Should We Change Doctrine Or Practices To Please Critics?

[Jeff K.]

I agree. For example.take.jonna brooks the article about her demonstrates a roller coaster of in and out. What I have observed is hat people have to make the choice to come.back in.

There will also be room for critique. Also trying answer some issues just makes things worse.

I see critique as different from criticism based on motivation and an understanding of context. I wasn't too impressed with the Jonna Brooks article since it presumed a political air versus a religious one. If politics trumps religion then perhaps the ultimate goal isn't aligned with what the gospel's goal is.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The Unitarians aren't a bad bunch. My brother worships with them.

What do they worship?

[Xander]

For those who look to an excuse in order to "leave" it does indeed become easier to stylize religion as a "social organization" which in effect makes a characteristic the reason for existence.

No one needs an "excuse" to leave, but everyone has their reasons for doing so. That religion is a social organization is a fact, it isn't something conjured up by those looking for "excuses." When people discover the Church has made claims that are false, well everyone responds to that dilemma differently. How they react all depends on a personal cost benefit analysis of staying or leaving the faith. Most people I know just hang around anyway and go through the motions, knowing perfectly well it isn't true. You'd be surprised how many posters on the other forum go to Church every Sunday, even though they are regularly accused of being apostates.

That is of course a false assumption. Most churches have a characteristic which can be defined as a social organization. But then so does the army, so does a union, so do any number of organizations, but they are not first and foremost "social organizations", their main reason for existence is something else entirely, the same with religion.

I am not talking about a religion's "main reason for existence." So the rest of your post is just a straw man.

I am sure Xander would like us to believe that most Mormons "he knows" care little for doctrine.

It is a fact whether you would like to believe it or not. Your belief is irrelevant to this fact. My wife is a perfect example. She is primarily interested in keeping with family tradition. She was raised in the Church in Brazil and knows virtually nothing about its doctrine. From polygamy to deification, she knew virtually nothing. When she found out, she was stunned, but decided to toss it aside as irrelevant because she didn't want to give up her way of life. Mormonism, you see, is far more than just a belief system. It digs roots into every aspect of one's life. A lot of religions do this too. Not saying it is bad, it is just the way it is. This means letting go of it all isn't as easy nor is it easily explained as a simple matter of belief vs. unbelief. This is something the apologists don't seem to understand, nor do they appear to have any interest in listening to what we have to say about our reasons. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism tells you we left the church because we just wanted to sin, and but that was written for the purpose of keeping others from following their lead. I'm sure you love to think this way, but reality is far different from what many here are willing to concede.

But back to the point, you'd be surprised how many Mormons are in the Church despite their disbelief. My best friend told me recently that his father finally admitted to his family that he has not believed in the Church in more than forty years now. But he has been so tied to it all his life, he really doesn't know how else to live. Leaving the Church serves no purpose for some people; all it does is disrupt relationships with those who are still in it.

It makes it easier for him to convince others and perhaps himself that no one cares.

Excuse me? I'm not interested in trying to convince those folks like trying to lead the apologetic vanguard. Talk about an exercise in futility.

In fact this board alone proves him wrong. Doctrine is an important aspect within the greater reason for our church's existence, "religion".

You never saw the day when you thought you could prove me wrong. The only way you can pull off this smoke and mirror job is by manipulating what I said and beating up a straw man. Hence, the irrelevant rant about the "greater reason" for a Church's existence, which has nothing to do with what I said about religion being a social organization. That's essentially what it is. Is it more than that? Of course it is.

I doubt he posts much on social organizations and clubs in the same manner he seems to attack the church.

I do not attack the Church, I defend truth. If you can prove I am not concluding truth, then make an argument to that effect. But make sure you're attacking my position, and not some lame straw man like you just did.

Meaning the doctrine and religion is imporant to him, if for no other reason than he hates it. I have yet to see an indifferent post regarding the church from him.

Ah, and when all else fails, pull the usual "you hate us so much" persecution card that does nothing but poison the well. Some things never change.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

For those who look to an excuse in order to "leave" it does indeed become easier to stylize religion as a "social organization" which in effect makes a characteristic the reason for existence.

