- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I honestly think you underestimate the top leadership, DA. I doubt any of them are in denial the way you describe. Also, and this is incredibly important to consider, they actually have done MUCH of what you say they aren’t doing in your second paragraph.The recent CHI training addressed almost everything on your list. I think it’s brutally hard to preach to and lead a very diverse, multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-just-about-everything-al, multi-million member organization and not preach what the vast majority need.
Yes, I believe this leads to a degree of extremism and conservatism that isn’t totally healthy – and, yes, I believe there are lots of things that need to be pruned from the trees of the vineyard – and, yes, I believe they gloss over lots of things that could cause anxiety and heartburn for many if broadcast openly – and, yes,
ad infinitum. I just don’t think they are acting in ignorance or blindness or denial at all – and I believe they are very sincere in their effort to broaden the tent right now and move away from the most conservative, restrictive positions that became entrenched a few decades ago. That message has been taught by at least one apostle (and sometimes more than one) in every General Conference for at least the past three to five years – off the top of my head without looking it up. Old-Timer wrote:…and I believe they are very sincere in their effort to broaden the tent right now and move away from the most conservative, restrictive positions that became entrenched a few decades ago.
Well, I sure hope so. I guess we will just have to be patient and see if the one or two GA who are preaching it are able to “hold the fort” against all the ones who are still hanging on to the 80’s mentality, as was illustrated so obviously by Pacer, Oaks and the two “14 fundamental point of the prophet” speeches last month at conference.
Has anyone encountered those messages at church in the last five weeks since GC? I have not
yet?Old-Timer wrote:I think it’s brutally hard to preach to and leada very diverse, multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-just-about-everything-al, multi-million member organization and not preach what the vast majority need.
I don’t know about this idea. Sure some TBMs could become depressed and have a hard time adjusting if their testimony was suddenly shattered by the Church changing too fast or disclosing too much inside information all at once. However, I don’t agree that what the Church is preaching now is anywhere near what the “vast majority need.” I can appreciate faith-based beliefs that are relatively difficult or impossible to refute and that are also mostly positive or at least do little or no harm compared to the alternatives. However, I don’t believe this is really the case at all with the nearly infallible prophet myth and all the heavy demands justified primarily by this assumption.
I just don’t believe that perpetuating a few myths like this is going to be good for the Church or its members over the long run. Look at the results in some of the worst cases. Basically, we are starting to end up with people that did everything they were told to like going on missions, getting married in the temple, paying tithing, attending all the meetings, fulfilling callings, etc. only to stumble onto some anti-Mormon propaganda and then be left feeling betrayed and bitter about the Church to the point that they want to actively try to expose the “truth” about it to others.
Some might try to argue that if many members are happy with the Church their entire lives then that far outweighs the dissatisfaction of a few that are very unhappy with it. The problem I have with this idea is that even if some members are happy with the Church themselves what happens when their children or grand children run into some of the same problems that their parents avoided? Now if you start to mix TBMs with “apostates” in increasing numbers the result will inevitably be many misunderstandings that will wreak all kinds of havoc. It is already starting to happen and I think this kind of thing will only increase in the future as long as the Church culture and doctrines remain similar to the way they are now. That’s one of the main reasons I think the Church should soften some of their dogmatic claims and try to morph into a kinder gentler Church if they are really serious about calling themselves Christians. These policies just aren’t going to work very well in the current environment nearly as much as they did in the past.
Old-Timer wrote:I honestly think
you underestimate the top leadership, DA. I doubt any of them are in denial the way you describe.Also, and this is incredibly important to consider, they actually have done MUCH of what you say they aren’t doing in your second paragraph. Yes, I believe this leads to a degree of extremism and conservatism that isn’t totally healthy – and, yes, I believe there are lots of things that need to be pruned from the trees of the vineyard – and, yes, I believe they gloss over lots of things…
I just don’t think they are acting in ignorance or blindness or denial at all– and I believe they are very sincere in their effort to broaden the tent right now and move away from the most conservative, restrictive positions that became entrenched a few decades ago. When I say that I think the top Church leaders are either ignorant of some of these problems or else they are in denial I didn’t mean it as an insult. I suspect this is the case mostly because this was my own initial reaction to some of the contradictory evidence and inconsistencies in the Church’s story that started piling up. The general idea was that if anti-Mormon propaganda and doubting the Church made me feel bad then I assumed that this was an indication that this was evil and best to avoid whereas if believing in the Church made me feel better then that was supposedly an indication that it was good to believe in and approved by God.
