Future Of The Church

[CV75]

Even if the same keys are still functioning, the church claims doctrinal authority, both in the present and in the past, for more than just its "essential" doctrines. The church still claims that The Prophet, whoever he happens to be at the time, "knows the way" on all manner of ancillary doctrinal issues that extend beyond the basic doctrine of Christ, such as how you should vote, how many earrings you should wear, how much of your shoulders and kneecaps you can show without being immodest, which sex is born to preside and which is born to nurture in the home, etc.

And the prophet still has all the keys and puts the basic doctrine of Christ first and foremost.

Any time a doctrine in the past is disavowed or "de-emphasized" by present authorities, it undermines the present doctrinal authority of the church. People ask, even if subconsciously, "If the church could have got the doctrine wrong in the past, then how do we know what it teaches now won't be disavowed or 'de-emphasized' 50 years from now?"

This is how some might react. Others continue becoming like God according to the keys that have been administered in their behalf.

Either that, or such changes encourage relativism: "follow the Prophet, he knows the way--just don't follow the last Prophet."

This is how others might react. Others continue becoming like God according to the keys that have been administered in their behalf.

So my point is that this is an impossible quandry.

For you it is (an unecessarily jaundiced view), but not for the millions who continue to become like God according to the keys that have been administered in their behalf.

and allow members to come to their own conclusions, without correcting or suppressing them.

This one sliver of an observation is partially right: The Gift of the Holy Ghost certainly does allow millions members to come to their own conclusions, both in terms of what they believe and have faith in, and in terms of what they know and what they become.

[happy]

The church does not want to continue to teach many embarrassing past doctrines.

This also frustrates me. None of these doctrines are embarrassing. Unless we think other Christian Churches are now somehow a grand authority on what is or is not embarrassing, our doctrine is just different (right, but that's my bias!) and I wish we wouldn't panic every time some Christian angery man (Bill Keller) tries to make our doctrine evil.

[why me]

I have been a member of the church for nearly 38 years following my conversion at age 14. During that time there has certainly been a "dumbing down", with some doctrines just not talked about anymore.

Does this concern me? Yes it does.

I am worried that the RLDS church we see today will be the LDS church of 50 years from now.

I have been a member of the church for nearly 38 years following my conversion at age 14. During that time there has certainly been a "dumbing down", with some doctrines just not talked about anymore.

Does this concern me? Yes it does.

I think that the changes occurred a couple of decades ago. The cburch began to concentrate on the basics of doctrine and avoid the rest. Perhaps it is the sign of the times. The world is becoming more complex and unrighteous. More temptations for the young and more difficulties for the adults. Maybe this can be one reason. Basically, the church is about bringing salvation and eternal life. What do members need to achieve those goalsl?

[happy]

The entire point of the Church is to help us know God, not just know about God (D&C 132:24). This is the "elevation" of knowledge. This is where the maturation is evident.

But there lies the entire core of my complaint. What you are calling maturation comes off more logically as de-evolution. Turning this Church into just another protestant faith, just like the Community of Christ did. I am sorry, but the more I hear people downplay the past doctrines that were very essential to this restoration, it just comes off as ejecting doctrines and making our Church boring. Frankly, being a non-denominational Christian is a lot easier if what you are telling me is I can keep my "private" beliefs while accepting the watering down of the Church.

Do you remember what happened to the Prophet Hinkley? He basically downplayed the God was once a Man concept. But when people internally questioned him, he affirmed the doctrine, saying yes, he knows what it is, but there seemed to be a justification to downplay it on national TV. What the concern is that eventually it will be ejected altogether and then there we are. A shell of the original Church.

[happy]

I think that the changes occurred a couple of decades ago. The cburch began to concentrate on the basics of doctrine and avoid the rest. Perhaps it is the sign of the times. The world is becoming more complex and unrighteous. More temptations for the young and more difficulties for the adults. Maybe this can be one reason. Basically, the church is about bringing salvation and eternal life. What do members need to achieve those goalsl?

The complaint is that if that is it - learn about Jesus and follow His basic doctrines, you can get that in any denomination. If you water too far down to the basics, the value of the Church in the large sea of Christian choices becomes significantly less. Having a grand knowledge of the entire picture is what was supposed to draw people into the Truth. If you lose the entire picture, you become another green spine book on a shelf of other green spine books.

[CV75]

But there lies the entire core of my complaint. What you are calling maturation comes off more logically as de-evolution.

That’s a matter of perspective (ang maybe messed-up logic). I wouldn’t call your summation of the KFD especially evolved in understanding or treatment. In fact, the familiarization / popularization / colloquialization / cultural Mormonization of the KFD’s more impressive points actually profane any eternal truths that might be garnered from it (those truths for example, that the Church uses in its curriculum). And it isn’t even scripture!

Turning this Church into just another protestant faith, just like the Community of Christ did. I am sorry, but the more I hear people downplay the past doctrines that were very essential to this restoration, it just comes off as ejecting doctrines and making our Church boring.

