When rules replace religion

[Anonymous]

An NT or NF should never be chased out by an SJ, IMO. SJs are common. NTs and NFs are more rare. We will encounter SJs our whole lives, BTW. We adapted throughout school, we adapt at work. We know how to adapt. Awareness should only make it easier to adapt by seeing it for what it is. We don’t go to church for the groupthink. We aren’t SJs. We should be far more skilled at dealing with people who are different from us.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

…it is confirmed to me the church is dying…I believe because there is so precious little revelation or new doctrine coming from on high the leaders tend to turn to more stringent rules as a sign of progression in the church. When rules replace religion I am afraid inspiration and creativity cease…When wearing a white shirt is a sign of your purity with little thought of what you are on the inside determines your position in the church, what hope is there.

I am not going to say the church is all bad…But as far as a religion goes the church is withering on the vine. Opinion unless correlated is discouraged…I think this is inevitable of a church that claims so much and produces so little in the way revelation. Thinking of conference it was just platitudes and shallow promises by being obedient. We are living in the past…We are retreading everything we have and tightening the screws on creativity. It seems we are on a path to irrelevancy and mediocrity…

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I think this is an MBTI issue. Remember that for the SJs in the church (55% of the population at large, and even higher for church-goers), rules and regs are mother’s milk to them. This is “the stuff,” it’s what they go to receive. To the rest of us, it’s meh. We go to derive meaning and make a difference (NFs – 10% of world population) or to hear the mysteries of the universe expounded and gain personal wisdom (NTs – 5% of the world pop). I didn’t mention the SPs (35% of the world pop) because they’d rather be out having fun (“sinning” as the SJs would put it) than stuck at boring church.

Regardless of personality differences, I don’t think rules are always bad; in fact, some of them seem very worthwhile for almost everyone in my opinion. To me the real problem is that the Church has developed so many detailed rules that make very little sense by themselves and what’s worse is that active members typically take most of them so seriously. I can clearly see and understand why most of the 10 commandments would have been made a general rule for everyone because they look like they are mostly about respecting God and your neighbor assuming that God thinks the same way you would expect most reasonable people to do in the same situation. The only exception that stands out to me is the Sabbath day which is more a case of, “do this because I said so” but I still like that one too because it gives people a reason to stop working and take a break at least one day per week.

On the other hand, I have a hard time understanding why anyone including God should really care that much about someone else drinking a cup of coffee or a few beers, not wearing the proper clothing, etc. If no real harm is done then where is the problem? I don’t think this situation was necessarily planned out very well; it looks to me like it is mostly an unintended by-product of the idea that the prophets and apostles are always right. Because of this, the effects are generally cumulative and increasingly oppressive and harsh. It seems like it is much easier to add new rules to the list if they seem like a good idea to a few top Church leaders than it would be to ever consider dropping or de-emphasizing some of them once they have been established as time-honored traditions because that would be almost like the Church openly admitting it was wrong before which is theoretically never supposed to happen.

My suggestion to Church leaders would be that they should pay more attention to the following scriptures that don’t exactly reflect very well on what the Church has become at this point:

Quote:

Colossians 2:16-17: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days…Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Quote:

Colossians 2:20-22: Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,…(Touch not; taste not; handle not;…Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Quote:

Matthew 23:24-28: Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel…Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess…Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also…Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness…Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

[Anonymous]

DA– while I think there is some truth to what you said above, I honestly don’t the the GA’s are evil inside. I think they sincerely think they are doing the right thing. But I think they are definitely influenced by decades of the obedience culture.

Howard W. Hunter spoke to us once, and said “Write this down”. The entire panel of peope at the front of the Regional Conference — Stake Presidents, Mission President, others of high rank — all whipped out their pads and pens that mattered. I can’t remember what Hunter said — it was the symbolism they were transmitting to the attendees. This is the culture they are brought up in, and it’s what gets them called and promoted…so while I think it’s misguided as you do, I don’t think they are evil…..

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

DA– while I think there is some truth to what you said above, I honestly don’t the the GA’s are evil inside. I think they sincerely think they are doing the right thing. But I think they are definitely influenced by decades of the obedience culture…Howard W. Hunter spoke to us once, and said “Write this down”…I can’t remember what Hunter said — it was the symbolism they were transmitting to the attendees. This is the culture they are brought up in, and it’s what gets them called and promoted…so while I think it’s misguided as you do, I don’t think they are evil…

Maybe that scripture about Pharisees wasn’t the best possible comparison to make; it just bothers me that some of these Church leaders act so concerned about trying to look righteous to other members with all the emphasis on temple worthiness, white shirts, no facial hair, etc. almost as if all this externally visible conformity is more important than how we treat people. I didn’t mean to imply that I think they are terrible people that are being malicious on purpose; actually I think they generally have good intentions and sincerely believe what they are doing is right.

