- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hmmmm….. http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=11321 Churches grow (or survive) not because of doctrine.
I think StayLDS.com would agree w/ this. No?
Thanks for this John. I agree with the concept that most people join a “church” for community. He said: “Instead, Stark shows us the things that early Christians did to make the church more welcoming to strangers. We can’t give people the witness of the Holy Ghost, but we can encourage them to become part of our lives, we can serve them and allow them to serve alongside us. We can:
“Mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and … stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things” (Mosiah 18:9).”
To me, and in my missionary experience, I see that “we” don’t “convert” those looking for a church that answers the basic purpose of life questions. Typically, they are people that want friends, support, community, etc….the doctrine is secondary. The “conversion,” (the emotional or spiritual change) comes with time and effort, IMHO.
I have long believed the conversion is a spiritual thing…people don’t need to know a lot about the doctrine to “feel” this is something that they should do or be a part of or that draws them to want to be a part of. Clearly, early in the organization of the restored church, the doctrine was still being crystallized and still being understood, but people were joining the movement. I think that is a witness of the spirit in the church. However, doctrine plays a role. Once someone joins the church, the doctrine and further seeking doctrine keeps one growing in the church…as they are nourished by the good word of God. If the doctrine was faulty or scant or shallow…people would not stay, and the image of the church would be reduced to a wild splinter group of christianity, not a legitimate religion, and would likely fade out before others would have a chance to join and keep it growing.
I think the fact the church has become such a global religion and sustained growth (despite people falling away each year) is because of doctrine that was formalized and more developed by inspired men like Talmadge and others.
Initial conversion may not be based on doctrine, but sustained growth and legitimacy is definitely rooted in solid doctrine.
So I do not necessarily agree with Card.
From my more recent perspective shift, I think it’s more important for a Church to be good and effective than the need for it to be true. A true church that doesn’t deliver … well, what’s the point?
I can’t think of a single church that is actually true, not in the sense we moderns so desperately demand these days of “truth.”
“Zion” is an inter-personal concept, as is “charity”. “Church” is an organizational concept that should but doesn’t always lead to a charitable Zion.
In this mortal world, BOTH the theology and the organization are necessary, imo, to provide real individual AND communal growth.
The key, imo, is to provide a theology that encourages the principles to permeate the organization – or, at least, to be widespread enough so that the roots are strong enough to survive regular and vigorous pruning. Balance is one of the most difficult aspects of mortality – which is why extremism on either end of any issue is so common and attractive.
Honestly, at the meta-level, I’ve not found any theology or organization that balances these competing forces as well as Mormonism and the LDS Church – despite its obviously existent, and sometimes egregious, flaws.
So, I agree with the title – while I disagree with it. Anyone surprised?
😆 Old-Timer wrote:So, I agree with the title – while I disagree with it. Anyone surprised?
😆 Love it! Classic Ray!
I didn’t read the book that the article was based on but it did strike me that OSC didn’t mention what seems to me as glaringly obvious. Every major religion of the world has an individual(real or created) who is deemed to have had the power to invoke “God” and many believers converged on that individual both spiritually and, often, literally (zionism).
Catholicism- Christ
Islam – Mohammed
Jew – Moses
Hindu – Krishna
Buddhism – Buddha
Mormon – Joseph Smith
etc.
All of these individual stories are variations of the “living man” communing with “God”, and, at death or expiration, being lifted up to the heavens.
I think that this phenomenon is, by far, the biggest factor of growth in an individual religion/etymology. Coupled with the desire to create community amongst the faithful believers of the individual “man/God”, often as protection/preservation.
Face it, humans want to be right, know the “way”. If they can convince themselves that they’ve found it, they’re going to hang with others who believe the same and they’ll all self-reinforce the paradigm.
(pardon the cynicism
😳 )swimordie wrote:
Catholicism- Christ
I get your point, but just wanted to split hairs when I saw this.
I wouldn’t personally say that Catholicism was founded by Christ. I think it would be more like:
Catholicism- Emperor Constantine, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius … and perhaps as a stretch Paul of Damascus.
But I don’t want to throw us off topic.
Valoel wrote:swimordie wrote:
Catholicism- Christ
I wouldn’t personally say that Catholicism was founded by Christ. I think it would be more like:
Catholicism- Emperor Constantine, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius … and perhaps as a stretch Paul of Damascus.
I agree.
A step further, I would say the the real Jesus is only partially taught in the Bible. He taught love and forgiveness — we need nothing more.
