In Retrospect, Was The Raising Of The Bar A Good Thing?

[Calm]

And you are getting these quotes from...?

[MiserereNobis]

Regarding the existence of a heavenly mother; it appears to me this is not official Mormon doctrine and not therefore relevant to my salvation.

"Heavenly Mother" is not Mormon doctrine? Really? I guess you've got some heresy in your hymnal, then

[Closet Doubter]

OK, but that still seems to go quite a bit beyond was Miserere Nobis was initially referring to with his reference to the King Follet sermon and his subsequent response to my request for clarification. I'm trying to nail down what it is specifically he is talking about before addressing his criticism that Mormons dodge and downplay their doctrine. I thought that if he were to consult the text of the King Follet discourse, he could clarify, in his own mind perhaps, what it actually states as opposed to what has been said about it over the years.

Interesting that someone who appears to be as knowledgable as this poster couldn't understand what was being referred to and had to dance around the subject. That seems to be the standard operating mode of many of the appolegetic posters here. Someone makes a statement that everyone knows is true but the appologist thinks he won't know the exact place it is stated simply ask for a CFR. We all know that Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man and that man can become like God. We all know that it was reiterated by Lorenzo Snow. We all also know that Gordon Hinkley appeared to deny it when he stated "I don't know that we teach that, we don't emphasize it" and also stated he didn't know much about it. Interestingly in the new Lorenzo Snow manual, it actually reiterates that we believe it.

FYI resorting to variations of the L word is the kiss of death on this board. Disagree all you want but if you plan on staying in the thread leave the character assaults at home.

[Closet Doubter]

President Hinckley set a good example for the rest of us in that respect. Too many Mormons get stuck in a mire trying to explain and define certain points that they really can't because there hasn't been enough revealed about them.

When some of us are careful to avoid doing that, it gets misread as dodging or downplaying.

President Hinckley when asked a direct question about our beliefs, waffled around the answer. When I read that interview I was still a TBM. That interview was one of the reasons I started asking myself, do I really believe this person is a prophet of god. Maybe my expectation is too high but I would expect a true prophet to boldly proclaim and affirm true doctrine, not waffle around the subject.

[Saints Alive]

"Heavenly Mother" is not Mormon doctrine? Really? I guess you've got some heresy in your hymnal, then

dispite what some may say it is definitely doctrine. Although it only goes as far as to acknowledge her existence anything beyond that is speculation. A catholic expatriate could probably make the argument that she is the pre-mortal BVM.

[Cobalt-70]

Not only that, D&C 130 was printed weird. When Joseph was refuting the idea that the Father and the Son literally dwell in a person's heart as a false sectarian notion, he also debunked the idea that the Spirit was literally there too. Compare the original:

...

... with the printed version:

...

Notice the reversal. The second makes it seem that the reason the Holy Spirit is said to be incorporeal is so that He/She/It can literally dwell within us. The original makes much better sense; references like D&C 8 talking about the Spirit "dwelling" in us should probably be read in this metaphorical light.

I have heard Mormon apologists rationalize the statement in Lectures on Faith that calls the Father a "personage of Spirit" by claiming that the Father has a spirit, so he is a personage of spirit even though he has a body too. If you go back to Joseph Smith's original statement before it was changed by the 1876 editors, you could apply that same rationalization to the Holy Spirit as well, leaving open the possibility that the Holy Spirit has a body, but that Her influence is felt everywhere.

In any event, Smith's 1843 statement was not focusing on the idea that the Holy Spirit was a spirit. It was a step in the direction of embodying the Holy Spirit as a separate person, whereas the existing canonized doctrine circa 1843, recorded in the Lectures on Faith, said that the Holy Spirit was a shared mind, and not a distinct person.

Holy Spirit theology has always been problematic in Mormonism, and unsettled. There was a time when many Mormons believed that Joseph Smith himself was the Holy Spirit. It would not be too big of a stretch to identify the Holy Spirit as the Heavenly Mother, which would give her a place at the Big Boy table.

[The Grimace]

So can it now be said that the raising of the bar was, in the long-term, a positive thing?

I'm not reading this whole thread, no doubt it has gotten way off track, so forgive me if this was mentioned.

