RE: Elder Cook’s talk-Can Ye Feel so Now?

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

What I have a problem with is them trying to connect and correlate loss of commitment and faith with the general idea that these less faithful members must have done something wrong such as being sexual perverts, wife beaters, etc. To me this looks like it is mostly just a smokescreen to distract from and avoid facing the real issues.

I can really see this and agree with you DA. I’ve gone back and reread the talk, and there seems to be no doubt the majority of people hearing that talk will take that message from it.

Brian Johnston wrote:

This one paragraph seems highly targeted to people like us. So yes, I think this part of the talk is irritating…

Ya…I see this too.

I still go back to a feeling that the talk just didn’t inspire me, so I don’t think much about it and move on. But by reading some comments here in our forum, I am inclined to go back and reread it to see what it is really saying…and I do feel it is frustrating and unfair IMO.

I ask myself, what is the message about and how does it apply to me? I can only see it as a call to repentance towards those who are not 100% committed to the Church, to try to help the body of the Church become stronger and more united. It just feels like it is falling short on presenting some compelling reason as to “Why?” or “What is in it for me to do this?” – and in fact, I see it as a division among the saints because it is looking down upon those not on the rameumptum of 100% outward visible devotion and commitment.

I much prefer Elder Uchtdorf’s messages that give me hope there are moving reasons why I would want to commit more in one area or another, and the rest of the church is reminded not to “judge me because my sins are different than yours”. I prefer less Elder Cook’s approach that less involvement (for any reason) = sin and I just need to repent so I can feel more spiritual because that is just how we should be, and the fault lies with me for not feeling that way (though no sin of commission is justified to repent from in my circumstances), and other members can feel better about themselves for being more devoted than others.

My journey is real to me. It comes from real experiences that are complex, and painful, and caused me anguish to search diligently for ways to get through it. When I feel I have seriously tried total and unquestioning commitment and when times got hard I redoubled that effort looking for promised blessings and “feelings”, and they did not come as promised…it is hard to just sign up for more of that hoping an Apostle promised it would be better for me so I should just do it. Part of my searching was to find peace by letting go of things less important in my life, assuming God will guide me along my choices. It is then hard to hear that I must repent for choosing to let go of some things that would make me seem less committed to others, even if I feel more committed to my relationship to God, and have taken responsibility for how I feel and why and what I can do about it. I just don’t want my motivation for doing things in the church to be from a list of “shoulds” and “should nots” that are good ideas from other well intentioned people, or out of fear that I must repent, or out of guilt I must be doing something wrong according to others that are not supported by my spirit and logic and reason.

What others may see in me as apathy and lack of commitment, to me is purposefully defined in my participation because of a balanced set of boundaries and choices to walk a middle way that seems to benefit my life and bring me peace, confirmed with personal experience and prayers to God. I therefore am not pricked or inspired by this conference talk to change my ways. I do not think that is pride, but a deeply introspective choice on how it just does not seem to fit me or describe me or inspire me to be closer to God.

I have given it much thought and pondered the relevance to my life. I now feel OK with my choices and lay this talk aside, realizing it just doesn’t help me or my family, nor do I want to dwell on it in fear of what others think of me, or how others will treat me. I simply lay it aside and move forward. Perhaps that is helpful for me to do self-checks periodically, and make sure I stay humble, avoiding pride where I can…but also clinging to my values, and being brave enough to stand for what I believe, and perhaps be a peculiar and misunderstood person among a group that likes to celebrate those that are peculiar and who do not bend to the winds of social or cultural peer pressure, even if that social or cultural pressure is coming from within instead of “the world”. I don’t know how else to live, other than to follow my conscience on this. In the end, my analysis is…this talk is unfortunate to me. Bummer.

[Anonymous]

Just to be clear, I used language like “perverts” and “wife beaters” to be dramatic and hyperbolic, to draw attention to my point. I strongly disagree with how Mormon culture currently views human sexuality. In particular, I think it highly problematic to believe that one would never have sexual thoughts (which are of course “impure” by their very nature).