I really appreciated this article, and it’s consistent with my view on the whole. We are followers of Christ, each of us having to eke out our own path on the way. We’re all just figuring it out. Somehow, it has gotten jumbled into a rigid hierarchical membership club with rules rather than a more flexible social organism that breathes and grows and changes naturally. But both of those elements are there. I think you can view it the second way and get what you need from it while obeying the rules set by those who see the organization as the first description. It’s a win-win. I appreciate the remarks by hawkgrrl about the hierarchy. I think the feeling that we need rigidity in our leadership gets in the way. What we really need is the leadership of the Holy Spirit and application of this in our leaders. My perspective as a convert is at times surprised and disappointed in the rigid adherence to cultural mandates rather than the Spirit. When you read accounts at the beginning of the church, people were much different in meetings that they are now. Quote:Quote:hawkgrrrl wrote:I really appreciated this article, and it’s consistent with my view on the whole. We are followers of Christ, each of us having to eke out our own path on the way. We’re all just figuring it out. Somehow, it has gotten jumbled into a rigid hierarchical membership club with rules rather than a more flexible social organism that breathes and grows and changes naturally. But both of those elements are there. I think you can view it the second way and get what you need from it while obeying the rules set by those who see the organization as the first description. It’s a win-win.
Could you elaborate further on this, specifically: “I think you can view it the second way and get what you need from it while obeying the rules set by those who see the organization as the first description. It’s a win-win.” ?The older I get, the more I view the church as a commonly held (socially supported) worldview, but that social structure is the power of the organization in many ways. A social organism is made for man, by man (even if made with inspiration). It changes as its members change. It has a natural existence and constantly reinvents itself. Its structure is flexible, not imposed, not restrictive to its members in significant ways. It provides a support structure for individual growth (e.g. lay clergy), but still retains flexibility. There are those within the church who are more interested in imposing order and structure than in allowing for flexibility or organic change. They tend to create rules like you have to wear one earring, a white shirt to pass sacrament, men shave their faces, etc. While I find those things irritating in their exactitude, complying carries little or no cost and smoothes relationships with those prickly types. Since the relationships are valuable, the compliance is a win for me. And since I can keep my knickers twist-free in the process, I can contribute to the organization because I get the flexibility I value.
Does that elaboration help or make it more difficult to see my view?
Morzen – here are some thoughts on your comments. Quote:You are suggesting a duality while I think in terms of the church being more of a dichotomy. I used to think more in terms of the church’s dual role of being, one: The Church of Jesus Christ, and two: The Church of the Latter-day Saints, hence, The Church *of* Jesus Christ *of* Latter-day Saints. But “the older *I* get” I see these two “churches” more now at odds with each other, hence as dichotomous rather than two sides of the same coin (a duality).
Personally, I think there’s no such thing as a “church” that isn’t really just an organization of people. So, I don’t really see either a duality or a dichotomy. Just different people with different personalities, and within that group you have relationships with individuals. Jesus didn’t really form a church from what I see – his followers did. So, while I can appreciate on some level the BOM concept of “two churches” – one of Jesus, one of the devil – those are just descriptions of people, not of an actual organization. Unless I’m missing out on the meeting invites.
Quote:You stated, “There are those within the church who are more interested in imposing order and structure than in allowing for flexibility or organic change.” Okay, of course there are, but who specifically are these “within the church?” If you are inferring that the local, oft’ times yahoo leadership like some bishops or SPs, are the “those within the church,” then fine, I can cope with these types of people (most of the time!),
Certainly there are people like this at the local level. This is the most practical problem – dealing with these types of people, for two reasons, in my book: 1) prickly types are simply not as lovable (I realize Jesus is reputed to have said we “should love them that hate you and do good unto them that despitefully use you”), and 2) I worry that in complying with their silliness I am encouraging them and they won’t change. But in reality #2 is me trying to control them to be the way I want them to be just like they are trying to control everyone else. So it’s not exactly selfless and noble, even though it often feels justifiable to me. I have to think there’s some personal growth value in learning to let go of the need to control people and/or be bugged by their bugginess.
Quote:but what if they are the “Brethren” — the “prophets, seers and revelators” — the “whether it be by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same” people (“those within the church”) fostering and promulgating, even demanding Pharisaic, etc, compliance? That, then, becomes a whole different issue for me and is quite problematic. To be sure, it’s not “win-win.”
Well, two thoughts: 1) some of the brethren doubtless ARE like this, although certainly not all (there’s some tempering of this trait because they have to be unanimous on major things), and 2) the brethren may be able to create a rigid hierarchical structure, but the organic flexible side of the organization still exists, like a moss growing on a building. Be the moss!
Quote:“You can get what you need from it” you state, but I don’t “get” neither can I “give” anything any more to or in the LDS church. If *you* can, then I am sincerely happy for you, but that is not the case with me any longer.
I’m sorry if that’s the case. It has been that way for me in the past at times, too, so I totally understand. Hopefully you can find a path that works for you.
