agree with you SilentDawning. That is sooooo insulting to me especially since I served in a very difficult mission and taugtht Gospel Doctrine 4 years, Gospel Essentials 4 years, and over 8 years in RS. I was totally committed but came to find out that the church sometimes misrepresented itself itis history and teachings.
While I acknowledge that my comments about Elder Hallstrom are also judgmental, I can’t help but think he should go and study Elder Uchtdorf’s message about judging and “stop it!” To me this is precisely the type of comments that Elder Uchtdorf was trying to address. It’s probably not the best response but if it were me I would want to turn your wife to Elder Uchtdorf’s message.
Which talk are you referring to by Uchdorf Orson? Do you have a title, or a date? Silent D. I believe Orson is referencing Elder Uchtdorf’s talk from this morning. Sorry about your wife. I am the more believing spouse, which gives me a unique position, I hope you don’t mind if I weigh in for a moment. All of us have dreams when we marry and look at our future, just from reading your point of view on her responses to Hallstrom’s talk, it sounds to me like she has broken dream heartache. In my experience whenever a person has broken dream heartache – they all want the other person (organization,etc) to fix it. I know that is an impossible request. You can’t undo what you have, but until she see’s what you see, she will forever want you to get back to her dream. I wish you healing today.
I got a chance to talk to her about it. After I explained my own perspective, she said she saw how it might be offensive. She said it was at least a step in the right direction, that separating the church from the gospel was a good thing. She actually called her Dad about it, and they both agreed that the guy was on the right track, but didn’t go far enough. She thought he should’ve openly said that sometimes the church does stupid things that drive people away (although not in such harsh words) and that the church is really just a bunch of men. Anyway, as far as the dream goes…it’s gonna have to be a different dream. The one the church puts forward just ain’t workin’ for me anymore!
Honestly, I thought it was one bad comment in a talk full of extremely good, important, necessary things to say. If I can be a bit preachy, I think this is a good case of needing to not condemn someone for “sinning” (or, in this case, “believing one thing”) differently than you do – to draw on another wonderful quote from GC. Yes, that statement jarred – but the talk, overall, was wonderful in so many ways.
I think it depends on the lens…the other thing that put me off is that when into the same churchfest I heard in last GC where they go on about how glorious the ORGANIZATION is, with its plethora of meeting houses, thousands of missionaries, members etcetera. But I won’t go down that track; you know how I feel about the individual vs organization argument. I may listen to it again to try glean more good out of it, but those statements amplified in my ears as the things that I remembered the most.
That old expression “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care” seems to apply. When he commented that I was never committed or understanding of the gospel in the first place, writing off many years of service and the equivalent of a mortgage in donations as somehow born out of impure or other wrong motives, it makes it hard to really embrace the rest of his message.
I didn’t hear that talk, so I will go back and read it after, but my first impression is that I think for some people it is the only logical conclusion for them. They are so sure of their testimony they can never imagine not believing anymore. Therefore, to them, it only makes sense that others must not have been committed enough. Now I think John Dehlin’s research will have data to show that is not correct, and data can be our friend to help dispel uninformed opinions. But, drawing from personal experience, people who make such sweeping statements are just revealing what their lens is like, it is about them and their view…it doesn’t necessarily reflect reality – which, I agree with Ray, is believing something different, even if I believe that is wrong. Quote:His answer? “They were never committed to the gospel in the first place”.
OUCH!!! As soon as he said that, I completely disengaged. How crass to give a blanket statement like that to cover all people who may have grown dissaffected. And how completely unappreciative and non-cognizant of the fact that there are a lot of flaws in our organization and even the doctrinal gospel that make it hard for people to continue believing in what was originally explained to them in the milk-before-meat missionary discussions.
It’s an easy get out clause, doesn’t explain how people and lives change.
One thing I’ve learned over the years is to rarely ever make uncategorical statements. The world is too diverse. There is always an exception. You get yourself into hot water all the time. I was negatively affected toward the end of that talk he laid the blame for boring sacrament meeting services on the members by saying that someone once asked SWK what he does when he finds himself at a boring sacrament meeting. The response: “I don’t know, I’ve never been to one”. Leaving us to infer that if we are bored that we must not be as spiritually in tune as SWK. Sounds like the brethren know that the services are boring but instead of making real changes to fix the problem they are going to continue to try and guilt everyone into enduring it.
Fwiw, I actually agree that if I am bored at church it’s my fault – because I have a brain and the ability to prepare for boring meetings by bringing a book or something else to do or, if that isn’t an option (like if I’m on the stand), tuning out the speaker / lesson and composing my own talk or lesson in my head. I think it’s interesting that he didn’t say it’s our fault if the meeting is boring. He said it’s our fault if we are bored in the meeting – and, as I said, I haven’t been bored in a meeting for a long, long time, since I know how to keep myself from bored by the boring. I entertain myself.
Iow, I’m an agent unto myself, so I choose to act (entertain myself) rather than be acted upon (sit there and be bored). I like being in control in that way, so I don’t want to sit there, be bored and blame others for it.
But Ray, if the quality of the meeting is so low that you have to bring something else to do, then what is the point of being there beyond taking the sacrament for decades upon decades? Just curious. I agree fully with the previous comment which again, blames the members if they aren’t getting kicks out of the meeting, while as a Church, we do little to do everything in our power to make it good.
SilentDawning wrote:But Ray, if the quality of the meeting is so low that you have to bring something else to do, then what is the point of being there beyond taking the sacrament for decades upon decades? Just curious.
I’ll share my opinion. To be honest, I don’t think taking the sacrament every single week is justification to go every week. I’m just trying to say, I don’t go because I have to take the sacrament. I go for the church experience.When the meeting is boring, I usually have some other reading material to get me through that meeting. But, there are several things going on, several meetings, several plans, and several groups of people, and several classes my family needs to go to.
So, one boring meeting can be endured, then I try again in SS, and again in Priesthood. I try in the hallways to talk to people. I try to take the sacrament serious. I try to listen to hymns and scriptures and prayers. Sometimes I have thoughts of things I should do during the week to serve someone or call my mom, sometimes I ask my kids what they learn and discuss it afterwards. I try to doodle with my son and make him laugh. I try to scratch my daughters back and write her notes of how beautiful she is.
I guess I’m saying it is not about the meeting, or the talk, or the sacrament. It is those things and all the other things that add to the experience. Reading through the “Church today, return and report” thread, it is a mixed bag mostly, with good and bad parts to the church experience.
And sometimes I skip, and enjoy that too. But when I go, I see it as the whole experience. Not just a lesson or testimony or talk…those are sometimes boring, but I can focus on the other elements of the experience too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.