Even if they are probably not nearly as bad as the Pharisees to the point that they would try to kill Jesus, I still think they are very similar to the Pharisees based on the things they say because it looks like they have been corrupted by false traditions and currently put way too much emphasis on the letter-of-the-law. Sure it’s probably not really their fault, it seems like they are mostly just repeating the same teachings they have inherited from previous generations. However, I can’t help but criticize their mistakes when they claim to have special inspiration and revelations but then they continue to ignore all these growing problems right in front of their face.

[Anonymous]

This is where I struggle…I see these problems now more clearly now that I hear a rather small and committed group of us highlighting them — often in different ways in different discussions. I would really like to know just how widespread the problem is, really.

I have never been ostracized because of my shirt, or my facial hair, except when I applied to be a veil worker. Then I was told I couldn’t be one because I had a moustache. I shaved it off, and then they never called me to be a veil worker. But I wasn’t offended because I don’t enjoy being part of mechanistic tasks where people hover over you, waiting for you to make a mistake.

Is this really a big problem with the Church membership at large? If so, what evidence do we have of this?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

This is where I struggle…I see these problems now more clearly now that I hear a rather small and committed group of us highlighting them — often in different ways in different discussions. I would really like to know just how widespread the problem is, really…Is this really a big problem with the Church membership at large? If so, what evidence do we have of this?

Maybe it’s not that big of a problem to the majority of active members but I think all these strict rules are definitely a big problem with the Church membership at large when you consider all the inactive members. My guess is that this is one of the main reasons there are so many inactive members (something like two-thirds of the total membership) because they get the idea that this is what being a good Mormon is all about, that you can’t drink, smoke, have sex before you are married, etc. Jesus talked about trying to bring back the lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7) but we currently have almost no chance at all of accomplishing this with a significant number of members simply because we expect them all to “repent” of imaginary “sins” like coffee, tobacco, and beer.

So far, I think Church leaders have been content to lose all these inactive members mostly because the Church has continued to grow without them so they probably rationalize that these members that can’t get with the program are weak and sinful and therefore not worth worrying too much about. However, what has changed more recently is that active members are having fewer children on average and anti-Mormon propaganda on the internet is causing more people to leave or never join the Chruch than in the past. Rather than looking at the main reasons members leave (tedious meetings and unreasonable doctrines, rules, policies, etc.) it seems like the Church has tried to address the slowing growth rate by asking the remaining members to try harder with missionary and reactivation efforts, not wait to get married and have children, etc.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

But then, out comes Costa’s talk last conference stressing the whole blind obedience concept all over again. So, there is not a consistent message.

Didn’t someone say (Pres Monson maybe???) in the last conference that talks are not assigned to speakers, but they let them follow the spirit to decide for themselves, which are then obviously approved and read over? So there really can’t be a consistent message in Conference Talks, because different speakers are choosing their topics, right? Pres Monson didn’t say, “I need Elder Costa to go get some support for me.”

Anyway, it seems more like lots of well-intentioned people are trying hard to keep offering inspiring messages and best practices…which just turn into more rules. The intention is good, but the result is information overload. I need a google browser for church rules, and search on “Important to my growth” – and let the filter tell me which ones I should focus on, because I can’t focus on them all at once, which is the realization that we all live buffet style.

I don’t think the rules HAVE TO replace the religion. I can choose which rules I find helpful in my religion, and keep doing my best to be a better person, even if I’m not perfect keeping them all.

[Anonymous]

PiperAlpha wrote:

Didn’t someone say (Pres Monson maybe???) in the last conference that talks are not assigned to speakers, but they let them follow the spirit to decide for themselves, which are then obviously approved and read over? So there really can’t be a consistent message in Conference Talks, because different speakers are choosing their topics, right? Pres Monson didn’t say, “I need Elder Costa to go get some support for me.”

Anyway, it seems more like lots of well-intentioned people are trying hard to keep offering inspiring messages and best practices…which just turn into more rules. The intention is good, but the result is information overload. I need a google browser for church rules, and search on “Important to my growth” – and let the filter tell me which ones I should focus on, because I can’t focus on them all at once, which is the realization that we all live buffet style.

I don’t remember if it was Pres. Monson that said it, but that is true. I’ve had it verified to me by people in the know. Several weeks before Conference, they submit all their scriptural references to make sure that they aren’t being repeated, but that’s it. There’s no direction on specific topics.

I think there’s a pretty simple explanation for why we hear things like the “Fourteen Fundamentals” – the dynamics of the hierarchy. I think it’s pretty clear from the way many Seventies and Auxiliaries (YW, YM, and Sunday School) and sometimes the Presiding Bishopric, that many are desperately trying to ingratiate themselves with the Twelve and the FP. The yearning to please higher-ups that I often hear in in their talks drowns out any other message. With a few exceptions, Seventies usually deliver messages that are most likely to emphasize rules, following the prophet, blind obedience, etc.

