The Value Of Church Membership For Critics Of The Church And The Emergence Of The Ethnic Mormon

[Kenngo1969]

Jack is often reference to male, a jackass is therefore a male ***, but there is also jackhammer, jackpot, jackknife, jackboot, also jack (as in car lift), jack-o-lantern, and jack-of all-trades. Seems you need to expand your vocabulary. Not every jack is a jackass. No more MTV for you.

And if you're Jerry Sloan, former longtime head coach of the National Basketball Association's Utah Jazz, you didn't want to see any of your players jackpotting around out on the floor. Former Jazz center Kyrylo Fesenko, a Ukranian, once was bewildered upon hearing Coach Sloan use the term, so he turned to the Internet, where he found it in the Urban Dictionary. (Surfer Advisory: Anyone can put anything in the Urban Dictionary, so many of the terms and definitions will be hard on Mormon Eyes and Ears. Surfer beware.)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jackpotting+around

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

Yep.

[thesometimesaint]

sethpayne:

Change a few words and this also applies, along with every other religion that I know of.

I don't accept many of the Church's specific truth claims, or perhaps the "orthodox" interpretation of truth, I find much beauty not only in the Catholic Bible, but in Catholicism (culture, theology, practice...) that is beautiful. I don't want to abandon something I love simply because my personal views differ from those of the institutional Church -- even on many issues.

IOW I still don't get it.

[rpn]

The value of church membership is the right to the Holy Ghost. And that is a very powerful right that deserves preservation even for the wayward (and I put into that category those whose acceptance of gospel doctrine is problematic). http://www.ryanmendenhall.com/blog/2009/06/13/the-spirits-refining-power-parley-p-pratt-key-to-the-science-of-theology.htm I was able to feel the difference when I was excommunicated, despite my inactivity and sinning for a number of years previously. So I know it matters without regard to commitment to righteous behavior.

And I think it truly interesting that members who challenge the critics seem not to recognize that they got their own testimonies line by line and precept by precept, and that the progression is neither linear, nor identical to other's sequence. Every member is imperfect in their understanding of the gospel, the Lord's expectations, doctrine, history (which comes with its own holes of knowledge, skewed understanding, tortured interpretations), and how to apply it all to themselves in submission to God's will.

Critics who have joined Satan's ranks, do not first do that, and may not stay there. The atonement covers their repented sins too.

It was either Pres Kimbal or Pres McKay who wrote, that the Gospel tent is a very big one, capable of including all who are genuinely seeking God, no matter how imperfectly they are doing so.

(And as a side note, since Heavenly Father judges the heart and the capability, not just the results; and Christ's atonement fills the entire gap between a member's personal best with quick repentance; and objective perfection, it is entirely possible that some of those so-called TBM members who are quick to judge and discount others who do not think/act like they do are less perfect in Christ for doing so, than those they criticize and would expel from church ranks.)

[Log]

I was able to feel the difference when I was excommunicated, despite my inactivity and sinning for a number of years previously. So I know it matters without regard to commitment to righteous behavior.

That is interesting. I have been in the habit of saying for a while now that God performs his own excommunications, at times far in advance of or even in the absence of formal action from the Church. Would you agree or disagree with that sentiment?

Edited May 13, 2012 by Log

[Teancum]

You're comparison and analysis make a lot of sense. The appellation "cultural Mormon" was probably invented to apply to those who want to view their affiliation more as an ethnicity thana religious faith and commitment.

However, for those of us who view Mormons as synonymous with the covenant people of God, that doesn't work. You can't be part of the covenant people while rejecting, violating or marginalizing the covenant, regardless of how much affinity you might feel for the culture or history and how successful you might have been at deceiving your bishop or stake president.

I really can only speak for myself on this one. The following is not to plead to authority as you may want to accuse me of. Rather to lay the foundation for what I want to say.

I am a fifth generation Latter-day Saint. I have ancestors who crossed the plains as well as ancestors who joined the church in Denmark and England and then immigrated to Utah. They helped settled the Great Basin. I grew up in Utah. I no longer live there. My wife is a convert. She is very active and TBM. The Church means so very much to her. My four children are members though one is not active he still self identifies as LDS.

