OK, I’ll try to listen with an open mind

[Anonymous]

Still listening…dug this article up where GBH explains the role of businesses and the Church:

http://lds.org/ensign/1999/11/why-we-do-some-of-the-things-we-do?lang=eng

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

dug this article up where GBH explains the role of businesses and the Church

So in summary, GBH gives the following reasons for semi-questionable church activities: Doctrine, History, Pragmatism, and Moral directive. A specific activity may have root causes in one or more of these.

[Anonymous]

I apologize in advance for how trite my response is going to sound but here it is anyway….

1. The church is an imperfect institution run by imperfect people in a very imperfect world

and

2. The way we measure institutional success in this world is often inconsistent with the principles of the gospel.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

1. The church is an imperfect institution run by imperfect people in a very imperfect world

and

2. The way we measure institutional success in this world is often inconsistent with the principles of the gospel.

Very well said.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

SD, for me it isn’t any more complicated than:

Quote:

“Thou hast the words of eternal life. Where else should I go?” (or whatever the exact quote is)

I have lots of issues with the way many things are presented and taught, especially at the local level in lots of places but also from the top. However, when it comes right down to it, I absolutely LOVE “pure Mormonism” (as I see it) – and my life has been enriched greatly over the years in multiple ways as a result of my membership and activity.

Ray, you so perfectly expressed how I feel. “Pure Mormonism” is beautiful. I totally embrace it. It’s the policies and the politics that drive me up a wall. And when I’m criticized for criticizing the policies and the politics, I just want to just give up and throw in the towel. But then I think, “Where else should I go?” There isn’t anywhere else for me.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

1. The church is an imperfect institution run by imperfect people in a very imperfect world

and

2. The way we measure institutional success in this world is often inconsistent with the principles of the gospel.

Very well said.

What?

That doesn’t make sense in the context of this thread. Of course what you say is true IMO, but it doesn’t address the issue really.

Quote:

…I have isolated this belief I have that the Church should somehow be different than other organizations due to its divine commission — and on the dimensions I’ve listed above. I find this tends to drive many of my other beliefs.

Think about it — you change this belief, and then, all the other things that bother me about the Church take on a whole new dimension. So, I’m sincere when I say I’m open to reasons why I should NOT view the Church as a corporation that is not much different than other corporations out there. I’m all ears to those who can see valid reasons.

So if everything you say M&G is true – which I agree is correct, than “why I should NOT view the Church as a corporation that is not much different than other corporations out there?” I mean, it’s a fair question that SD asked, if the church is divinely inspired and god is personally leading the “kingdom of god” on earth through his prophets, than shouldn’t it be different than other organizations due to it’s divine commission?

[Anonymous]

Yes, it should, in theory – and, frankly, I think it does in more ways than it doesn’t. It’s just that the areas where it doesn’t are so glaring that it’s easy to miss the ways it does – and, especially for those who have never experienced anything different, the areas where it does tend to be taken for granted much more than most people who struggle realize.

In theory, also, there wouldn’t be a need for a corporate entity that gets entangled with the religious entity – but I don’t think having a corporate entity automatically is a bad thing. It’s just a very tricky, often messy thing.

Hence:

Quote:

1. The church is an imperfect institution run by imperfect people in a very imperfect world (which gets in the way of the theoretically ideal).

and

2. The way we measure institutional success in this world is often inconsistent with the principles of the gospel (which, when coupled with #1, causes a further disconnect from the theoretical ideal).

Hence:

Perhaps we “should” expect more from the Church than it can give in reality – but I really don’t like “should” in most cases, since it ignores reality, raises unrealistic expexctations and sets everyone up for failure and disappointment. “Should” is the real enemy of good, since “should” is never satisfied and never recognizes the good in “is”.

Ironically for this forum, “should” is just our way of saying what we don’t like when others say it about us – since, really, most of their concerns deal directly with what they think and believe we “should” think and believe and do.

[Anonymous]

Okay – I can live with that Ray. Much less of an apologetic approach to the issue, IMO.