No one needs an "excuse" to leave, but everyone has their reasons for doing so. That religion is a social organization is a fact, it isn't something conjured up by those looking for "excuses." When people discover the Church has made claims that are false, well everyone responds to that dilemma differently. How they react all depends on a personal cost benefit analysis of staying or leaving the faith. Most people I know just hang around anyway and go through the motions, knowing perfectly well it isn't true. You'd be surprised how many posters on the other forum go to Church every Sunday, even though they are regularly accused of being apostates.

And yet they all have an excuse to leave. Or do some leave for no reason? Well, in either case you seem to be missing the point completely. Allow me to show the full text of what I wrote rather than your carefully edited version...

For those who look to an excuse in order to "leave" it does indeed become easier to stylize religion as a "social organization" which in effect makes a characteristic the reason for existence. That is of course a false assumption. Most churches have a characteristic which can be defined as a social organization. But then so does the army, so does a union, so do any number of organizations, but they are not first and foremost "social organizations", their main reason for existence is something else entirely, the same with religion. I am sure Xander would like us to believe that most Mormons "he knows" care little for doctrine. It makes it easier for him to convince others and perhaps himself that no one cares. In fact this board alone proves him wrong. Doctrine is an important aspect within the greater reason for our church's existence, "religion".

Everyone has an excuse for leaving.

I am not talking about a religion's "main reason for existence." So the rest of your post is just a straw man.

Now that is not quite true....

What makes you think people are in the religion for the religion? Churches provide tremendous benefits to those belonging to them. It is first and foremost a social organization, and humans are social creatures by nature.

I suggest you look up themeaning of words first and foremost in the context of the sentence. Your's was the strawman argument, I simply knocked it down.

Quote

I am sure Xander would like us to believe that most Mormons "he knows" care little for doctrine.

It is a fact whether you would like to believe it or not. Your belief is irrelevant to this fact. My wife is a perfect example. She is primarily interested in keeping with family tradition. She was raised in the Church in Brazil and knows virtually nothing about its doctrine. From polygamy to deification, she knew virtually nothing. When she found out, she was stunned, but decided to toss it aside as irrelevant because she didn't want to give up her way of life. Mormonism, you see, is far more than just a belief system. It digs roots into every aspect of one's life. A lot of religions do this too. Not saying it is bad, it is just the way it is. This means letting go of it all isn't as easy nor is it easily explained as a simple matter of belief vs. unbelief. This is something the apologists don't seem to understand, nor do they appear to have any interest in listening to what we have to say about our reasons. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism tells you we left the church because we just wanted to sin, and but that was written for the purpose of keeping others from following their lead. I'm sure you love to think this way, but reality is far different from what many here are willing to concede.

But back to the point, you'd be surprised how many Mormons are in the Church despite their disbelief. My best friend told me recently that his father finally admitted to his family that he has not believed in the Church in more than forty years now. But he has been so tied to it all his life, he really doesn't know how else to live. Leaving the Church serves no purpose for some people; all it does is disrupt relationships with those who are still in it.

Whenevery you say "its a fact...." red lights go off on here at the forum board.

And the rest of the statement hasn't refuted the impression (or shall we say turned off the red warning lights). I would not count your impressions of your wife as "most people you know", unless of course you have a very narrow group of people you hang out with, which is plausible by the way.

Quote

In fact this board alone proves him wrong. Doctrine is an important aspect within the greater reason for our church's existence, "religion".

You never saw the day when you thought you could prove me wrong. The only way you can pull off this smoke and mirror job is by manipulating what I said and beating up a straw man. Hence, the irrelevant rant about the "greater reason" for a Church's existence, which has nothing to do with what I said about religion being a social organization. That's essentially what it is. Is it more than that? Of course it is.

So says the blind man.

See earlier statements

Quote

I doubt he posts much on social organizations and clubs in the same manner he seems to attack the church.

I do not attack the Church, I defend truth. If you can prove I am not concluding truth, then make an argument to that effect. But make sure you're attacking my position, and not some lame straw man like you just did.

So far you haven't proven much beyond your ability to mangle the meaning of words and perhaps not mean what you say. Reread the earlier portion of this post.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Meaning the doctrine and religion is imporant to him, if for no other reason than he hates it. I have yet to see an indifferent post regarding the church from him.

Ah, and when all else fails, pull the usual "you hate us so much" persecution card that does nothing but poison the well. Some things never change.

