The Need for a Church

[Anonymous]

This is in reference to a talk given by Dallin Oaks during October 2021 general conference. It will take me a while to get there. Bear with me.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/18oaks?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/18oaks?lang=eng

I exercised the same level of willpower that it takes to not eat the entire bag of Doritos in one sitting (this is a thing, don’t ask how I know) to avoid general conference in October. The goal was to stay away, I succeeded. Now I also make sure not to buy any Doritos when I go to the store.

Now that we’re well into sacrament meeting talks and elders quorum meetings based on October general conference talks I’m getting some exposure to what was said. I’m not sure about you-all’s ward but mine has a talent for selecting the few talks from each conference that poke my inner bear to be the subject of talks and lessons; mostly because those were people’s favorites. The talks that poke my inner bear have similar elements, usually they are more authoritarian, include othering language, or display hubris in beliefs.

This particular talk has come up a few times now and while I didn’t see the rest of conference I think it’s safe to assume that this talk would have been on my naughty list. It’s not too, too bad though, so I’m assuming the rest of conference was pretty good. 🙂

Now with the pointless background out of the way, on to specifics from the talk…

[Anonymous]

Talk introduction:

Oaks starts off by quoting Mark Petersen. Petersen related a story about Kenneth and Lucille.

Quote:

Kenneth and his wife, Lucille, are good people, honest and upright. They don’t go to church, though, and they feel they can be good enough without it. They teach their children honesty and virtue and they tell themselves that is about all the Church would do for them.

Oaks then addresses good and religious-minded people that have stopped going to church, any church at all. I will give props to Oaks including all churches and not narrowing the focus to just the need for the LDS church.

His case for the need for a church in the introduction, point by point + my two cents.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

If we cease valuing our churches for any reason, we threaten our personal spiritual life, and significant numbers separating themselves from God reduce His blessings to our nations.

The good news is that President Oaks is associating blessings from God with attending a church (including non-Christian churches).

The bad news is that his message is very much focused on what we will lose if we stop going to church rather than what we might gain if we start going to church. This leads me to believe that President Oaks was never really addressing his points to people like Kenneth and Lucille at all. It seems more likely that this talk is directed towards active church members that might be looking out over the fence at the Kenneths and Lucilles of the world and thinking to themselves, “Now that doesn’t look so bad. Kenneth and Lucille seem to be thriving.”

In short, it looks like President Oaks is preaching to the proverbial choir about all the things they would lose if they ever decided that they were not so keen on staying in the choir.

[Anonymous]

Good point. I didn’t pick up on that subtlety.

Section I:

Quote:

Surely the Bible is clear on the origin of a church and the need for it now.

:think:

Personally I’m not convinced that Jesus organized a church. Maybe, maybe not. If I had to use the word surely I’d probably say that surely the people that wrote and compiled the Bible said that Jesus organized a church.

Now for the part of the talk that made me perk up during the lesson, the part(s) I had a real problem with.

Quote:

Some say that attending church meetings is not helping them. Some say, “I didn’t learn anything today” or “No one was friendly to me” or “I was offended.” Personal disappointments should never keep us from the doctrine of Christ, who taught us to serve, not to be served.

First off, I think he’s wrong. I think Christ taught us to serve and he taught us to be served. Did Christ reject Mary’s service of anointing his feet with expensive ointment? Did Christ prevent Simon of Cyrene from carrying the cross? Did Christ reject the angel that strengthened him in the garden of Gethsemane?

Sometimes we’re in the position to serve, other times we’re in the position to be served, that’s life. There’s nothing wrong with needing service. Nothing.

Quote:

If the service is a failure to you, you have failed.

I think I get the spirit of what he’s saying with the quoted lines (you find yourself when you lose yourself in service) but this approach is not going to get people to return to church. You can’t dismiss people’s legitimate concerns and real needs with shaming quotes that attempt to shift responsibility back onto the person that needs the help. It’s a shared responsibility. Taking the attitude that it’s always the other guy’s fault will never produce better services.

I don’t want to fall into the same trap, say it’s all the other guy’s (church) fault. That’s why I say it’s a shared responsibility. Recognize that I could do more to get something out of church services and have a church that’s humble enough to recognize ways that it can change to try to meet me halfway.

But getting back to people that don’t feel inclined to attend church… why would telling them they’ve failed because they couldn’t find a way to make church services relevant to their lives win them back? The honey laid out to catch flies is more like a peppermint that’s driving them away.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Quote:

Some say that attending church meetings is not helping them. Some say, “I didn’t learn anything today” or “No one was friendly to me” or “I was offended.” Personal disappointments should never keep us from the doctrine of Christ, who taught us to serve, not to be served.