I kind of get bristled up when I hear the apologetic lingo that the “the church is true but the people aren’t” BS and the “church is ran by imperfect people, and they are just men.” When in the next argument they pull out the whole 14Fs and what not, and the prophets will never lead us astray, and we should listen and obey and follow the prophet even if it makes no sense etc etc. and then come back and say that they are only prophets when they speak as a prophet and sometimes they speak as men……. Stupid and dangerous vicious circle IMO. Not saying that you or M&G did/do that – but if it starts sounding that way, I’m calling foul – I don’t care who it is, because really, I can get that kind of dogma and discussion at church.

[Anonymous]

I dunno….the should’s were a result of the claims the Church made, and which I believed when I was a new convert. Perhaps being an INFJ I was too idealistic at the time, and I believed the whole divine commission thing from the outset, and assumed the Church as an organization would somehow be better or different than what I was used to seeing in the world. And so, when the SP told me (harshly) to stay home due to lack of funds, when the prophet had said “Every worthy young man should serve a mission”, this created a huge gap for me. Do we really believe in the power of faith? That Alma baptized 200 people in the waters of Mormon? In miracles? In following the words of latter-day prophets?

This was where it started for me…..and then, when I was to leave on my mission and be set apart at after a priesthood meeting two years later (after a rather miraculous set of events in which I got out of debt and had enough to fund my whole mission within 2 years of my SP turfing me out of his office), this SP asked two other people leaving on missions to bear their testimony.

I remember him looking at myself and thinking — but then, he never called my name — the other two — they spoke. And my story was perhaps the most inspiring in terms of making sacrifices to serve. This also seared my memory as a young adult.

It was that experience that I have trouble reconciling. It was the first time I saw the temporal concerns of the Church, and its divine claims juxtaposed — and the temporal side won. I appreciate these arguments though. However, I feel frustrated with the argument that there is no where else to go…

I have submerged/dealt with this a few times in my life, and seem to have forgiven the man who did it. However, when I see further evidence of this tendency for temporal matters to trump the spiritual, this memory comes back in full-force. And I see patterns over and over again. For me, the only way I can see to deal with this is to somehow convince myself his behavior was OK. By the way, he went on to be a regional representative.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I dunno….the should’s were a result of the claims the Church made, and which I believed when I was a new convert. Perhaps being an INFJ I was too idealistic at the time, and I believed the whole divine commission thing from the outset, and assumed the Church as an organization would somehow be better or different than what I was used to seeing in the world…

Yes. This is my weakness as well. The church, ANY church for that matter, or even political parties or civic groups etc., are going to disappoint the idealists and the rationalist. I don’t really see any way around that. Really it’s not a matter of if the NFs and NTs have a faith crisis, it’s a matter of when.

[Anonymous]

Katzpur wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

SD, for me it isn’t any more complicated than:

Quote:

“Thou hast the words of eternal life. Where else should I go?” (or whatever the exact quote is)

I have lots of issues with the way many things are presented and taught, especially at the local level in lots of places but also from the top. However, when it comes right down to it, I absolutely LOVE “pure Mormonism” (as I see it) – and my life has been enriched greatly over the years in multiple ways as a result of my membership and activity.

Ray, you so perfectly expressed how I feel. “Pure Mormonism” is beautiful. I totally embrace it. It’s the policies and the politics that drive me up a wall. And when I’m criticized for criticizing the policies and the politics, I just want to just give up and throw in the towel. But then I think, “Where else should I go?” There isn’t anywhere else for me.