[Anonymous]

After reading the talk again today while at work, I see Elder Cook himself saying he is only speaking to a small group of saints. He several times says he is only speaking to some people within some situations. There is no reason to take offense at this talk if you don’t feel you have the problems he is speaking of.

Quote:

It is not surprising that some in the Church believe they can’t answer Alma’s question with a resounding yes. They do not “feel so now.” They feel they are in a spiritual drought. Others are angry, hurt, or disillusioned. If these descriptions apply to you,7 it is important to evaluate why you cannot “feel so now.”

Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions, but they have made unwise choices. Some are casual in their observance of sacred covenants. Others spend most of their time giving first-class devotion to lesser causes. Some allow intense cultural or political views to weaken their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ . Some have immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.

The word some is where the emphasis should be.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

After reading the talk again today while at work, I see Elder Cook himself saying he is only speaking to a small group of saints. He several times says he is only speaking to some people within some situations. There is no reason to take offense at this talk if you don’t feel you have the problems he is speaking of.

Quote:

It is not surprising that some in the Church believe they can’t answer Alma’s question with a resounding yes. They do not “feel so now.” They feel they are in a spiritual drought. Others are angry, hurt, or disillusioned. If these descriptions apply to you,7 it is important to evaluate why you cannot “feel so now.”

Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions, but they have made unwise choices. Some are casual in their observance of sacred covenants. Others spend most of their time giving first-class devotion to lesser causes. Some allow intense cultural or political views to weaken their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ . Some have immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.

That’s the problem; I think he really was talking about disaffected members almost exactly like me and I think he was wrong to act like we have all made a mistake and need to repent. The talk basically takes it for granted that there should be this relatively high level of commitment and that members should already want to feel this zealous about the Church and its doctrines to begin with. I don’t buy it. If Church leaders want to make that case then they better show me exactly why I should believe all this is really necessary and what will happen if I don’t repent with better and more convincing reasons than simply because they said so. What they might want to consider before assuming that this is just the way it has to be mostly because it’s what we are already used to is that some people have used the label “high commitment religious group” as sort of a more politically correct description to replace the word cult.

As far as I’m concerned, my current low level of commitment to the Church is completely appropriate and correctly proportional to the realistic level of confidence I feel like I can honestly have that making all the heavy sacrifices the Church asks for and expects will ever pay off or make a positive difference. In my opinion, they should just be happy that any lukewarm or non-believing cafeteria Mormons are willing to continue to support the Church as much as they do instead of fighting it tooth and nail by actively trying to de-convert others or directly discouraging their own children from going on missions or getting married in the temple but apparently the support these members already provide is not nearly good enough or worth much to them. It reminds me of the Star Wars quote along the lines of the more you try to tighten your grip the more they will slip through your fingers.

[Anonymous]

My take on Elder’s Cook CG talk is that the church sees that there is a problem but the problem is with the members only and the church has nothing to do with why we have these problems. I think he probably is right that we all could do better at things, cleaner thoughts, loving our neighbors etc, but as Brian J said?, the church needs to do a little house cleaning also. I can say I wasn’t inspired by his talk at all. I some times feel like they want the all or nothing approach with the members and then they act surprised when people stop coming to church and those that are left need to pick up the slack left by the slackers. It like that with HT and VT. Fewer people are doing it so those that are active and do it get more people to visit. I really like the big tent approach and letting every one get involved. I have 7 adult kids and most aren’t involved with the church and in truth I wish that they were but I have learned that I have more influence with them when we stay connected and I’m showing love and support than when I only pointing out their weaknesses. There has been many great thoughts on this post.