It depends on what you were hoping to achieve and how it was measured. If you were hoping for more baptisms, or more retention, then I think the numbers show a slow down in both. However, if you are looking for something else, then perhaps that something else has improved.

Really hard to say if it was a positive change.

[Cobalt-70]

Not seeing it. You're reading into manuals more than can be implied. There's nothing about spirit babies (being children of God does not equal being babies of God). Nothing about women being spirit baby machines. And certainly nothing about the mechanics of how it all works. The only way you get that is by first reading it in as a premise. I hold no qualms with what is said about spirit children/heavenly parents. I have plenty of issues with your descriptor of it. Your argument is an oversized straw man, to say the least.

The existing references to "literal spirit children" is a remnant of earlier language that made this explicit. LDS leaders from Brigham Young to Bruce McConkie made it very clear that spirits were born through a literal birthing process. For example, Brigham Young taught that God "created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities." (JD 11:122)

Even today, we still have pretty clear references to the spirit babies doctrine. For example, in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith manual, the editors include his teaching that:

"

The doctrine of the pre-existence,...shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.

"

I can tell you, having lived through it, that the spirit children doctrine has been taken very literally within the church, and probably still is, especially among most of its older, less-"correlated" members. The doctrine has a very strong internal logic. After all, if not one hair of one's head will be lost in the resurrection, the surely a whole uterus will not be lost. And what is a resurrected uterus for if not to give birth? And who else would a resurrected goddess give birth to than spirit children?

[Cobalt-70]

I think modern medical advances could suggest a couple(at least) of ways spirit children could be brought into being. That said absolutely nothing has been revealed of the processes involved. It does no good to choose one and become dogmatic about it when one knows absolutely nothing.

Your view represents this transitional view, and I would say it is very common. From Brigham Young to Bruce McConkie, the spirit birth doctrine was our undisputed doctrine. Then, after The Godmakers in 1982, we became embarrassed about this doctrine, and started claiming (or convincing themselves) that they did not know whether or not the spirit babies doctrine was true, although in their heart of hearts they knew it had to be true. Now, we are in a phase where a large number of Mormons are beginning to seriously entertain the idea that the spirit birth doctrine might not actually be true, or they never squarely learned that doctrine in the first place.

Soon, because of feminist influences, none of us will actually believe the doctrine, but we will continue to claim that we don't know whether the doctrine is true or false. Ultimately, like so many of Brigham Young's other doctrines, it will probably become false doctrine. It has to, because the idea is horribly patriarchal, was a lingering outgrowth of the Adam-God doctrine, and is contrary to what Joseph Smith taught (that the human spirit was coeternal with God and thus could not have been created).

[Cobalt-70]

"Heavenly Mother" is not Mormon doctrine? Really? I guess you've got some heresy in your hymnal, then

I don't see how any Mormon could claim that the Heavenly Mother is not part of Mormon doctrine. In addition to the hymnal, She has made her way into our manuals, and in to the Family Proclamation. There have even been references to her by the LDS President over the pulpit in General Conference. In fact, she was specifically mentioned in a 1909 First Presidency Statement, which is just about the most official statement that can come LDS Church headquarters ("All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Diety.").

[Saints Alive]

What was this thread about again?

[Ahab]

I was in the MTC for three! Most groups, though, vary from a month to two.

I've heard of retention, and that sounds like detention to me.

Um hmm. Yup. That it does.

[Ahab]

Just looking at the graphic on the front page of today's Deseret News.

The number of missionaries began to slide from a high of 61,638 in 2002. It bottomed out at 51,067 in 2004, and remained fairly flat until 2010, when it began to climb to the present level of 58,000-plus.

Presumably, the drop-off was attributable to the now-famous "raising of the bar," and the number of missionaries is now climbing back up to pre-2002 levels with, one would expect, generally better-prepared missionaries.

With the expected increase in numbers due to the just-announced changes in the age-eligibility, we will presumably have an even larger and better-prepared missionary force than before.

So can it now be said that the raising of the bar was, in the long-term, a positive thing?

A positive as in a plus, yes, in the long term, but even if it was negative in the sense of a reduction in numbers it would have still been a good thing, and the goal we should still stive for.