This part got me thinking as well, especially the reasons for not attending; I’ve been offended at church. It has a huge impact on your outlook towards church and the people. Separating church and gospel helps, but only to a degree.

I think church is good for society as a whole. The organizations exist though as a vehicle for service, sometimes we end up just serving the organizations and not the people. Like when we push policy over principle.

Reading the talk I can hear Oaks voice and mannerisms.

[Anonymous]

I think part of my problem with this talk is who it’s coming from. If it was coming from an average member, sure, I guess we can all look for the good and try to make the most of church.

But this is coming from one of the highest leaders in the church. If anyone has the responsibility to make church more valuable and worthwhile for all members, it’s him. To me it sounds like making excuses for the failures of leadership to keep people engaged.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

First off, I think he’s wrong. I think Christ taught us to serve and he taught us to be served. Did Christ reject Mary’s service of anointing his feet with expensive ointment? Did Christ prevent Simon of Cyrene from carrying the cross? Did Christ reject the angel that strengthened him in the garden of Gethsemane?

Sometimes we’re in the position to serve, other times we’re in the position to be served, that’s life. There’s nothing wrong with needing service. Nothing.

An example that jumps out at me is when Simon Peter tried to refuse Jesus washing his feet…

John 13:6

Quote:

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

7

Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

8

“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Some say that attending church meetings is not helping them. Some say, “I didn’t learn anything today” or “No one was friendly to me” or “I was offended.” Personal disappointments should never keep us from the doctrine of Christ, who taught us to serve, not to be served.

I think the word “offended” has immense baggage in the LDS church. I feel that it is a way to trivialize, diminish, and dismiss the action that the person experienced. It feels synonymous to saying, “I got my feelings hurt” or more common “that person got their feelings hurt.” The person who was “offended” thus becomes marginalized and their grievances are portrayed as minor and petty.

Imagine for example if the passage read as follows, “Some say, “I didn’t learn anything today” or “No one was friendly to me” or “My child was bullied and tormented at church activities until he took his own life.” Personal disappointments should never keep us from the doctrine of Christ, who taught us to serve, not to be served.”

This clearly does not fit. Yet by saying, “Some say, “I was offended.”” I feel that President Oaks generalizes everyone that has stopped coming to church because of negative experiences into the same category of being overly sensitive and full of excuses.

[Anonymous]

And now my favorite part….

Quote:

Church membership councils lovingly seek to help us qualify for the mercy of forgiveness made possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

This sentence is full to the brim. Let’s set aside the part about Church membership councils. I do not feel that I know enough about them to really have an informed opinion. What I want to talk about is the phrase “qualify for the mercy of forgiveness.”

😮 😮 😮 😮

Am I the only one that finds this unchristian?

We have long been accused of trying to earn blessings and earn heaven but to earn forgiveness?!?!?

Is it even really forgiveness if you have to earn it?

[Anonymous]

If you have to qualify for it, it isn’t mercy.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I think the word “offended” has immense baggage in the LDS church. I feel that it is a way to trivialize, diminish, and dismiss the action that the person experienced. It feels synonymous to saying, “I got my feelings hurt” or more common “that person got their feelings hurt.” The person who was “offended” thus becomes marginalized and their grievances are portrayed as minor and petty.

Imagine for example if the passage read as follows, “Some say, “I didn’t learn anything today” or “No one was friendly to me” or “My child was bullied and tormented at church activities until he took his own life.” Personal disappointments should never keep us from the doctrine of Christ, who taught us to serve, not to be served.”

I couldn’t agree more. My cousin has autism and when he was very young he was a major handful. My aunt received no support from the primary or anyone else as no one could/wanted to deal with him. For her, church was just a huge hassle that was more exhausting than enriching. So she quit going. And how was her inactivity summarized? She was “offended”.

Roy wrote:

And now my favorite part….

Quote:

Church membership councils lovingly seek to help us qualify for the mercy of forgiveness made possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Am I the only one that finds this unchristian?

.

Nope. I do as well.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Some say that attending church meetings is not helping them. Some say, “I didn’t learn anything today” or “No one was friendly to me” or “I was offended.” Personal disappointments should never keep us from the doctrine of Christ, who taught us to serve, not to be served.

Ouch. Ouch I say. Ouch again. OUCH!

While I agree that we should go to church with the attitude of helping others, I detest these statements that put EVERYTHING on the backs of the members. Also, the idea that personal disappointments should have no bearing on our attitude (phrased as “keeping us from the doctrine of Christ”) is also one-sided.

I feel that when we as a church start putting the whole onus on the members for staying in spite of anything that happens, we are in dangerous, holier than thou, territory.