From my mission on I was as TBM as one can become. I have held numerous callings including everyone one can hold as a man in a ward and a few at the stake level as well. As my faith journey has led me to where I am now I have pondered where I should be. All my closest friends are LDS. My social network is tied to the Church. It is a wonderful community.

Personally I love religion and I want religion in my life. Even with my questions and doubts, not only for the LDS Church but for Christianity some and religion in general I still choose to worship God. I believe Christianity to be the best way to worship and for me the LDS religion still seems to offer the best place for me to worship even though there is much I disagree with.

I can view Joseph Smith as inspired by God in many things just as I view other religious leaders as inspired. I believe he taught much that is very true along with much that perhaps were his own ideas and mistakes.

So I choose to continue in a modified personal faith. It works for me. I have my faith community which I very much value. I so not make waves in my ward. I serve and pay tithing. I have discussed some concerns with leaders at various times and they seem fine with where I am at.

This seems to work.

So I ask you Scott what would you do? You say for those of you how are still down the line 100% believing that the Church is the only covenant people of God this does not work. Well of course this is not just your church and you don't set the rules. If you are a bishop or SP you can choose to deal with members such as me as you see proper. But only for those in your ward or stake. But again, what would you do. The NOMs like Brooks, Dehlin and me are not going away. There will be more and more, The Church can take a hard line and push us out. I think if it does that you will see the Chuch become less and influence and even marginalized. On the other hand, having been where you are at and even holding very hard line views like you seem to-feel free to correct me if I misunderstand you-I can see the problems that can come with a bigger wider tent. There is a risk in the Church becoming very watered down over time with allowing for those like Brooks and all to continue to be considered active members.

I am not sure I have the answers.

[thesometimesaint]

Teacum:

I have no desire to see you or anyone pushed out of the Church. To me it is a self examination question. At what point have I sufficiently departed from the faith as to not consider myself not LDS?

[sethpayne]

sethpayne:

Change a few words and this also applies, along with every other religion that I know of.

I don't accept many of the Church's specific truth claims, or perhaps the "orthodox" interpretation of truth, I find much beauty not only in the Catholic Bible, but in Catholicism (culture, theology, practice...) that is beautiful. I don't want to abandon something I love simply because my personal views differ from those of the institutional Church -- even on many issues.

IOW I still don't get it.

But the fact is I was born a Mormon, raised Mormon and my family has been Mormon for generations. I don't want want t leave what has brought me so much in my life. Where else am I going to go? I like going to Church with my family. I enjoy doing my home teaching. I enjoy doing service projects with the Elders Q. I see absolutely no reason to change.

I'm not a Catholic, nor a Muslim. If I had been raised in those religions and my family heritages was based on those traditions, I would probably see them in the same way.

[cinepro]

I don't believe the anxiety to report "increasing numbers" of members, nominal or otherwise, is as great as you think, especially lately, when the emphasis has been on "real growth" and what is implied thereby.

I'm not saying it's an overt policy. I'm just saying that if we start tightening the parameters of who we want to be called "Mormon", then the Church shouldn't be allowed to call them "Mormon" either, and depending on how many of these people there are, it might make for an uncomfortable "mark to market" adjustment in the numbers.

Let's say, for the sake of example, that 25% of the worldwide membership aren't valiant in their testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon (and this lack of valiance is exemplified in their lack of church attendance or payment of tithing). I don't think there is any situation where the Church would want to revise the membership numbers down by 25%.

Whatever other benefits there might be, announcing that there are now 10 million members of the Church instead of 14 million would be a PR nightmare.

Edited May 13, 2012 by cinepro

[rpn]

That is interesting. I have been in the habit of saying for a while now that God performs his own excommunications, at times far in advance of or even in the absence of formal action from the Church. Would you agree or disagree with that sentiment?

