Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ALarson

  1. You may call it a "convenient answer", but it's still what is taking place with many members today. I think we will see even more of this type of thinking in the younger generations. They question everything and especially have strong beliefs and opinion regarding social issues. It will be interesting to watch.... Only in that members realize that a statement today may change tomorrow. So another reason members feel it's ok to disagree with our leaders at times and follow their own inspiration for their themselves or their families. The most recent example is the policy change that occurred so quickly after the initial policy was called a "revelation".
  2. Not according to many past leaders and Prophets (who even received revelation regarding them) : There are many more I could post....but as you see, past Prophets and leaders had not problem identifying who the Lamanites were.....
  3. LOL....ok (I was just teasing you a bit....but you're so serious about everything ) I guess time will tell. I believe that will depend on how the next Prophet emphasizes it. If he feels as strongly as Pres. Nelson does, we may possibly see what you describe. But I honestly still doubt that and I do believe we will always still hear "Mormon" and "LDS" commonly used to identify us (and for members to identify themselves and fellow members). That's my opinion....I certainly understand if you disagree.
  4. Excellent question and a good example of why some members have issues regarding trusting or believing all that a Prophet teaches (especially with believing it was an actual revelation...such as the name change and the policy regarding gays). And, the answers you got explain why: So, we are back to listening to what a Prophet (and other leaders) teach, but then praying about it to know if it's revelation and true. Is it just going to change soon or is it a doctrine that is forever? And it seems we all agree that it's ok to disagree at times as long as we don't preach it publicly.
  5. You're thinking of this: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/08/20/jana-riess-year-later-how/
  6. Lois Smart is the one who filed for divorce (on July 5). We don't have all the details here and I'd recommend refraining from passing judgement on either one of them.
  7. Well...who knows? That may come back That would actually be a good term for any person (male or female) ministering to a family or single .....a ward teacher.
  8. I agree. As for how it'll be in 10 years....who knows? It may depend on who the Prophet is and if it's something they feel as strongly about as Pres. Nelson does. It was obvious for some time that this was a pet peeve of his or something he wanted to change.
  9. Have you experienced it? If not, I wouldn't generalize like that....but if you have, did you really self-impose a marginalization from fellow members? That would be odd to do, IMO, and not at all what I have observed, experienced at one time and continue to see within the church (and from even good and well-intentioned members).
  10. I agree. I've found most members still say "LDS" or "Mormon". It's like they took note and tried when it was first announced, but then continued using those terms to identify (themselves and others). I also still hear "Mormon church" as often as I did before. We try very hard when conducting a meeting or speaking to use the full name of the church and also in writing. But I have to admit that even the leaders still use "LDS", "Mormon" and "Mormon church" I think we've seen the same thing happen with the press. At first we saw a change and an effort, but now it's back to using those names/terms when writing a story about us.....
  11. Hi Bob Thanks for posting some information about this book. I haven't heard about it and it looks really interesting....I may have to order it! I agree with what is in the description of the book:
  12. Ok. But then it seems that you disregarded those words when you ask all the questions I quoted. I think rockpond has expressed his beliefs very well and in a very respectful manner here. They mirror how many members now believe and most especially those who have experienced a faith crisis but managed to stay active in the church. (From my experience....)
  13. Why did you leave off this part of what rockpond stated in addition to what you quote?
  14. Oh...gotcha! I just read "members of the church" and thought you meant in general....not specific to just members of the church IN ZIMBABWE Thanks for clarifying....
  15. I disagree. Just try bringing up anything to do with Joseph Smith's polygamy in a class setting and you'll see a great deal of "unease", silence and glares. I've seen it happen Polygamy is a huge issue for many members.....
