Jump to content
cinepro

"Backlash against an obituary of its late prophet Thomas S. Monson reveals the existential doubts gnawing at the modern church."

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

In 50 years when interested students of Mormonism look back on the Thomas Monson years--they are without doubt going to see a period of retrenchment and retreat.  

Standing in the same spot = retreating?

Sorry, we LDS aren't the ones that changed.  We still hold to the same scriptures and the same beliefs.  It's rest of the country (including many Protestants) that's changed their minds on things like "hey not you decide if you're a boy or a girl" or "it doesn't matter who you have sex with" or so many other things.  If you want to call still standing in the same place with the Lord "retreating", you can.  I'm happily standing still. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Standing in the same spot = retreating?

I think the leaders stood their ground regarding some of the past beliefs or teachings, but they've altered others (not the core doctrine regarding the behavior being a sin).  The new policy put in place may be interpreted by some as at least "retrenchment".

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

 It's rest of the country (including many Protestants) that's changed their minds on things...

True.  But it's also many members of the church who have changed their minds regarding SSM, etc. 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

True.  But it's also many members of the church who have changed their minds regarding SSM, etc. 

Succumbing to social pressure is not a new or particularly remarkable thing, even for professed Mormons. "Even the very elect will be deceived."

Share this post


Link to post

So I keep seeing the phrase "existential doubts" in the title of this thread. I think I have pinpointed why it bugs me so.

The online Miriam-Webster dictionary defines existential in this way:

 
Quote

 

of, relating to, or affirming existence
  • existential propositions
2 a : grounded in existence or the experience of existence : empirical
b : having being in time and space

 

 

So the author of the piece appears to be applying the term as a synonym for existing, that is to say, existing doubts. Which is a redundant application of the term. If there are doubts, they are, of course, existing doubts.

This seems to be a case of a writer plucking from his lexicon an expensive, highly academic sounding but unnecessary term, apparently in a misguided effort to give a brainy veneer to what really is nothing better than a manifestation of confirmation bias.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the leaders stood their ground regarding some of the past beliefs or teachings, but they've altered others (not the core doctrine regarding the behavior being a sin).  The new policy put in place may be interpreted by some as at least "retrenchment".

 

From what is the new policy retrenching?

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Succumbing to social pressure is not a new or particularly remarkable thing, even for professed Mormons. "Even the very elect will be deceived."

I don't agree that it is "succumbing to social pressure".  Maybe for a few this is true (and most especially for the younger generation, so I agree there...although many now have friends who are gay who they love and want them to be happy in relationships).

I've seen most shift their feelings and beliefs as they've gotten to know and become friends with someone who is gay or who has a family member who is gay.  Members are also educating themselves more on this topic and this has caused many of them to change their beliefs and feelings.  

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From what is the new policy retrenching?

I said that some may see it as such (it definitely caused members to leave and cut down the number of those along with some going inactive).  For me, it was just a huge step backwards as far as the leaders trying to reach out and be inclusive to their members who are gay (and their families).

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Succumbing to social pressure is not a new or particularly remarkable thing, even for professed Mormons. "Even the very elect will be deceived."

This has happened many times. Social pressure to ostracize gay members of the church is  very strong. "The very elect" are deceived into ungodly treatment of their brothers and sisters.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I said that some may see it as such (it definitely caused members to leave and cut down the number of those along with some going inactive).  For me, it was just a huge step backwards as far as the leaders trying to reach out and be inclusive to their members who are gay (and their families).

If, as you say, "the leaders stood their ground regarding some of the past beliefs or teachings, but they've altered others (not the core doctrine regarding the behavior being a sin)," then the policy is not a step backward. Whatever the perceived efforts to reach out and be inclusive, they have never included approval or tolerance of homosexual behavior, nor have they included acquiescence to or legitimizing of homosexual "marriage". Ergo, an entry by a Church member into such an arrangement must logically be regarded as an act of apostasy.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Gray said:

This has happened many times. Social pressure to ostracize gay members of the church is  very strong. "The very elect" are deceived into ungodly treatment of their brothers and sisters.

To the extent that people, including Church members, succumb to pressure to treat others unkindly, that, of course warrants condemnation. Holding fast to behavioral standards of worthiness for Church membership and participation, however, is not unkind.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If, as you say, the leaders stood their ground regarding some of the past beliefs or teachings, but they've altered others (not the core doctrine regarding the behavior being a sin)," then the policy is not a step backward. 

Thus the words, "For me,"   I also know that other members feel the same.

You disagree and that's fine (and some members agree with you).  This is an issue where members are pretty divided in their feelings and opinions.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To the extent that people, including Church members, succumb to pressure to treat others unkindly, that, of course warrants condemnation.

Glad you agree.

 

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Holding fast to behavioral standards of worthiness for Church membership and participation, however, is not unkind.

Standards of worthiness unequally applied, and in this case bereft of spiritual maturity and wisdom, borrowed from our fundamentalist Christian neighbors.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Gray said:

Glad you agree.

 

Standards of worthiness unequally applied, and in this case bereft of spiritual maturity and wisdom, borrowed from our fundamentalist Christian neighbors.

Amazing. You’ve managed to utter a sentence (or, to be precise, a sentence fragment) without a word of truth in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Amazing. You’ve managed to utter a sentence (or, to be precise, a sentence fragment) without a word of truth in it. 

Truth doesn't lie in base prejudice born of long years of ignorance and naive fundamentalism.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Standing in the same spot = retreating?

Sorry, we LDS aren't the ones that changed.  We still hold to the same scriptures and the same beliefs.  It's rest of the country (including many Protestants) that's changed their minds on things like "hey not you decide if you're a boy or a girl" or "it doesn't matter who you have sex with" or so many other things.  If you want to call still standing in the same place with the Lord "retreating", you can.  I'm happily standing still. 

And yet studies over the past decade have shown young people are less sexually active, less inclined to indulge risky behavior (including the activities the LDS Church disapproves) than our generation.  See this article in the Washington Post as example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fewer-teens-having-sex-as-decline-in-risky-behaviors-continue/2018/01/04/a868bf84-f15c-11e7-97bf-bba379b809ab_story.html?utm_term=.9d1ef9a0a274

That means the LDS Church should be having a heyday, right?  Deeds > words.  What's wrong with this picture?

--Erik

______________________________________________________

Now in a game of chance the other night
Old Dame Fortune was a-doin' me right
The kings and the queens just kept on comin' round

And I got a full and I bet it high
But my bluff didn't work on a certain guy
He just kept on raisin' and layin' that money down

Now he'd raise me and I'd raise him
I sweated blood, gotta sink or swim
He finally called and then didn't raise the bet

I said "aces full pal, how 'bout you?"
He said "I'll tell you in a minute or two
But right now, I gotta have me a cigarette"

--Tex Williams, 1947

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×