You brought the arsenic, I simply pointed it out to you.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

No one needs an "excuse" to leave, but everyone has their reasons for doing so. That religion is a social organization is a fact, it isn't something conjured up by those looking for "excuses." When people discover the Church has made claims that are false, well everyone responds to that dilemma differently. How they react all depends on a personal cost benefit analysis of staying or leaving the faith. Most people I know just hang around anyway and go through the motions, knowing perfectly well it isn't true. You'd be surprised how many posters on the other forum go to Church every Sunday, even though they are regularly accused of being apostates.

What have you replaced it with other than contempt Kevin? I do not ask in jest...your goal now is to offer nothing but doubt, you have not found anything but what you believe to be another truth. You also speak of the Mormon Church as though the organization is making decisions and not men.

[Xander]

And yet they all have an excuse to leave. Or do some leave for no reason?

"Reason" and "excuse" aren't necessarily synonymous. The word excuse you prefer because it implies wrong doing. Everyone has their reasons, like I said. No one needs an "excuse." That's just something apologists like to say.

Well, in either case you seem to be missing the point completely. Allow me to show the full text of what I wrote rather than your carefully edited version...

"Carefully edited" version, huh?

Sigh.

And what exactly is in that highlighted portion that somehow corrects or refutes what I said? You don't say. Why don't you go ahead and name me single organized religion that is not social by its very nature. It is far more than just a characterstic, especially in the case of Mormonism. Mormonism is overwhelmingly socially dependent. Anyone who has spent any amount of time around Mormons or in the Church knows this to be true. And the social aspect runs globally. Whether I move to Wisconsin or Nigeria, my wife can have Mormon helpers unloading our truck the next day. If I were unemployed, I could have several LDS eployment agencies on alert, as well as three different bishops pulling strings for me. If I want to take my wife out, I can choose between a dozen available Mormon babysitters. The benefits to belonging to such an organized social scheme cannot be emphasized enough. All religions tend to be social, but Mormonism leaves them all in the dust. There is a drawback though, because it makes it much harder to leave the organization. Leaving the Baptist Church and joining a Methodist Church is rarely a difficult social decision. Baptists do not claim to be elite in God's eyes, the chosen people, or the "one true Church" that treats all apostates as Gentiles who broke their covenants, etc etc.

I suggest you look up themeaning of words first and foremost in the context of the sentence. Your's was the strawman argument, I simply knocked it down.

"First and foremost," as in fundamental to what it necessarily is. And as I said, it is fundamentally a social organization. It is a universal aspect of organized religions. What purpose that organization wants to serve is something you brought up, but it is beside the point.

Whenevery you say "its a fact...." red lights go off on here at the forum board

Maybe that's because facts are not liked here? If you can prove something isn't a fact, then one might expect an argument instead of a conniption fit. Unfortunately, I usually get the latter.

I would not count your impressions of your wife as "most people you know", unless of course you have a very narrow group of people you hang out with, which is plausible by the way.

So I have to literally provide every single example of every disbelieving Mormon I know, or else I'm lying about "most peple I know"? Good grief. I provided my wife only as an example, not because she is the only one. Do you really want to to write out fifty pages of stories concerning every disbelieving Mormon I know?

Didn't think so.

[wenglund]

Jeff,

It helps to realize that:

1) Socially repelling people tend not to fare well in organizations they preceive as first and foremost social.

2) People who worship themselves as God, or who trust themselves over God, and look to themselves and man as the source of light and truth, tend not to fare well in churches where the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are God, and are the primary object of faith and the source of light and truth.

3) Dogmatist, with their fundamentalist, norrow-minded, and cemented notions of the "truth", tend not to fare well in religions open to new revelations and growth in faith and truth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

You will never make the critics happy. Once we accept this, the decision becomes infinitely easier.

The Church shouldn't change to try to make the critics happy. It should change because sometimes the critics are right.

I suspect some people have adopted an overly negative definition of what a "critic" is. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who sees something wrong and talks about it is a "critic". Thus, an apostle who advocates for a major policy change is just as much a "critic" as a nursery leader who tries to get the snack policy changed or someone that has stopped going entirely because of a "criticism".

Edited February 8, 2012 by cinepro

[Xander]

The Church shouldn't change to try to make the critics happy. It should change because sometimes the critics are right.

Precisely.

But unfortunately, the critics can never be right. About anything. Because to some, the only real worldview involves a fight between good and evil, and there simply is no middle ground allowed. "Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve..."

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Please show where any critic has been right as concerning LDS doctrine.

[Jeff K.]

