- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
[Admin Note]: DA, “Nothng,” would be an appropriate response. You know the mission of this site. Your last comments don’t come close to supporting that mission.
/back to the discussion
Treating women like equals would be a great start. More diversity in leadership at all levels, including incorporating divorced, single, widowed, men, women, gay people. It feels like we are a privilege preservation machine, not a come-unto-Christ machine. I read the importance of women’s roles in the New Testament and in the savior’s life, and then I go to church where it’s men everywhere you turn and the women really don’t seem to belong to the same church. The other thing is that we need to have more love for people than we do for rules and programs. I see little hope for this, but it would make me more gung ho. When programs aren’t working for people, we need to quit thinking that it’s like eating our vegetables and will build character. What happened to common sense? What happened to listening to people? What happened to programs designed for people? What happened to measuring outcomes?
Old Timer wrote:[Admin Note]:
DA, “Nothng,” would be an appropriate response…You know the mission of this site. Your last comments don’t come close to supporting that mission… I thought the purpose of the site was basically to discuss the general idea that people don’t need to leave the Church if they don’t want to just because they don’t believe in some (or any) of the doctrines and/or have some other serious disagreements with the Church. Well I don’t see how saying (or implying) that the Church cannot or should not make any significant changes and it is not supposed to be easy or comfortable because it is mostly only for believers as if the only good reason to stay is believing in it is very helpful to any people that have beliefs, opinions, etc. that are already out of sync with what the Church teaches; in fact I can hardly think of a less friendly and empathetic or more discouraging message to hear as far as making many people want to give up on the Church similar to hard-core apologist websites.
That’s the main idea I wanted to respond to because to me it looks like there is no shortage of things the Church could do to give people more reasons to stay and/or fewer reasons to want to leave. I understand GBSmith’s point that one of the main reasons people actually stay now is because they believe in it and are committed to it on some level but to me it looks like it doesn’t even need to be a case of either-or because I still don’t see why they couldn’t primarily cater to orthodox believers and also take baby steps to make life easier and more enjoyable for both believers and non-believers alike at the same time.
Of course, whether the Church will ever make significant changes or not is another question altogether, but we can still at least hope and dream for a better day can’t we? Or do we all need to think this is as good as is ever going to get? Also, even as it is there are other reasons people stay besides belief in it like for example to try to make/keep their families happy like I mentioned before. So maybe my response wasn’t the best or most positive toward the Church but no, I still don’t believe that, “Nothing”, would be a very appropriate response in this case unless you want this to be some kind of echo chamber where everyone has to agree with each other on key points and no real discussion is allowed in those cases.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Personally I think they should move away from the “one true church” mindset and overbearing expectations that members should be obligated to simply believe and do exactly what they are told without resistance …
I think this is what Richard Bushman is saying. There’s a great quote somewhere where he talks about shedding the “triumphalism” of early Mormonism and members instead being shining examples of Christ-followers.Quote:… to more of a case of being just another church …
Bushman wouldn’t go that far. He wants us walking a fine line. The claims stay…in the background where they belong. I think everyone – literal believers and not – could live with that.
Quote:…it looks like trying to maintain the current system at all costs is essentially a classic example of kicking the can down the road for others to have to deal with eventually anyway.
Bushman is saying there is no “down the road.” We’re there, and we need to make some adjustments.
DA, your last comment fits our purpose – and it is radically different than the others. Thanks for the extra commentary.
LookingHard wrote:2. Make church more fulfilling. Neuter the correlation committee and get some professionals that can create interesting and thought provoking lessons that are more stimulating than playing solitaire for a few hours. Reduce the 3 hour block and instead have more social events to allow members to really get to know one another – including service opportunities to people other than members without it being a missionary effort.
Yeah, it seems like there’s a lot of effort wasted on coming up with filler material to drag out the three hours rather than just trimming it back to what the good content actually needs.
The temple recommend questions force people to be all in, or all out. The emphasis on the temple, and on being temple-worthy, and then the recommend questions make it so that honest truth-seekers who don’t employ biasses in their truth seeking can not be full-in members. They force out those like myself because they don’t allow me to be all in and keep my integrity. Those questions either deliberately marginalize me, or force me to lie. I know that the original purpose of those questions was to “protect the sanctity of the temple.” But the entire ceremony is on YouTube, and it will be there until the end of time. So that ship has sailed. What, then, is the real purpose of these exclusionary temple recommend interviews?
The real purpose, in the eyes of those who construct the questions, is to maintain the sanctity of the temple. The questions have nothing to do with the ordinances being available online, and making that connection only obscures what the leadership means when they talk about maintaining the sanctity of the temple.