Amen and amen.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Still listening…dug this article up where GBH explains the role of businesses and the Church:

http://lds.org/ensign/1999/11/why-we-do-some-of-the-things-we-do?lang=eng

To me, these answers given by Gordon B. Hinckley mostly confirm my suspicion that one of the main reasons they don’t want to make any significant reforms is simply because they think they are already right and have been mostly ignoring or denying some of the growing problems with their current course of action. It almost looks like they have never seriously considered the possibility that they could actually be wrong about some of these things they act so sure about. I can’t believe how misguided, unfounded, and dogmatic some of these comments sound to me now:

Gordon B. Hinckley wrote:

…We have a few business interests. Not many…We have a real estate arm designed primarily to ensure the viability and the attractiveness of properties surrounding Temple Square…we maintain gardens the equal of any in the world…Are these businesses operated for profit? Of course they are. They operate in a competitive world…we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so…Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage…God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years…This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality…we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

Boys…live worthy of the priesthood you hold. Never do anything that will make you unworthy…Stay away from pornography. It too will destroy you. It will cloud your minds with evil…Avoid alcohol as you would a loathsome disease. Beer will do to you what hard liquor will do…Shun immorality…It will destroy your self-respect…and make you unworthy of the companionship of lovely young women…As our history has amply demonstrated, it is not a cause of ease nor a work without effort, even sacrifice. We shall go on pursuing the path which the Lord has marked out before us. We shall try to be strong and faint not as we pursue those programs and practices which have been established and maintained through generations of time.

I guess my question is why don’t I feel “destroyed” in the least? Could it be that it was actually the Church that was destroying me with exaggerated guilt-trips and once I let go of these unrealistic expectations it turned out that none of this was really that important? Personally, I think paying 10% of your gross income as tithing is actually more likely to destroy people than some of the things he mentioned but we can’t ever question that because it’s always about what is convenient for the Church not what is best for individual members.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Okay – I can live with that Ray. Much less of an apologetic approach to the issue, IMO.

I kind of get bristled up when I hear the apologetic lingo that the “the church is true but the people aren’t” BS and the “church is ran by imperfect people, and they are just men.” When in the next argument they pull out the whole 14Fs and what not, and the prophets will never lead us astray, and we should listen and obey and follow the prophet even if it makes no sense etc etc. and then come back and say that they are only prophets when they speak as a prophet and sometimes they speak as men……. Stupid and dangerous vicious circle IMO. Not saying that you or M&G did/do that – but if it starts sounding that way, I’m calling foul – I don’t care who it is, because really, I can get that kind of dogma and discussion at church.

Actually, I don’t believe “the church” is “true”. I believe “the church” is an institution organized and run by men based on some divine principles. As such, it’s merely a microcosm of the larger body of saints with all the flaws, ineptitude, mismanagement, pride, and blatant sinfulness found in all of us. The checks placed upon our fallen natures are only as good as our willingness and capacity to abide by them. I’m sure we can all list countless occasions where someone failed to live up to the ideal but that’s just part of the process of progression, individually and institutionally.

I actually agree with you about the common interpretation of the perfect church/imperfect people notion. This is a double edged philosophical sword. You can’t claim prophetic inerrancy while also refusing to hold church leaders accountable for the systemic flaws in the institution. But many people in the church seem to take this approach, parsing every word uttered by a church leader until it becomes meaingless in an effort to remove any implication of human frailty, contradiction, or error. Likewise, folks will rewrite and reinterpret scripture to justify modern practices in the church that simply aren’t supportable with the Standard Works.

As for me, I’ve long since abandoned the insecurity driven need to create a perfect church with flawless leaders. I see our imperfections as evidence that we are a work in progress. And I’m okay with that.

[Anonymous]

DA – you make me laugh.

Is it just me, or do we all seem to be little bit more pissy than normal the last week or two?

[Anonymous]

mercyngrace wrote:

I actually agree with you about the common interpretation of the perfect church/imperfect people notion. This is a double edged philosophical sword. You can’t claim prophetic inerrancy while also refusing to hold church leaders accountable for the systemic flaws in the institution. But many people in the church seem to take this approach, parsing every word uttered by a church leader until it becomes meaingless in an effort to remove any implication of human frailty, contradiction, or error. Likewise, folks will rewrite and reinterpret scripture to justify modern practices in the church that simply aren’t supportable with the Standard Works.

Now that is well said.

[Author]

Posts