Quote:I suppose when the “truthfulness” of the gospel started to become increasingly suspect in tandem with all of those “prickly types,” that’s when I started feeling like I was losing, i.e., not gaining anything to feed me spiritually, physically, mentally, or socially (try having even a mildly cogent, friendly conversation about your non-orthodox personal cosmic, esoteric, sociological, church history, etc views with someone at church and see what happens!).
Well, there are certainly some people not worth having a relationship or conversation with at church as elsewhere. IOW, on an individual relationship level, some relationships don’t have a good CBA. As to not gaining anything to feed me spiritually, physically, mentally, or socially (that’s a long list!), two thoughts: 1) the older I get, the less I am able to find a single source for all these things outside of myself, and 2) the older I get the easier it is to find these things for myself without any organizational assistance. But I grant you, some days are tougher than others, some people are difficult, some wards are worse, etc. Ultimately, you have to figure out how to make things work for you. In the meantime, glad to have you here!
We are studying about the City of Enoch and this seemed to be an appropriate thread to use a starting point.
Rix wrote:
“Instead, Stark shows us the things that early Christians did to make the church more welcoming to strangers. We can’t give people the witness of the Holy Ghost, but we can encourage them to become part of our lives, we can serve them and allow them to serve alongside us.
I like this and can relate to it.
Old Timer wrote:
“Zion” is an inter-personal concept, as is “charity”.“Church” is an organizational concept that should but doesn’t always lead to a charitable Zion.
To me, the problem that organizations and individuals face is one of expectations and individual needs.
Some of this plays out in different personality types (some people “need” rules or security, while others “need” innovation and meaningful risk), socio-economic factors (it is always easier and cheaper to treat everyone the same and get the mass discounts) vs spending the resources to get what each individual needs as well as keeping the organization alive.
Quote:Moses 7:18
““And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.”
I think that the first definition of “poor” referenced in this scripture is “lacking physical items” – but I am not sure that that is the only interpretation that can be used here. I think that part of a solid definition of “poor” is “poor in support”. I think that additional connotations will come to my mind as I get older (and forget them).
Old Timer wrote:
In this mortal world, BOTH the theology and the organization are necessary, imo, to provide real individual AND communal growth.The key, imo, is to provide a theology that encourages the principles to permeate the organization – or, at least, to be widespread enough so that the roots are strong enough to survive regular and vigorous pruning. Balance is one of the most difficult aspects of mortality – which is why extremism on either end of any issue is so common and attractive.
Honestly, at the meta-level, I’ve not found any theology or organization that balances these competing forces as well as Mormonism and the LDS Church – despite its obviously existent, and sometimes egregious, flaws.
How are you creating “Zion” in your area – both as an interpersonal concept and as an organizational concept?
Quote:“Instead, Stark shows us the things that early Christians did to make the church more welcoming to strangers. We can’t give people the witness of the Holy Ghost, but we can encourage them to become part of our lives, we can serve them and allow them to serve alongside us.
At another church where we participate the Pastor said that they strive to create an environment where people would want to be even if they did not initially buy into all the doctrinal stances.
This struck me as the antithesis of the LDS approach where we expect people to endure the environment and all sorts of onerous duty requirements for the sake of their convictions in the rightness of the doctrine.
We can be really hard on our converts. It is no surprise to me that unless a convert has close family or friend ties (emotional and social support) to the church the likelihood of going inactive is high.
It is also my observation that in society in general emphasis on dogma and “doing church” (the idea of hanging out with other people dressed in your Sunday best patting your self on the back for how righteous you are) are falling out of favor. Among the young people, the underlying assumption of the JS story that God would preserve a single church in doctrinal purity and truth seems to be less and less important/relevant.
Roy wrote:
At another church where we participate the Pastor said that they strive to create an environment where people would want to be even if they did not initially buy into all the doctrinal stances.This struck me as the antithesis of the LDS approach where we expect people to endure the environment and all sorts of onerous duty requirements for the sake of their convictions in the rightness of the doctrine.
I agree.
Roy wrote:
It is also my observation that in society in general emphasis on dogma and “doing church” (the idea of hanging out with other people dressed in your Sunday best patting your self on the back for how righteous you are) are falling out of favor. Among the young people, the underlying assumption of the JS story that God would preserve a single church in doctrinal purity and truth seems to be less and less important/relevant.
I think the concept of “doing church” is crashing down for several reasons:
a)
Conformity is not an end goal anymore in general social interactions. Due to the increase in transparency, authenticity, and accepting diversity, the “One size fits all” model fits less than it used to, so why bother. b)
Society is switching myths and/or parsing myths to death by deconstructing them into the component parts. We see this in the reports of less people going to church in general, increasing acceptance of other narratives, and the whole science/religion disconnect. c)
Splitting of spiritual from cultural/tribal/social support. When you have the power to choose members of your tribe independent of physical location constraints, you might not devote resources to “doing church”, and can afford this choice in terms of quality of life.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.