We can agree or disagree about whether the current process does that or not, since there are valid arguments for both conclusions, but the leaders are sincere in their purpose and how they see their roles.
Now, to change hats:
[Admin Note]: Tim, if your intent was to say that changing the temple recommend questions or the temple ordinances and/or teachings would make you more gung-ho about the Church (as I assume, since you posted the comment in this thread), cool – but that isn’t apparent by the wording of the comment. If you want serious responses to your concluding question, it is much more appropriate to start a new thread about that question, rather than derailing this thread and its intent.
Therefore, everyone, let’s not change the focus of this thread but keep it focused on the question in the original post.
Old Timer wrote:[Admin Note]: Tim, if your intent was to say that changing the temple recommend questions or the temple ordinances and/or teachings would make you more gung-ho about the Church (as I assume, since you posted the comment in this thread), cool – but that isn’t apparent by the wording of the comment.
I think the all-or-nothing nature of it is discouraging to a lot of people. Especially given the number of people almost everyone knows who have a TR in spite of one or more obvious disqualifiers. It becomes “I can either get them all right or lie. Anything less is failure.”
When I read Tim’s post, I thought he meant a greater culture of inclusiveness would help with gung-ho-ness. We do have cultural norms that tend to inhibit inclusiveness. There are quiet messages sent all the time.. They have come out in this thread from Hawkgrrl…(such as attitudes toward women, although that is changing). I think i would feel better if they dropped the “Head of the Household” moniker on LDS.org, and simply listed the adults first and then continue indenting the kids underneath. Do it alphabetically by first name for the adults so the men and and the women are at the top of the LDS org list by randomness rather than men being the head of the household and women being under the men. Scour our culture for little things like that so send the right message.
Also, we tend to refer to the “families in our ward”. But that is not inclusive of single people. We should simply refer to the “member of our Ward”.
I have so say, the way the Ward I am in is doing things is actually heightening my commitment and pride toward our church right now. So — do some of the things they are doing to increase motivation.
One, they kept asking me to do things, and didn’t quit when i said no 10 times — they listened to my boundaries and respected them until they found something I wanted to do. So, my repeated No’s were a sort of education for the leaders.
I don’t feel like a second class citizen there. I have this feeling that at any time I wanted, I could call the Bishop and say “put me to work whereever you want” and he would give me something challenging and interesting and time consuming — if I wanted.
This feeling of being included is in spite of the fact they still have not asked me to be a home teacher yet. I thought they would pounce on that. I have a feeling that when i say I want only one HT family that I am expected to visit, and any number of families that i can help when there is actual need, they will likely respect that. The leaders seem to enjoy talking to me now. Although I have heard there was back-office judgmentalism toward me, it’s not evident from their demeanor. They are rather affirming, which surprises me, and they are not pushing my son. They are also out of the box thinkers in some ways. I won’t go into details but they are willing to bend the rules if it means the mission of the church is achieved. Not flagrant disregard for the handbook, but using it with judgment.
Who knows how long they will keep the traditional approach to less actives at bay — hoover you in with kindness, accommodation, and then when they see you are active, start pressing for conformity (home teaching, TR-holding, dressing appropriately, etcetera).
But for now, when I drive by our chapel, I feel a sense of interest in the experience of being a Mormon because, for now, it’s on my own terms. And my own terms are reasonable to me — and they seem to respect that.
Let us keep fingers crossed…
SilentDawning wrote:We do have cultural norms that tend to inhibit inclusiveness. There are quiet messages sent all the time.. They have come out in this thread from Hawkgrrl…(such as attitudes toward women, although that is changing).
I didn’t think I would comment in this thread because I knew everything I said would be totally predictable and repetitive. But here’s my number one: Section 132. Because it’s a loud, outrageous, offensive message that has already swept many out the door. And all the more sad because it’s NOT how the vast majority of men see or treat women. I think it’s a horrible shame that anyone is saddled with defending it.
Quote:But for now, when I drive by our chapel, I feel a sense of interest in the experience of being a Mormon because, for now, it’s on my own terms. And my own terms are reasonable to me — and they seem to respect that.
Let us keep fingers crossed…
I’m there every Sunday, out of love for my husband and gratitude for my life among Mormon people. But the way our history and current doctrine (apparently?)
forcesmen to talk about women is a heartbreaker. I’ll keep fingers crossed, but I probably can’t hold my breath forever. SilentDawning wrote:Also, we tend to refer to the “families in our ward”. But that is not inclusive of single people. We should simply refer to the “member of our Ward”.
We’ve also alienated a few members with non-member spouses over this one. They tend to feel inadequate because they haven’t managed to bring their family into the ward.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.