  16. Who are you quoting here? I missed it if someone stated that. I certainly have not made that claim....just the opposite actually. Good grief. I was answering YOUR question. You asked: My response:
  17. I don't know what you're referring to here? Why is there a loss of trust? I think that's been explained numerous times already. It's not difficult to understand why that is happening with some members, IMO. For many, yes. But I'm not sure it really matters once the damage is done and the trust has been lost. I'd focus more on how to restore or rebuild the trust and help those who have lost trust remain active in the church if that is possible. Oh, I don't think anything is "simple" regarding this topic. And I've posted numerous times that I personally disagree with much of what Runnells has done....I'm not a big fan of his. I just believe it's not real productive to focus on personally attacking him or his motives and methods instead of focusing on the real problem we as leaders are now dealing with.....the loss of trust we see and then us trying to help those who read the letter and are left shaken or wanting to leave the church. And yes, the letter does contain "information and "truth", along with conclusions that are damaging. Is it 100% accurate? Of course not. But neither is the information coming from our leaders (read on the thread regarding Tad Callister for example). It happens from both sides and is understandable. Hopefully a member will take the time to sort through and research and come to their own conclusions. Some do, but many don't and are leaving. And, that's the problem here....not if their loss of trust is reasonable or informed, IMO. It's still a loss of trust.
  18. I disagree that expecting honesty is "an implicit expectation of infallibility" (or even "very close to it"). Honesty is certainly expect from the members and that doesn't mean we are all expected to be infallible. That and others (even as simple as the only one ear piercing for example). I'm just seeing more members being more comfortable with disagreeing at times with the leaders. Which I think is fine as long as they don't publicly speak ill of them, slander or criticize....etc.
  19. This is an excellent point to make and I agree. You stated it better than I've been attempting to do as I've tried to describe what I've observed many members doing if they are able to remain active members after their crisis of faith. We can mock what some term "hero worship" of our leaders, but many members have done that and have believed our leaders should be perfect. However, expecting honestly from them is not expecting too much and I hope all would agree on that. I'm happy to see a more accurate church history at least starting to be taught. And no....I'm not saying all leaders have lied in the past about that. But many knew and at least allowed to inaccurate history still taught.
  20. Not that I'm aware of (just that single discovery). But add all the other information that is new to many members when they read the letter and it can really shake members and cause them to start questioning everything the leaders have taught over the years. It's a loss of trust in their leaders (as has been posted now numerous times). I disagree. I think the new information (the truths) hit members right in the face and then they read the conclusions or interpretations which only add to the damage already done. Then they go searching for answers from church leaders (much of the time) and find answers like: Well....now there's speculation there are more than one Hill Cumorah! Or....Well, now we really don't know....
  21. No....or at least just maybe for some. I think members expect truth and honesty from their leaders and many now feel they haven't received that regarding church history or past teachings It's just an analysis of what I am seeing taking place with the members I've worked with. Many seem to trust less in their leaders and trust more in their own inspiration more regarding teachings and policies. (If they've gone through a crisis of faith and remain active.) As a result, many are more comfortable disagreeing with the leaders at times (ie. the policy regarding gay members....).
  22. I think the leaders agree with you here and are really now trying to do that. I applaud their efforts too. At least this may help the younger generations (I hope), if they learn a more accurate church history. But I am seeing them leaving over other issues now....so it's challenging and has to be frustrating for the leaders as well.
  23. I believe we are talking about both. Julie gave a great example (from this presentation) early on in this thread. It's exactly what takes place when a member reads the letter for the first time (or learns the information elsewhere). And then, it continues to play out over and over again as they learn about more and more issues. And yes, the interpretations and evaluations are very important and can add to the damage. But it's hard to combat those when a fact was presented first and the members learn it's the truth. I fully agree that we can disagree with Runnell's conclusions. However, that doesn't change what's taking place with the members who are reading the letter. Not at all and I've not stated that. I was simply giving what my experience has been from working with members on this. I think there's progress being made....I agree.
  24. Yes, I learned nothing new from reading through most of it (I don't believe I actually finished it because of that...). But there are a great many members who have not studied or researched details from church history and have simply believed what they have been commonly taught over the years by the leaders and in the weekly lessons and talks. And, those are the members who are shaken when they read the CES Letter. We can blame them....call them lazy....or say they should have already known all of that info just like we did.....but it doesn't change the fact that they did not know and just learned about them from the letter. I get that and appreciate your efforts. I actually think there has been some good work done in response to the letter. I'll be honest though and say that so far, none of them can really counter the damage done from a member reading it. Some can pull through and stay active and continue believing....but that seems to be rarer and rarer to see from my experience with ward and family members. And that's the real problem here (not what Runnell's motives were, etc.)
  • Create New...