Anyone living the principles of the Gospel would never think our Church is boring at all. Demanding some new thing, or hanging onto some old thing is not necessary for those who are actually progressing (take a look at D&C 88).

Frankly, being a non-denominational Christian is a lot easier if what you are telling me is I can keep my "private" beliefs while accepting the watering down of the Church.

Are you used to people having to tell you what you can and cannot do?

I‘m not telling you to keep your private beliefs; I hope you progress beyond them. I am telling you that you can keep them if you want, and despite that you can still exercise faith in those things that really count and which will bear true fruit. I don’t think your summation of KFD serves as much of an object of faith, but you can believe it if you want.

Do you remember what happened to the Prophet Hinkley?

Yes, and it is clear you don't understand both sides of the debate, but more importantly, what actually took place. There are threads that will help you read and understand what President Hinckley was talking about.

[CV75]

The complaint is that if that is it - learn about Jesus and follow His basic doctrines, you can get that in any denomination.

No, you cannot. The Book of Mormon (3 Nephi) defines His doctrine very clearly from His own mouth, and there is a very clear requirement for proper priesthood authority to administer His doctrine, which cannot be found in any other denomination.

Edited August 7, 2012 by CV75

[happy]

That’s a matter of perspective (ang maybe messed-up logic). I wouldn’t call your summation of the KFD especially evolved in understanding or treatment. In fact, the familiarization / popularization / colloquialization / cultural Mormonization of the KFD’s more impressive points actually profane any eternal truths that might be garnered from it (those truths for example, that the Church uses in its curriculum). And it isn’t even scripture!

Anyone living the principles of the Gospel would never think our Church is boring at all. Demanding some new thing, or hanging onto some old thing is not necessary for those who are actually progressing (take a look at D&C 88).

Are you used to people having to tell you what you can and cannot do?

I‘m not telling you to keep your private beliefs; I hope you progress beyond them. I am telling you that you can keep them if you want, and despite that you can still exercise faith in those things that really count and which will bear true fruit. I don’t think your summation of KFD serves as much of an object of faith, but you can believe it if you want.

Yes, and it is clear you don't understand both sides of the debate, but more importantly, what actually took place. There are threads that will help you read and understand what President Hinckley was talking about.

Unfortunately you have become condescending, which means our ability to communicate has come to an end. I don't think I disrespected you in any way. I am sorry you have decided to take that route rather than having a useful discussion, but we all have our agency. Good luck.

[Maidservant]

One thing I personally find emphasized in every conference these days is the need to be close to the Spirit and be able to listen to it. I have been taking this as a need to be independent in what we are learning and knowing from God and that the kinds of things we need to progress cannot be shared from the pulpit if only because we have to have the oil in our own lamps and, as I think, because the power of them is only by knowing and understanding for ourselves. When I hear this counsel, it makes me think there are MORE amazing things the church and God want us to know, not less.

[CV75]

One thing I personally find emphasized in every conference these days is the need to be close to the Spirit and be able to listen to it. I have been taking this as a need to be independent in what we are learning and knowing from God and that the kinds of things we need to progress cannot be shared from the pulpit if only because we have to have the oil in our own lamps and, as I think, because the power of them is only by knowing and understanding for ourselves. When I hear this counsel, it makes me think there are MORE amazing things the church and God want us to know, not less.

Yes, and as you pointed out, they are personal and indivdual, almost making it a matter of quality and not quantity. There is only so much that can be done with the KFD, and the Church isn't expanding on that, but on what we can do to expand ourselves in the doctrine of Christ. I've seen this referred to as getting back to basics, but just as one finds his life by losing it in service, one finds God by giving up the urge for more irrelevant facts and beliefs.

[Avatar4321]

I don't think that ejecting its unique doctrines would increase LDS Church membership. Rather, I think the opposite would occur. The LDS Church does not really compete with "respectable" Christian denominations in any substantial way. Our real competitors are the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists, who are both seriously kicking our buttocks in terms of proselytizing. And neither of them have really made any effort to conform to mainstream Christianity. Playing the "we're Christian too" game doesn't work.

I do, however, think that the LDS Church should do all it can to shed its image of being a cult. But that's easy. All the church needs to do is be completely honest and transparent. Open its finances to the world. Be honest about its doctrines, its history, and about the limitations of its leadership. Root out all examples of manipulation and unrighteous dominion. I think a new policy of openness would do far more for the church's reputation than any PR campaign.

We are honest.