[Anonymous]

I could be wrong but I felt like he said Many have a faith struggle and some of those struggle for this reason and some for that reason and “unspoken” … some don’t struggle for these reasons and this talk doesn’t apply to them. While many of us have had a faith Crisis that may have been caused by honest faithful reasons (read too much, studied too deep, expectations too high), it doesn’t have to mean that we are unable to see that others have these struggles for reasons that fall completely on their own shoulders (don’t care, wickedness, rebellion).

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

My take on Elder’s Cook CG talk is that the church sees that ther is problem but the problem is with the members only and the church has nothing to do with why we have these problems.

I think, perhaps, that is why this talk comes off as brash. It is a sensitive topic, and you have members struggling with real issues and legitimate situations, and it doesn’t feel like Elder Cook’s tone is as understanding as sometimes I hear from President Uchtdorf or President Eyring. Instead, it has a tone that YOU are the problem, so fix it. (harsh overstatement to make my point).

DBMormon wrote:

some don’t struggle for these reasons and this talk doesn’t apply to them.

Perhaps it would have helped if Elder Cook said what you said, DB, or gave alternate reasons why some are apathetic or lack that commitment he is calling for. But he doesn’t say that, leaving the tone of the message to be that those who lack commitment may have sin, or selfishness, or have unworthy thoughts (but no other options would cause sincere saints to back off on commitment). There are no other clear conclusions he is teaching, and by not explaining there are other groups, he is vaguely drawing a line to point to anyone not 100% active.

Compare this to Elder Haight’s approach to the same topic:

Quote:

My expressions and encouragement this morning are to God’s children whose batteries may be low or with strings in need of tuning, those whose souls were one time touched by the words and teachings of the Master and His servants but have been attracted away into other interests and activities. Some may have been neglected or not sufficiently involved in a meaningful Church responsibility or may have a feeling of injury or hurt or even unworthiness.

Some have allowed themselves to get out of tune. They may have lost the pitch and drifted from the original score. The Savior of the world gave rules to live by and taught principles of love that encompass concern and encouragement:

“Come unto me, all ye that labour,” he said, “and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

“For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matt. 11:28–30.)

He did not limit or say “all who are perfect come unto me” or just the rich, or just the poor, or just the healthy, or those without sin, or those who pray the longest, or just the sick. His invitation is to all …

Some who accepted the teachings of the Savior and were baptized into His Church are now temporarily lost from the fold, some through their own choosing, but others, many times, by our neglect of them.

-Elder Haight, People to People, Ensign Oct 1981 [emphasis added]

The more balanced approach by Elder Haight is that some who are “low on batteries” may rightly be so because of neglect of the church. There is responsibility there with the church, neglecting to teach proper principles, or neglecting to involve those who are different, or neglecting to accept those that play the piccolo.

In Elder Haight’s balanced approach there is a call to repent. From sinners, from those who need to recommit, but also to the church and to church leaders for failing to keep them in the fold. The call is for ALL to come to Christ, not just those that are less than 100% active.

Elder Cook’s message misses that mark, in my opinion, and therefore runs a risk that the message shows why others are less than, and should shape up and get with the program…instead of trying to raise the bar on the program so it attracts all to it, including those who outwardly express behaviors and think they are safe from a need for change.

Elder Haight closes with:

Quote:

We are his people. God expects us to find, teach, and recover those whose strings may need tuning. May we be directed by the pure love of Christ to sound for them the perfect note of an “A.”

To DA’s point, if I could hear the church play the “Perfect A tone” that I can then tune my life to it and hear the difference, that would be exactly what I need. When I hear an imperfect “A”, then what is different to my out of tune instrument and the members in the church with their out of tune instruments? The church should take on that responsibility to answer that question, so I can see the need to commit 100% as they define it.