I would disagree. Heavenly Father doesn't cut us off. We sever our relationship with Him. He is (and those who serve Him are supposed to be) in the business of redeeming people from their mistakes, from where they are presently, from the choices that interfere with their agency. And no one is past that redemption.

Church discipline is not intended to cut off people at all. It is intended to give a second chance to do better, a fresh start. It is surely hard for the mortals experiencing it to see it at all that way. But that is what it is.

Unfortunately mortals get into the condemnation, you are unforgivably ________, _____________ [take your pick]. Our Heavenly Father and the Savior on the other hand await our repentant souls --- and sometimes send us experiences that might prompt us to repentance if we will let them. IME I am persuaded that those who would condemn another for any reason, and particularly without stewardship is in as grave a danger spiritually as any of the most wicked other sins we can name. It is pride gone wrong, for sure.

NOTE: This is not to say that I think Heavenly Father's forgiveness necessarily comes in tandem with church forgiveness. IME, since He knows our heart and we can't fool him and he is not sentimental or inclined to mercy that robs justice, sometimes He forgives sooner, and other times He awaits a much clearer change of heart to forgive at all.

Edited May 14, 2012 by rpn

[Calm]

But the fact is I was born a Mormon, raised Mormon and my family has been Mormon for generations. I don't want want t leave what has brought me so much in my life. Where else am I going to go? I like going to Church with my family. I enjoy doing my home teaching. I enjoy doing service projects with the Elders Q. I see absolutely no reason to change.

I'm not a Catholic, nor a Muslim. If I had been raised in those religions and my family heritages was based on those traditions, I would probably see them in the same way.

I very much get the culture or 'part' Mormon thing. The Church can involve in devout families enough of one's life that it is like having a national heritage and one can see immigrants who have left their country to find a better life, still choosing to take much of that life with them or even attempting to create a little miniold country in their new home. They would have chosen to stay in their old country if they had the same opportunities that the new one did. With a religion one can take much of it with them when they 'move', especially if their families aren't making the same 'move' with them.

What I don't get is those who feel the Church is so wrong they have to publicize that wrong in order to attempt to make the Church change wanting to be identified with the Church they publicly condemn. There seems a line that they've crossed from love to at least disapproval if not dislike and a few times I've heard expressions of hatred and disdain from this level of critic while still stating he wants to be identified as Mormon. When someone talks about how unenlightened or even stupid LDS are, it is hard to believe he wants to be known as Mormon because he loves the Mormon way of life.

Me, I want my family, whether blood or church, to be as big as possible but I don't enjoy being around people who act like they don't like your company or are wearing a mask of friendliness. I know many see church members as acting this way and if that is the way they feel, then of course they don't want to go to church. I don't get that at all from the vast majority of members I've known, but I have felt it among my own family members who act like the only reason they are interacting with me is a sense of duty....no thanks, but that doesn't make me less of a family member in my view, it makes them that way.

Edited May 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[sethpayne]

I was sort of with you up until the end there where you started writing about deceiving your bishop or stake president. Why do you assume that a person who doesn't believe every revelation of Joseph Smith or every revelation of any Prophet, or every word of Scripture, whether taught or plucked from current use, can not be part of a covenant if they, in good faith, received the covenant, and have been honest about how they believe or do not believe?

Again, I can only speak for myself but I am 100% honest with my bishop and SP about how I feel & believe.

Seth

[sethpayne]

I very much get the culture or 'part' Mormon thing. The Church can involve in devout families enough of one's life that it is like having a national heritage and one can see immigrants who have left their country to find a better life, still choosing to take much of that life with them or even attempting to create a little miniold country in their new home. They would have chosen to stay in their old country if they had the same opportunities that the new one did. With a religion one can take much of it with them when they 'move', especially if their families aren't making the same 'move' with them.

What I don't get is those who feel the Church is so wrong they have to publicize that wrong in order to attempt to make the Church change wanting to be identified with the Church they publicly condemn. There seems a line that they've crossed from love to at least disapproval if not dislike and a few times I've heard expressions of hatred and disdain from this level of critic while still stating he wants to be identified as Mormon. When someone talks about how unenlightened or even stupid LDS are, it is hard to believe he wants to be known as Mormon because he loves the Mormon way of life.