The Church shouldn't change to try to make the critics happy. It should change because sometimes the critics are right.

I suspect some people have adopted an overly negative definition of what a "critic" is. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who sees something wrong and talks about it is a "critic". Thus, an apostle who advocates for a major policy change is just as much a "critic" as a nursery leader who tries to get the snack policy changed or someone that has stopped going entirely because of a "criticism".

The vast majority of the critics who come to this board don't care if they are right, they do however want to criticize the church. Anti Mormons think they are right in seeking to destroy the church. So the only way you can make people like Xander for example, happy, is to destroy the church.

Which is "precisely" what Xander thinks is best.

[KevinG]

What makes you think people are in the religion for the religion?

You asked this in the form of a question - but you have hit on one of the core reasons people stay wiht a faith tradition they cannot believe in. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I understand the difficulty of leaving a tradition that includes one's family and social circle. I understand this deeply being a convert to the LDS faith and spending a lot of time with family and clergy explaining my reasons and that I still loved them for who they were.

Churches provide tremendous benefits to those belonging to them.

Yes.

It is first and foremost a social organization, and humans are social creatures by nature.

If a persons religion is first and foremost a social thing they are standing on very thing ground. This thread was about being true to ones belief system not who we choose to hang around with. I fear for those who hang their faith on the people around them instead of Christ.

Many Mormons I know do not give a flip about the doctrines, but ride out the process of living a "Mormon" life because of the other benefits.

And these Mormons would be in danger of hypocricy and apostacy.

So you have many people who don't really care about whether or not it is true. I'm not one of those. For me, what's true is important. Well, at this point I don't care what the Church changes. Now that I know the Church isn't true, I have no interest in returning. But I can understand how others might feel differently. I guess I am at an advantage because unlike others, I do not have a lot of family ties to the Church.

One tiny flaw in your protestations of self awareness and independence. You have not let it go yet. In fact you spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet casting dispersions at LDS beliefs and members.

I have no similar trouble with the Methodists I grew up with.

I do recognize that being an active Mormon is a lifestyle and not just a Sunday activity. I think that aspect of our religion and other dynamic or dogmatic religions makes them hard to leave and still leave alone. That much I empathise with- but I cannot imagine the conflict that an underground critic (meaning someone who complains about the doctrines but puts on the appearance of the faithful mormon for family sake) does not suffer from copious amounts of dissonance.

Perhaps this is the source of their accusatory projection that faithful Mormons must suffer from cognitive dissonance?

[KevinG]

The Church shouldn't change to try to make the critics happy. It should change because sometimes the critics are right.

I suspect some people have adopted an overly negative definition of what a "critic" is. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who sees something wrong and talks about it is a "critic". Thus, an apostle who advocates for a major policy change is just as much a "critic" as a nursery leader who tries to get the snack policy changed or someone that has stopped going entirely because of a "criticism".

That isn't the descritipn of critic I was using for this discussion. A more generic definition as you are presenting is a derail of this thread. Please see the opening page of the thread.

Again I'm asking about those who no longer feel the Church is authorized or "true" yet spend energy and time opposing it. Why not do as Luther, Wesley, Smith et al did and form a new branch or ask God for a restoration?

While a disagree with some of his conclusions Kevin/Xander has come the closest to giving a real reason. The social/family/cultural aspects of the Church prevent some from being able to walk away.

Edited February 8, 2012 by DaddyG

[Bob Oliverio]

I would love to see the Church change the exclusionary practice of the temple marriage. Having had to experience first hand the alienation of loved ones, I believe this is have issue problem for the Church. There is no official doctrine support for this practice of exclusion. And with the changes made to the temple ceremony, there is nothing that could be construed as offensive to other beliefs now. Furthermore there is nothing within the current ceremony that couldn't be shared with non-members in a positive light as other churches share with non-members. I hear so much about the negative impact it leaves on families and friends both within and outside the Church. I think it would do wonders to the Church's overall image,

[Jeff K.]

I disagree, non members and esepcially some of the anti Mormons who post here would indeed find much to criticize and undermine. They wil also seek to stretch the frontiers further and want more exposed to public ridicule. What goes on in the temple, is sacred and important and important only to those who understand and respect its context.

[cinepro]

I see critique as different from criticism based on motivation and an understanding of context. I wasn't too impressed with the Jonna Brooks article since it presumed a political air versus a religious one. If politics trumps religion then perhaps the ultimate goal isn't aligned with what the gospel's goal is.