I see the Church typically encouraging this kind of thinking from a young age so I don’t know why it would be unheard of for the prophets and apostles to think this way too especially given their family ties in many cases and the amount of time they have already invested in supporting the Church. Now I look at the discomfort in facing some of these facts simply as cognitive dissonance and fear of the consequences and implications compounded by the typical all-or-nothing mindset prevalent among Church members. For many longtime Church members it can very painful to come to terms with the possibility that maybe the Church isn’t everything that it claims to be so sometimes it feels better to just not worry about it and hope for the best.
That’s why, from my point-of-view, thinking Church leaders are either ignorant of these problems or in denial is actually the most charitable opinion that I feel like I can really have toward them because it’s basically the same as assuming that they do what they do because they don’t really know any better and are sincerely trying to do the best they can under the circumstances. It would actually be worse in my opinion to think they really understand both sides of the story but continue to preach so much about things like obedience to prophets, “one trueness”, temple worthiness, etc. in such an absolute and unequivocal way because in that case they would have to be either extremely zealous and stubborn apologists or deliberately deceitful “pious” liars more than any kind of wise and competent leaders I would ever trust to solve problems.
I get that, DA – and I certainly can respect it. I agree with you DA, 99% at least, and I share in the frustration. I guess I still believe that the leaders are well aware of what is going on, but choose to build the church to the needs of the 85% and are willing to accept the loss of guys like me and you as necessary collateral damage and, at least in their minds, we are “expendable” if that is what it takes to keep the masses are “safe” and “happy.” DevilsAdvocate wrote:That’s why, from my point-of-view, thinking Church leaders are either ignorant of these problems or in denial is actually the most charitable opinion that I feel like I can really have toward them because it’s basically the same as assuming that they do what they do because they don’t really know any better and are sincerely trying to do the best they can under the circumstances. It would actually be worse in my opinion to think they really understand both sides of the story but continue to preach so much about things like obedience to prophets, “one trueness”, temple worthiness, etc. in such an absolute and unequivocal way because in that case they would have to be either extremely zealous and stubborn apologists or deliberately deceitful “pious” liars more than any kind of wise and competent leaders I would ever trust to solve problems.
Hmmm? This thought is interesting to me and I will have to think about it. I’m not sure if I want to be right, or want you to be right.
cwald wrote:Has anyone encountered those messages at church in the last five weeks since GC? I have not
yet?We had the controversial Packer talk as the subject in EQ several weeks ago. We watched the talk on the teacher’s laptop and followed along with the printed version. The EQP introduced it as having been controversial and “in the news.” I helped whip up a really excellent discussion by commenting briefly about why it was controversial, including the differences between the print and spoken version.
BTW, our GD teacher (who is a really sharp guy and awesome teacher) had an excellent response to the controversy between the spoken and printed BKP talk. He pointed out that the talks HAVE to be written in advance and reviewed. So … the timing of the printed Ensign talk just makes it look like it was edited post-conference to soften the wording. His argument was that Packer deviated from the real talk when he made some of the controversial statements (the print / teleprompter version being the “correct” one). It was a good “apologetic” response. I have to admit. It doesn’t avoid the fact that he said those things, but it does provide a softer answer to the editing conspiracy type of accusation.
I almost wonder if they AREN’T using the 14 Fundamentals talk in EQ because of some sense that I might be there to comment on it. It’s probably totally paranoid … but every once in a while, I wonder if some folks in my ward are aware of my online presence. I don’t know really, but it’s a weird vibe. I have been going to a ward sort of on a temporary-basis this year because of my work / travel.
I want to respond point by point to all these great comments…. Brian, I read an article quoting the official Church response on the Packer thing, and it said that it is standard practice for those who give conference talks to look over what they have before it is printed in the Ensign, to confirm that what they said matches up with “what they really meant.”
Brian Johnston wrote:cwald wrote:Has anyone encountered those messages at church in the last five weeks since GC? I have not
yet?We had the controversial Packer talk as the subject in EQ several weeks ago. We watched the talk on the teacher’s laptop and followed along with the printed version. The EQP introduced it as having been controversial and “in the news.” I helped whip up a really excellent discussion by commenting briefly about why it was controversial, including the differences between the print and spoken version.
I was proactive and picked out the talks we were going to cover in PM/RS – and then just had the BP approve them. The BP hadn’t read them yet, and I don’t think he caught all of GC. He made one change (insisted on the Bedard talk) and rubber stamped my list. Hopefully this will keep me out of trouble for the next 5 months. I’m not sure how I will handle it if/WHEN the the 14 fundamentals, BKP immorality, and the two communication lines talks are propagated in the branch. Hopefully it will all just go away.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.