Me, I want my family, whether blood or church, to be as big as possible but I don't enjoy being around people who act like they don't like your company or are wearing a mask of friendliness. I know many see church members as acting this way and if that is the way they feel, then of course they don't want to go to church. I don't get that at all from the vast majority of members I've known, but I have felt it among my own family members who act like the only reason they are interacting with me is a sense of duty....no thanks, but that doesn't make me less of a family member in my view, it makes them that way.

I very much agree with the bolded statement. I think that if someone wants to stay LDS, even after a crisis of faith, they need to be respectful of the institution, its leaders, and its people. Trying to ask the Church to bend to my own personal will would seem not only silly, but a bit arrogant and preposterous.

[mfbukowski]

Elder Holland said:

"... If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...

"I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive"

Great quote! What's it from?

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski:

Yep.

I wish I knew what you agreed with.

[mbh26]

In a way you don't have much choice. People still identify me as Mormon whether I want them to do so or not. What people think of me is not of such a concern to me that I care to correct them one way or another. I guess it's similar to being disowned by your family. You may completely disagree with everything the other stands for, but at the end of the day it's still your last name.

[daz2]

I am pretty sure that the reason the percentage of self-identified Mormons is down, according to some surveys, in Utah is because so many active believing Mormons have effectively narrowed the definition of Mormon (or "real" Mormon) to a person who lives the standards and believes all the beliefs--i.e., almost temple worthy.

In the last few months I discovered that two friends separately considered themselves "ex-Mormons." I asked each of them why. They said they were ex-Mormon because they had not attended Church in many years, did not tithe, and did not live the word of wisdom. One said s/he struggled with some of the beliefs--e.g., church's prior priesthood/temple lineage/race practice, and how that could have been divinely directed. Both of them are people of high moral standards, honest decent people. I told them that how they considered with respect to the Church was their decision, but that I did not consider them "ex-Mormon." "Lapsed" perhaps, or "struggling", or "down and out", but not "ex-Mormon." I never once encouraged them to change beliefs or attend again (although I did say I was sure they would be welcomed and not treated as outcasts or as "ex-Mormons"). And I told them about my own struggles in belief. (One of them referred to my discussion of my struggles of belief (ultimately I said I was an openminded believer) as my "testimony", and was genuinely moved. Which surprised me.)

Interestingly, both of them separately began attending Church again (in different wards) and one is preparing to be endowed for the first time and is extremely excited.

I have talked to numerous others who are inactive and consider themselves "ex-Mormon" or "former Mormon." I believe they are in error in considering themselves that way, but I think discussions like this one contributes to Mormons considering themselves as "ex-" or "former" when they have not attended a while or have lost some of their testimony. Do we really want to exclude them from among us?

(If the standard to be a "real" Mormon is to have a firm testimony of all of the truth claims, then I was an "ex-Mormon" when I began my mission, because I was agnostic at best and struggling with how much I really truly believed. (The real belief came later. Those were the days (1970s) before the raising of the bar for mission calls (and before the temple recommend interview had any "belief" questions). Perhaps I would not have been called today. But I like to think that it was a good things that I served even if I was not a "real" Mormon when I started the mission.

[Duncan]

I am pretty sure that the reason the percentage of self-identified Mormons is down, according to some surveys, in Utah is because so many active believing Mormons have effectively narrowed the definition of Mormon (or "real" Mormon) to a person who lives the standards and believes all the beliefs--i.e., almost temple worthy.