The raising of the bar was and still is all about putting out better equipped and better qualified missionaries, so even if there are fewer of them it's better than having some low quality people out there.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's absolutely a good thing! I knew too many guys who were treating it like a vacation, got into a lot of trouble, and hurt testimonies in the longrun.

Hmmm I had a companion just like that. Hurray. Ok not really. It was really hard to deal with.

[BlueDreams]

What was this thread about again?

Something about bars....maybe the lemon bars they serve in heaven??? It seems accurate, I swear plenty talk about the great doctrine of heavenly desserts served in heaven. It fits

With luv,

BD

Edited October 13, 2012 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

The existing references to "literal spirit children" is a remnant of earlier language that made this explicit. LDS leaders from Brigham Young to Bruce McConkie made it very clear that spirits were born through a literal birthing process. For example, Brigham Young taught that God "created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities." (JD 11:122)

Important words right at that beginning of that paragraph: I believe. Don't see a thus saith the lord or even a we believe (which he does use through other portions).

Even today, we still have pretty clear references to the spirit babies doctrine. For example, in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith manual, the editors include his teaching that:

"

The doctrine of the pre-existence,...shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.

"

Yep...don't have a problem with it.

I can tell you, having lived through it, that the spirit children doctrine has been taken very literally within the church, and probably still is, especially among most of its older, less-"correlated" members. The doctrine has a very strong internal logic. After all, if not one hair of one's head will be lost in the resurrection, the surely a whole uterus will not be lost. And what is a resurrected uterus for if not to give birth? And who else would a resurrected goddess give birth to than spirit children?

So? I've heard a list of odd ball beliefs. Some that are believed by a good number of people. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it doctrine. Doesn't make it official. I don't know the process to creation and according to what is doctrine, that stance is the one best substantiated and accurate.

I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. I know that "Preach My Gospel" is a missionary tool. Wouldn't it leave out some things, because that might cause some uncomfortable situations?

Tacenda, I stick with my original words. Some of my deepest understandings of the gospel came in contingency of reading the scriptures that were found in PMG as well as reading PMG itself. It was helpful to knowing Christ....which as you stated, seems to be something you feel you lack. As for Meat before milk with your quotes. I didn't see them. But my guess it would be more along the lines of empty calories before nutrition. You might be getting some form of info, but you are not truly being fed substantially

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

And what is a resurrected uterus for if not to give birth? And who else would a resurrected goddess give birth to than spirit children?

We are also told that blood will no longer flow through our veins (don't know if this is scriptural or not) so that kind of halts the whole continuation of mortal processes extrapolated onto eternal ones right there.

Why wouldn't a resurrected being be able to give birth to physical children? After all, though we don't know the process, Christ was the literal physical child of God.

What I want to know is if our perfected bodies will be so efficient and the food we consume....assuming we don't just live off of light which is a possibility....so perfected there are no waste byproducts.

[Cobalt-70]

We are also told that blood will no longer flow through our veins (don't know if this is scriptural or not) so that kind of halts the whole continuation of mortal processes extrapolated onto eternal ones right there.

I think that idea was invented by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith. Yet Smith also believed that resurrected Celestial bodies would retain the power of procreation. (He thought that Terrestrial and Telestial bodies would be "neither man nor woman, merely immortal being having received the resurrection." Apparently, their genital regions would look like Ken and Barbie dolls.)

Why wouldn't a resurrected being be able to give birth to physical children? After all, though we don't know the process, Christ was the literal physical child of God.

That's what Brigham Young believed. That is a principal element of the Adam-God doctrine. He believed that normally, Celestial beings give birth to spirit babies, but if like Adam and Eve they go into a mortal planet and begin eating mortal fruits from the trees of that planet, they develop the ability to give birth to mortal babies as well. So Adam and Eve, in his view, were the literal parents of both our bodies and our spirits.

[BCSpace]

With the expected increase in numbers due to the just-announced changes in the age-eligibility, we will presumably have an even larger and better-prepared missionary force than before.