[Anonymous]

Andrew wrote:

I think there’s a pretty simple explanation for why we hear things like the “Fourteen Fundamentals” – the dynamics of the hierarchy. I think it’s pretty clear from the way many Seventies and Auxiliaries (YW, YM, and Sunday School) and sometimes the Presiding Bishopric, that many are desperately trying to ingratiate themselves with the Twelve and the FP. The yearning to please higher-ups that I often hear in in their talks drowns out any other message. With a few exceptions, Seventies usually deliver messages that are most likely to emphasize rules, following the prophet, blind obedience, etc.

Yeah, I notice this too, and I am not a fan.

[Anonymous]

Andrew wrote:

The yearning to please higher-ups that I often hear in in their talks drowns out any other message. With a few exceptions, Seventies usually deliver messages that are most likely to emphasize rules, following the prophet, blind obedience, etc.

I would agree with that, Andrew. They don’t seem to celebrate or encourage the Liahona-style approach to the Word of God.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

An NT or NF should never be chased out by an SJ, IMO. SJs are common. NTs and NFs are more rare. We will encounter SJs our whole lives, BTW. We adapted throughout school, we adapt at work. We know how to adapt. Awareness should only make it easier to adapt by seeing it for what it is. We don’t go to church for the groupthink. We aren’t SJs. We should be far more skilled at dealing with people who are different from us.

Brilliant observation, as usual!!!

[Anonymous]

I need some help with the acronyms in hawkgirl’s post

[Anonymous]

observant, read the following thread:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=568&hilit=briggs

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I Posted this at NOM. Interesting to see what the StayLDS’ers have to say.

After enduring our latest HP lesson it is confirmed to me the church is dying. They handed out a the new little booklet on the family. Then proceeded to discuss how to give blessings, do ordinances, conduct family home evening, etc, etc. The whole jist of the lesson was not on the meaning of any of this but that they were done exactly right, that the proper words were used, that you were dressed appropriately, that no sinners were allowed to participate. So very little substance and so many rules.

I believe because there is so precious little revelation or new doctrine coming from on high the leaders tend to turn to more stringent rules as a sign of progression in the church. When rules replace religion I am afraid inspiration and creativity cease. When the procedure of giving a blessing is more important than what is said I think we are lost. When wearing a white shirt is a sign of your purity with little thought of what you are on the inside determines your position in the church, what hope is there.

I am not going to say the church is all bad. I find many aspects good that I like participating in. I also know I am nit picking to some degree here. But as far as a religion goes the church is withering on the vine. Opinion unless correlated is discouraged. Thought outside of the box is scary. Like I said I think this is inevitable of a church that claims so much and produces so little in the way revelation. Thinking of conference it was just platitudes and shallow promises by being obedient. We are living in the past with nothing of substance happening here and now. We are retreading everything we have and tightening the screws on creativity. It seems we are on a path to irrelevancy and mediocrity. It makes me sad.

_________________

Despite my appearance on these forums I am one of those that are torn and tossed to and fro. I chafe at the rules yet I also bring them up when they aren’t being observed. I nit pick, maybe because by nit picking I can satisfy the desire to say something and can stay away from the big things that might get me in trouble. An example, the handbook says we don’t need to have the flag on the stand. I consider myself very patriotic but I am not a flag waver. I don’t have a problem with the flag on the stand except that it is kind of against the rules. I brought it up, pointed out in the handbook where it is addresse, and the branch presidency said it would be taken care of. The flag is still up but I’m not going to persue the matter any farther.

I see it very common for ordinances to be performed by the power of the priesthood. The instructions are pretty specific about this, they are done by the authority. I have seen members of the stake presidency do this. I mention it all the time but it is so ingrained that it never sinks in. The most recent example of something not being stated correctly was during a confirmation. I don’t remember the specifics but I pointed it out to the branch president after it was done and over. Is it a big deal? I don’t know. The Lord’s house is supposed to be a house of order. Is the ordinance invalid because the rules weren’t followed? I don’t think so.

As far as new revelation and doctrine. I don’t think we need any at this time. Supposedly we have been given every thing we need to know to return to our Heavenly Father. Well, maybe we do need new revelation to do away with the old stuff that just wasn’t true.

Just my thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Thoreau wrote:

Supposedly we have been given every thing we need to know to return to our Heavenly Father. Well, maybe we do need new revelation to do away with the old stuff that just wasn’t true.

I’m going to respectfully disagree on this point Thoreau. What about the lost 166 manuscript pages? sealed portion of the BOM? the “bibles” that the lost tribes will bring with them? the lost book of Joseph? What about the ordinance of resurrection? What about the article of faith that God will yet reveal many great and important things relevant to the salvation of man? When do we become like the people foretold in the BOM, “We Have Got a Bible and We Need No More Bible”?

I do not mean to suggest that more is required before we can return to our eternal home, indeed I think that much that is currently taught as vital is actually only somewhat helpful. I think this is what you were intending to hit upon in saying, “Well, maybe we do need new revelation to do away with the old stuff that just wasn’t true.”

[Author]

Posts