[Avatar4321]

I think the original design was pretty clear. There was a man named Elohim who did all the right things, got married, was exalted to Godhood. He and His wife had kids, the first two being Jehovah and Lucifer. God wanted to continue the same plan he was under, but had Jehovah and Lucifer come up with more detailed plans. Lucifer's was about forcing people to come back to heaven, Jesus was about agency and letting people chose. The additional problem was Lucifer's plan also included some pride in which Lucifer wanted a lot of the credit when Elohim's kids came back. Jesus's plan was selected by God, Lucifer got bent, and started a war.1/3 of God's kids liked Lucifer's plan and sided with him and eventually Elohim and Jehovah won. Jehovah went down to Earth and became Jesus the Christ, creating the pathway back to Heaven. Heaven was split into 3 categories If you did everything right according to the teachings of the Church, you would show your signs and tokens to the guarding angels (this is publicly discussed in many talks - so it is not restricted), to which then you would call your wife's holy name and bring her from the grave. In a divine union, you and your first wife would be elevated to Godhood, have your own spirit children and thus continue the tradition that Elohim followed.

I didn't make this design up. It is in the King Follette Discourse (which many live listeners agreed was full of things already things Joseph Smith taught), it is in the endowment, it is in the full marriage sealing ceremonies, it is in talks (including prophets), it is in teachings, it is littered throughout the D&C and it is as interwoven into all the core ceremonies and worship of the Church. I hate to use the term, but ejecting any of the above doctrines would leave huge plot-holes in many of the stories and ceremonies we still show and perform today.

It's difficult to back all of this up ask some of it is part of the sacred temple ceremonies and thus impossible to discuss outside of the temple. But anyone being honest and really understanding the Church can not refute this reality.

But therein lies the concern. A lot of these major components, which used to be discussed at all levels of the Church, have been aggressively de-emphasized. And to classify these doctrines as speculation in order to justify sweeping them into a closet is in my feelings dishonest. It feels as if the Church wants so badly to be liked, they are willing to take these doctrines and hide them in order to look "normal". And that is what makes me sad. I believe these revealed truths are what made the Church stand out and what made the Church nessesary. Otherwise we may one day end up being just another sneeze in the large wind of Christian Churches.

I can refute it. Christ never proposed a plan.

Are you sure you really know this as well as you think?

[Avatar4321]

One thing I personally find emphasized in every conference these days is the need to be close to the Spirit and be able to listen to it. I have been taking this as a need to be independent in what we are learning and knowing from God and that the kinds of things we need to progress cannot be shared from the pulpit if only because we have to have the oil in our own lamps and, as I think, because the power of them is only by knowing and understanding for ourselves. When I hear this counsel, it makes me think there are MORE amazing things the church and God want us to know, not less.

I think there are lots of things God is just (not literally) dying to tell us. We just havent prepared ourselves. But I see things here a little and there a little. The Spirit is teaching people the truth. People may get gospel hobbies and take statements made by past leaders out of the contexts they and others have provided. But the Spirit is what will continue to lead the way. We need to teach the Doctrines of Christ with power and let the Lord teach us the rest.

[happy]

I can refute it. Christ never proposed a plan.

Are you sure you really know this as well as you think?

If you say so.

[Avatar4321]

If you say so.

Yeah. it's because I say, not because the scriptures say so or because our Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, say so it's because I say so.

I dont understand how you can throw up caricatures of what the Church teaches and has taught and then complain about the Church changing their viewpoints because they continue teaching the same things they always taught.

[CV75]

If you say so.

I think three posters on this page alone have said so!

[happy]

I think three posters on this page alone have said so!

Member dishonesty because of a desire to mainstream can come in multiples.

Do not accuse posters of dishonesty. Your thread is closed.

[CV75]

Member dishonesty because of a desire to mainstream can come in multiples.

My, that is condescending. Or are you calling those who have disagreed with you dishonest?

[DavidB]

Do you all feel the Church is truly mainstreaming? Will it become increasingly more standard protestant, ejecting the doctrines that made it is interesting and unique? Is the FARMS/Maxwell Institute a sign the Church wants to become a generic Christian faith? I would find it sad if the critics are finally convincing the Church it needs to ditch all of its unique doctrines in order to become more acceptable and increase its membership.

I think you need to separate the Church in otherwords, the Bride of Christ, from FAIR, FARMS, Maxwell Institute. None of those institutions represent the Church, each group ensures that to convey that they do not represent the Church.

I believe the difficulty you are having is separate, the Church - Bride of Christ - from the meer mortal opinions of offended persons. What happened with Maxwell Institute does not affect the Church and I dare does not affect any significant portion of the Membership of the Church. What happened with Maxwell institute affected those removed, and the friends of those removed and a few here and there who are offended by the manner of removal. Other than that very very very small handful of people, I know of no one else who has made mention of the goings on.

The Church will go forth nobly and bodly despite the opinions of mortals.

[Calm]

If you say so.

You should have spent more time in primary;

http://www.lds.org/m...ers-plan-for-us

“I lived in heaven a long time ago, it is true;

Lived there and loved there with people I know. So did you.

Then Heav’nly Father presented a beautiful plan,

All about earth and eternal salvation for man.”

Moses 4:1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

Edited August 10, 2012 by calmoriah