Jeff, could you please explain your reference to Judas (a Son of Perdition who was instrumental in arranging the murder of Jesus Christ) in post #152, and how you feel it relates to a discussion of critics and the Church?

You said:

I doubt the apostles would have kept Judas Iscariot on, rather than have him go off on his own. I see nothing that says the church would "choose" to keep a critic who openly criticizes the church and its policies. In fact we know they have excommunicated such people. Sometimes you have to clean out the vipers for the betternment of the whole.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

Please show where any critic has been right as concerning LDS doctrine.

Why do I need to do that? I don't recall claiming that critics have been "right as concerning LDS doctrine".

[Jeff K.]

Judas Iscariot was the epitome of criticism for policy. Whether it was in regard to the "waste" of oil, or other positions. He did it all under the guise of wanting to "improve".

Some follow his same steps with unerring rectitude.

[Pahoran]

Is there a difference between being unworthy and unqualified?

It depends how much you want to feel aggrieved.

Blueadept has already spoken up in support of the Catholic practice of excluding non-Catholics from the Eucharist, but he doesn't seem to want to grasp the parallel case in excluding non-Latter-day Saints from the Temple.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

Judas Iscariot was the epitome of criticism for policy. Whether it was in regard to the "waste" of oil, or other positions. He did it all under the guise of wanting to "improve".

Some follow his same steps with unerring rectitude.

Saying Judas Iscariot is the "epitome of criticism for policy" is like saying John D. Lee is the epitome of pioneer Mormonism, or a certain 20th century fascist, mass-murdering dictator is the epitome of vegetarianism.

[thesometimesaint]

.cinepro:

I believe it was you that said " It should change because sometimes the critics are right." in post #234. If I am misunderstanding your post please clarify.

[blueadept]

It depends how much you want to feel aggrieved.

Blueadept has already spoken up in support of the Catholic practice of excluding non-Catholics from the Eucharist, but he doesn't seem to want to grasp the parallel case in excluding non-Latter-day Saints from the Temple.

Regards,

Pahoran

While I may have an issue with partaking in a sacrament (the Catholic Eucharist) versus witnessing a sacrament (LDS Temple Sealing), I feel it would be a good maneuver for the LDS church to allow parents to witness the sealing of their children.

But do what you like on the issue that strains family relations IMHO.

[Pahoran]

Well, that's not quite the whole story. He wanted to join the class, but some of his in-law relatives objected to his membership on the basis that he was a necromancer. Therefore, to avoid an investigation, he voluntarily agreed to withdraw his application. Also, years earlier, Smith joined a Methodist class in Palmyra as a probationer (that is, what Mormons would call an "investigator"). It's true, however, that Smith never claimed to be a Methodist. He just said that was "somewhat partial" to Methodism.

Let us now decode Cobalt's boilerplate anti-Mormon falsehood.

In 1879, two old men who were distantly related to Emma came forward with a wonderful story: that Joseph's first vision was a dream in which he saw the bleeding ghost of a murdered Spaniard. Nobody had ever heard of this story before Joseph and Hiel Lewis came forward to tell it. They subsequently claimed that Joseph had tried to join the local Methodist Church, but that one of them had objected on the grounds of Joseph's "bleeding ghost" story.

The problem is that their father, the Reverend Nathaniel C. Lewis, had given an affidavit about Joseph more than forty years earlier. He knew nothing of the "bleeding ghost" story, or of any other "necromancy" Joseph practiced. He reluctantly admitted that he had no firsthand knowledge of Joseph doing anything wrong, but assumed that Joseph must have been being careful when he was around the Reverend.

To sum up: the "bleeding ghost" story is a complete fabrication that has been utterly discredited.

That said, people are still free to believe it if they really, really want to.

Like Cobalt does.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

Saying Judas Iscariot is the "epitome of criticism for policy" is like saying John D. Lee is the epitome of pioneer Mormonism, or a certain 20th century fascist, mass-murdering dictator is the epitome of vegetarianism.

No, Judas was well known for his criticisms and practice of criticizing. John D. Lee was not well known or known for the practice of mass murder prior to the act.

In other words, your attempt to go extreme misses the point entirely. Like so many critics of the church, they follow Judas in lock step, and many of the critical posters here have some of the same goals in mind. They want to crucify the church in some way.