In the last few months I discovered that two friends separately considered themselves "ex-Mormons." I asked each of them why. They said they were ex-Mormon because they had not attended Church in many years, did not tithe, and did not live the word of wisdom. One said s/he struggled with some of the beliefs--e.g., church's prior priesthood/temple lineage/race practice, and how that could have been divinely directed. Both of them are people of high moral standards, honest decent people. I told them that how they considered with respect to the Church was their decision, but that I did not consider them "ex-Mormon." "Lapsed" perhaps, or "struggling", or "down and out", but not "ex-Mormon." I never once encouraged them to change beliefs or attend again (although I did say I was sure they would be welcomed and not treated as outcasts or as "ex-Mormons"). And I told them about my own struggles in belief. (One of them referred to my discussion of my struggles of belief (ultimately I said I was an openminded believer) as my "testimony", and was genuinely moved. Which surprised me.)

Interestingly, both of them separately began attending Church again (in different wards) and one is preparing to be endowed for the first time and is extremely excited.

I have talked to numerous others who are inactive and consider themselves "ex-Mormon" or "former Mormon." I believe they are in error in considering themselves that way, but I think discussions like this one contributes to Mormons considering themselves as "ex-" or "former" when they have not attended a while or have lost some of their testimony. Do we really want to exclude them from among us?

(If the standard to be a "real" Mormon is to have a firm testimony of all of the truth claims, then I was an "ex-Mormon" when I began my mission, because I was agnostic at best and struggling with how much I really truly believed. (The real belief came later. Those were the days (1970s) before the raising of the bar for mission calls (and before the temple recommend interview had any "belief" questions). Perhaps I would not have been called today. But I like to think that it was a good things that I served even if I was not a "real" Mormon when I started the mission.

I have a friend who grew up LDS, was endowed and very active. She married a nonmember, went inactive, they divorced and she became active again for a few years but she just quit 2 years ago. She doesn't agree with some of the Church's policies, ethics and some other practices. Now she is never antagonistic towards the Church, hedges on what to call herself but yeah her identity is dependant on her mood or whatever. She sometimes though has a freudian slips when she says "we Mormons" and I haven't ever heard her say "you Mormons"-if she was to fill out a questionnaire I would be interested to see what she classifies herself as

[Pahoran]

I'm sure that there are those who cherish some aspects of their Mormon culture while having questions or doubts about the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ. (Some may even outright reject those claims, while referring to their rejection in terms of questions and/or doubts, but that's another discussion. But then again, maybe it isn't.)

But there are also those who use some kind of "ethnic Mormon" identity as a way to deflect and distract from the reality of their anti-Mormon agenda. I have encountered more than one very virulent anti-Mormon who furiously equivocates, saying something like "I can't be an anti-Mormon because I am a Mormon," even while attacking the Church's foundations, doctrines, leaders and mission in the world.

In much the same way, I suppose Vidkun Quisling couldn't be anti-Norwegian because he was a Norwegian. Or something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[sethpayne]

Great quote! What's it from?

From the PBS interview:

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html#1

Interestingly, Elder Holland made these remarks in the context of stating that there are certain truth claims that Mormonism simply can't abandon: the FV, BOM, etc..... I wholeheartedly agree. I have my doubts about the BOM but I still read it quite often and I don't think any less of anyone who does see the book as historical. The BOM, regardless of *how* it came about, is still a miracle, IMO. I did a deep dive on atonement theory in the BOM in grad school and was absolutely amazed at the richness of the text centered on Christ and his salvific efforts. For me, I can smile at statements about Nephi finding oxen in the new world but still find theological insight in 2nd Nephi, Jacob, and especially Alma.

Seth

P.S. I know there are explanations for the whole oxen issues but I'm not pursuaded. Good arguments, just not the arguments to convince me in this particular instance.

[Storm Rider]

I guess at this point in my life I sometimes overlookthe ebb and flow of one's testimony in favor of one's growth in emulating the life of Christ. Am I Christ-like? Do I want to follow him? What value is my fellow man? Have I done any good today? These are questions that are too often forgotten in my daily life and that always bring me back to my true purpose in life.

My doctrinal questions pale in relation to my purpose as a disciple of Christ. I guess I have to admit that I do separate my purpose as a disciple of Christ and my membership in the Church.

[CASteinman]

I guess I have to admit that I do separate my purpose as a disciple of Christ and my membership in the Church.