[Anonymous]

Heber13, great post. I think you might have giving me the beginnings of my next talk. Some days I feel a little discouraged and you wonderful brothers and sisters remind me why I want to stay and give me hope that in the long run it will be worth it. Thanks everyone.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

I could be wrong but I felt like he said Many have a faith struggle and some of those struggle for this reason and some for that reason and “unspoken” … some don’t struggle for these reasons and this talk doesn’t apply to them. While many of us have had a faith Crisis that may have been caused by honest faithful reasons (read too much, studied too deep, expectations too high), it doesn’t have to mean that we are unable to see that others have these struggles for reasons that fall completely on their own shoulders (don’t care, wickedness, rebellion).

Maybe so, but I think the real question is how much will this talk actually help the situation in any of these cases he mentioned? He is basically saying that no matter what problems members typically have with the Church they are wrong and need to repent because the Church supposedly has no responsibility whatsoever for the way any dissatisfied members feel about it. Do they even know what they are aiming for here and why or are they just haphazardly reacting to symptoms they don’t like and grasping at straws? What will be the likely net results of this talk for those that actually pay close attention to it? Is it really about trying to reach out to wayward members out of genuine love and concern or is it more about making Church leaders and active and obedient TBMs feel better because they can pat themselves on the back for being more faithful than all the supposed slackers and look down on them as if they’ve already done all they could to address the problem?

Suppose these struggling members try as hard as possible to “repent” and feel better about the Church and its doctrines but it still doesn’t work. What happens then? Not only is this possible it is already happening and I think it will be increasingly likely to happen on an even larger scale in the future. On my mission I was honestly not doing anything that was obviously wrong by the Church’s already strict standards. Basically my thoughts were as “pure” as humanly possible and I even broke down and confessed the worst things I had done (according to the Church) before my mission to leaders and none of them thought any of it was bad enough to send me home over. However rather than feeling unwavering spiritual strength as a result of ultra-strict monk-like piety I still had nagging doubts especially when reading the scriptures which is the very thing Church leaders typically recommend for improving spiritual health. What else could I have done at that point?

I think the most troubling idea of all in this talk for many of us is the claim that some members that, “immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders” drew “incorrect conclusions” that affected their testimony and this was an “unwise choice” that they should repent of. Church leaders are clearly not infallible and if they couldn’t manage to keep their story straight about polygamy and the racial priesthood ban along with many other things then I don’t see why members that are fully aware of this fact should be expected to be overly confident about other official teachings like the WoW, tithing, and temple marriage. What is really incorrect and unwise in my opinion is trying to pretend that Church leaders and Mormon traditions are nearly infallible at all costs because it only makes things worse when an increasing number of members realize that this does not appear to be the case. Does this talk do anything to address this real underlying issue in a credible way? Not at all, it basically tries to deny it and maintain the status quo by blaming members for something that is not really their fault.

[Anonymous]

The church is trying to circle the wagons. I think the information age will prove to be a problem for many institutions in positions of authority. The institution no longer gets to control the information. People are now able to get the information for themselves and bounce their thoughts off of one another and no person in authority is even needed to call a meeting or control the conversation.

I don’t know if this is the intended purpose of this talk, but I think if just gives ammunition for front line zealot members. The talk doesn’t have to specifically say what information that you have gotten about church leaders is wrong. It just has to say that some of it is wrong. Sure! some is right and some is wrong, but there’s enough of messed up stuff that is right that I wasn’t told about that I’m mad about it. Since the talk is worded to say that some of the information about JS, BY etc is not true then TBM’s run with it and say that everything I am researching is false and I’m being deceived etc.(I’ve been told this twice since this talk came out, and I’ve been told to listen to this talk many times). Meanwhile the church has somewhat circled the wagons without addressing the issues. (Admitting the things that are true is not “faith promoting”)

In the long run, you can’t fight the information age. Things will have to change and it will be resisted by the establishment and some of the people that help to bring about the change will be villified (those evil intellectuals!). In the mean time I am going to go about my business with less faith while being judged more by my wife. I can feel that now!