[Anonymous]

PazamaManX wrote:

Roy wrote:

I think the word “offended” has immense baggage in the LDS church. I feel that it is a way to trivialize, diminish, and dismiss the action that the person experienced. It feels synonymous to saying, “I got my feelings hurt” or more common “that person got their feelings hurt.” The person who was “offended” thus becomes marginalized and their grievances are portrayed as minor and petty.

Imagine for example if the passage read as follows, “Some say, “I didn’t learn anything today” or “No one was friendly to me” or “My child was bullied and tormented at church activities until he took his own life.” Personal disappointments should never keep us from the doctrine of Christ, who taught us to serve, not to be served.”

I couldn’t agree more. My cousin has autism and when he was very young he was a major handful. My aunt received no support from the primary or anyone else as no one could/wanted to deal with him. For her, church was just a huge hassle that was more exhausting than enriching. So she quit going. And how was her inactivity summarized? She was “offended”.

Roy wrote:

And now my favorite part….

Quote:

Church membership councils lovingly seek to help us qualify for the mercy of forgiveness made possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Am I the only one that finds this unchristian?

.

Nope. I do as well.

No from me as well.

Regarding “personal disappointments should never keep us from the doctrine of Christ…” I find the wording very guilt-inducing, and I’m afraid to say it, but it seems purposeful. He didn’t say, “personal experiences should never keep us from the LDS church”, but I think it’s what he means. I feel uneasy when “doctrine of Christ” stands in for the church. The love of Christ, the sacrifice of Christ, the example of Christ – are not the church.

The church encourages and facilitates a lot of good behaviors, but that doesn’t trump all. I get the feeling from both President Nelson and President Oaks that in their minds there is absolutely nothing that would justify inactivity in the church. They seem very far away from people whose experiences lead them out of the church and are better off there.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

And now my favorite part….

Quote:

Church membership councils lovingly seek to help us qualify for the mercy of forgiveness made possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

This sentence is full to the brim. Let’s set aside the part about Church membership councils. I do not feel that I know enough about them to really have an informed opinion. What I want to talk about is the phrase “qualify for the mercy of forgiveness.”

😮 😮 😮 😮

Am I the only one that finds this unchristian?

We have long been accused of trying to earn blessings and earn heaven but to earn forgiveness?!?!?

Is it even really forgiveness if you have to earn it?

I think this points to a general misunderstanding of what grace and mercy are. There are clearly members, including GAs, who do understand (and I think Pres. Nelson is one of them) but I think the drumbeat of strict obedience has clouded the concept so much that we’ve become to some extent “like unto the” Pharisees. The atonement of Jesus Christ is there for everyone, no need to even ask, it’s already given. Likewise every example we have in the Bible where someone asked for forgiveness it was given immediately and without any requirements. Joseph Smiths First Vision experience was also like that – he asked and was forgiven (this is emphasized more in versions other than the canonized version, which only gives it a passing reference).

I think there are plenty of members who are trying to earn or buy their way to heaven and won’t admit it – but the evidence points to it.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I think there are plenty of members who are trying to earn or buy their way to heaven and won’t admit it – but the evidence points to it.

I’d alter that slightly to say there are plenty of members who are trying to earn or buy their way to heaven and don’t realize it.

Fear also plays a big role. We’re truly scared about our eternal status so we invent things that we believe will guarantee us a spot in heaven and then spend our lives satisfying those requirements. If we do a good enough job of satisfying the requirements it can hold the fears at bay.

It’s a tangled mess because our concepts of justice and mercy also factor in. I’m sure a sense of fairness and justice drive a lot of those beliefs. It wouldn’t be “fair” for a person that’s been obedient to get the same reward as someone that’s been less obedient, so the focus becomes obedience. It wouldn’t be “just” if a person disregarded obedience and had the mindset that they would rely on mercy to fill in the gaps, so the focus becomes obedience.

And that’s where church comes in. It wouldn’t be fair if I had to suffer through all these meetings and someone that didn’t attend church was able to get into heaven too! 😈

Ann wrote:

I feel uneasy when “doctrine of Christ” stands in for the church. The love of Christ, the sacrifice of Christ, the example of Christ – are not the church.

The church, the gospel, Christ, etc. Those terms get conflated all the time. It’s to the point where it’s nearly impossible for me to tell if someone is being intentional with their language or whether they’re conflating terms. General conference talks have this problem. The “gospel” is brought up all the time but from context I think the speaker really means “church.”

SilentDawning wrote:

I feel that when we as a church start putting the whole onus on the members for staying in spite of anything that happens, we are in dangerous, holier than thou, territory.

Personally I believe the attitude that it’s all on the individual produces abusive behaviors as fruits.

[Author]

Posts