I don't really know how to do that -- as membership in the Church is the door to discipleship and the Way.

[Storm Rider]

I don't really know how to do that -- as membership in the Church is the door to discipleship and the Way.

I knew that would be a sticking point for other LDS. I also admit that it is a bit of a sticky wicket for me at times. We all have at times evaluated the mortal organization we recognize as the Church today versus the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I see these things as two very distinct entities. As an individual I can practice the gospel of Jesus Christ wholly separate from being a member of the Church. The rub comes when we discuss the principles of Exaltation, which focuses on the ordinances of Exaltation. It is very easy to forget about the day-to-day standard of living that Jesus often discussed when we are in pursuit of Exaltation.

It is my humble opinion that we too often get caught up in accomplishing things (temple attendance, church attendance, etc.) and forget the important things that George Albert Smith talked about in his personal creed:

• I would be a friend to the friendless and find joy in ministering to the needs of the poor.
  
• I would visit the sick and afflicted and inspire in them a desire for faith to be healed.
  
• I would teach the truth to the understanding and blessing of mankind.
  
• I would seek out the erring one and try to win him back to a righteous and happy life.
  
• I would not seek to force people to live up to my ideals, but rather love them into doing the thing that is right.
  
• I would live with the masses and help to solve their problems that their earth life may be happy.
  
• I would avoid the publicity of high position and discourage the flattery of thoughtless friends.
  
• I would not knowingly wound the feelings of any, not even one who may have wronged me, but would seek to do good and make him my friend.
  
• I would overcome the tendency to selfishness and jealousy and rejoice in the success of all the children of our Heavenly Father.
  
• I would not be an enemy to any living soul.
  
• Knowing that the Redeemer of mankind has offered to the world the only plan that will fully develop us and make us really happy here and hereafter, I feel it not only a duty but a blessed privilege to disseminate this truth.
  

The challenge for LDS is to build upon this way of living while we assume the responsibilities of temple ordinances/covenants that lead to Exaltation IF we are able to live the building blocks of the Master's Way.

I am not sure I adequately answered your question, but does this help clarify my point?

[CASteinman]

I see these things as two very distinct entities. As an individual I can practice the gospel of Jesus Christ wholly separate from being a member of the Church.

I am not sure I adequately answered your question, but does this help clarify my point?

I understand your point. But I still do not see how it is possible -- unless you say that being a disciple of Christ has nothing to do with the Gift of the Holy Ghost, nor the Ratification of the Holy Spirit unto Sanctification.

Which to me makes being a Disciple of Christ a very pedestrian, alien thing, devoid of life.

I am not claiming that the Holy Ghost only operates in the Church. But I am claiming that the Priesthood functions of the Holy Ghost upon our salvation are not operative outside of the Church and that the subsequent "Good works" are fully "Dead Works" even if well intentioned and expressed in words that sound uplifting.

I should add.. that I think it is perhaps easy for us to distinguish between these "two" things as you do, because we take the one for granted. I do not mean we are thankless, but rather that we accept it as a fundamental condition of our membership.

Thus what you are probably referring to, I would characterize as "active" participation in the gospel vs "inactive" participation -- and the membership in the Church part is a given in both cases.

Edited May 14, 2012 by CASteinman

[Calm]

If I were to move some place where there was not even a branch or another member, I would feel a distance from the church community not being able to share the sacrament, the Sunday experience, to be hometaught and to visit teach, etc.

That distance would not stop me in the least from being a disciple of Christ. Long before I understood what it meant to be Mormon, I understood and loved knowing what it meant to be a follower of Christ. That is what my mother taught me first and that is how I see myself, first and foremost, a Christ-follower. That the Church allows me the best vehicle to do so is a big plus for me, but I could still seek the Lord with all my heart and soul without it....and many people do and have over the years. If it were not possible to do so, then God would be an unloving and unmerciful Lord to keep the Church from the earth for so long.

I do not know if this is what Stormrider feels, just explaining how I can differentiate living as a disciple of Christ and living as a faithful LDS.