Thanks for the talk

[Anonymous]

Most of the junk we find in talks outside official settings and in books. Official Doctrine taught by the group as a whole. They did a poor job policing each other but never saw a good reason to do that until The internet made mistakes of a past leader accessable to everyone

[Anonymous]

Meh. Leaders are human, and I suppose Elder Cook is no exception. If he thinks that those who seek truth need to repent for doing so, then I merely put that into the category of human, limited knowledge. There is plenty of other good that he says here.

I am not saying that he is right, nor do I want to minimize how offensive this may be to those who are seeing truth for the first time about church history and doctrine. For me, it simply doesn’t matter, because in viewing all scripture and prophetic word as simply the writers’ and prophets’ personal witness, I submit that their teachings are therefore mixed with both inspired teachings as well as opinion. As a reader or listener, I need to interpret their teachings in the light of Alma 32 and find the truth in what they teach: If it isn’t true or doesn’t resonate, then it goes in one ear and out the other.

Joseph Smith, in D&C 50:17-23, wrote:

Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

If it be some other way it is not of God.

Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

This seems to be a fair and reasonable test of the things we hear at conference, or read in scriptures. If it doesn’t edify, then it isn’t of god. Messages of guilt and manipulation don’t typically edify. Messages telling you that you need to repent while seeking the truth don’t edify, and bynthis test are not of god.

I love the concept that when we really are connecting spiritually, both the sender and receiver are edified and rejoice together. Of course, “edified” means “fed”, so as a Middle-Way, buffet-style Mormon, I will take what I need and leave the rest, thank you.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer’s comment is a good summary of my feelings – a more comprehensive summary than my previous comments.

There is a lot of good in the talk. The potentially offensive parts don’t apply to me, so I’m not offended by them. I understand others’ inclination to be offended, and I don’t minimize that – but, again, if his descriptions don’t apply to me I’m not going to waste emotional capital being offended by them and miss out on the good stuff in the talk.

Frankly, I see that happen a lot with people and talks like this. I see so often people focus on one sentence or paragraph in a talk and miss entirely the rest of the message (often the core of the message) – and, later, they often end up thinking the main point of the talk was the small part that was offensive to them.

I understand that reaction, but it’s just not productive in many cases. There are instances where the core message of a talk really is offensive to some people (and, in some cases, to lots of people), but, more often than not, in looking back at a talk and reading it carefully, it really is a minor part of a talk (or even a misunderstanding or misapplication of a talk) that ends up morphing into an offensive view in the memories and minds of people.

[Anonymous]

Count me in the camp of those who actually liked the talk. Some people DO invent shortcomings of past leaders. There are many shortcomings that are real, but look at how the most vociferous anti Mormon critics spin those weaknesses, and you can see what Cook is talking about. I tend to see most early church leaders more prone to rationalization than manipulation and pure evil. I don’t believe in heroes or villains.

The part I liked most was when he cautioned against hobby causes or political extremism. That absolutely applies to both ends of the political spectrum. Now will those at the extremes, including Tea Partiers, see that? Likely not. I really believe that people see the church through their political views, not the other way around. It’s a good caution for all of us. It’s also the same as the beam and mote argument. Politics exists to improve society, the environment – it’s outside of us, the mote in someone else’s eye. The gospel is supposed to help us improve ourselves, to be better people – it’s internal, the beam in our own eye. We certainly need both, but most humans focus more on others, society’s ills, wrongs done to us, not on self discipline or improvement. In that sense, I think his comments are accurate. Apply them to political views that differ from your own, and you immediately see it’s right.

Unfortunately, most people listen to talks for whatever bolsters their position, not what provokes change. I think that’s why some didn’t like it. Because people in their wards will use it to self justify. People always do.

[Anonymous]

Seems to me that a life philosophy that requires you to never examine any other philosophies is week indeed….in fact it plays to the cult philosophy.

I believe anything worth believing in is also worth questioning.

Yeah I am a newbie. First post.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Author]

Posts