All other things being the same, lowering the age does not change the number of available missionaries in total over a long time, say a decade. It does produce a "bumper crop" of those who can go now instead of waiting. So what the Church should see is a temporary increase for a year or two. This is what the Church wants NOW due to increased attention on it because of the Romney campaign and possible presidency. We are taking advantage of this attention.

Where we might see a long term increase is in the fact that before the change we are more likely to lose some potential missionaries during the wait between graduation and mission. We also apparently gain some foreign missionaries who might not otherwise go.

We may or may not lose some sisters who, because the decision comes earlier now, decide to marry. We may or may not gain some sisters who previously felt that waiting till 21 to serve reduced their chances of marriage afterwards; they now can serve and not seem :too old" when they get back. I feel the latter has the stronger affect in this case.

So can it now be said that the raising of the bar was, in the long-term, a positive thing?

I think it was, You saw an immediate reduction and then an increase as the Mormon culture adjusted. I don't have any figures for it, but I felt fully a quarter, and perhaps more, of all missionaries were not prepared to serve before raising the bar and didn't accomplish much or accomplished late thus wasting time. But I also feel that the 70's and 80's was the golden age of missionary service in terms of converts. Retention of course was terrible.

Edited October 15, 2012 by BCSpace

[BlueDreams]

We may or may not lose some sisters who, because the decision comes earlier now, decide to marry. We may or may not gain some sisters who previously felt that waiting till 21 to serve reduced their chances of marriage afterwards; they now can serve and not seem :too old" when they get back. I feel the latter has the stronger affect in this case.

This is totally anecdotal evidence. But what I've seen so far from the women seems almost like a mass exodus of sisters high-tailling it to the mission field. In our YSA ward there was one sister who called the bishop right after noon that saturday to get an interview . Another is planning to leave soon as well (I live in a ward that has probably over have of the women being RM sisters....so two that I'm aware of with more thinking about it is pretty big). In another ward the bishop reported 15 or so women that have set up times to meet with him in the last week. There are a number of girls who've sold their contracts for winter semester, planning in advance to vacate. Considering that most women don't marry at 18 or 19 these days (at least at BYU-provo), I'd expect that a lot of women will take the option. So I personally expect a consistent increase in the number of sisters for the years to come in general...at least percentage wise (ie. There will be a larger portion of sisters out on the field and a larger percentage of women who'll take the option to go on a mission than found previously).

With luv,

BD

[dude]

Everybody has a "legendary" story, but we all know these were exceptions. Due to "raise the bar", I believe for every elder who is theoretically prevented from being an idiot in the mission field, there are many great ones who don't get to go, don't get to have their lives changed and prove themselves. "Raise the bar" was a conscious decision to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Personally I believe "raise the bar" was a Mormon culture experiment, and rather than the brethren admit it didn't exactly work out like they thought and reverse it (like they reversed the 18-month mission experiment), they're hoping that lowering the age will fix the numbers. Holland was a little disingenuous during his press conference when he stated that they weren't doing this because the numbers were down. He had Nelson quote increased percentages over the last 2 years, but didn't address the obvious elephant in the room that the numbers are way, way down from where they should have been without "raise the bar". There would have been more than 70,000 missionaries by now without "raise the bar". I've put "raise the bar" in quotes for a reason. I'm talking about the many great boys who heaven forbid find themselves in the "repent and go" scenario Ballard so dispises. Not sure his policy really cured anything, the really bad apples still just lie to get through their interviews. The honest ones are punished and banished, not banished by the church, but self-banished. Here's something most people aren't aware of. If you are a college-age convert who is on fire with the spirit and want to serve a mission, but before you even heard of the Mormon church, you had sex with multiple partners as most college kids do, you ain't going,,,,ever. Maybe, maybe, maybe depending on your local leaders, and after 3 years. Its a terrible one-size-fits-all policy and has absolutely no scriptural or historical basis, and I can give you tons of scriptural basis for the opposite (Alma the younger, Paul, etc etc).

Of course, someone will say how the service missionary program is so great. Its not even close to the life-changing experience you get as a full-time "real" missionary. And then you'll say that the mission field is not the place anymore to be converted, that that needs to happen before the mission. Bullcrap. Its still happening now exactly like it always did.

[Judd]

Everybody has a "legendary" story, but we all know these were exceptions. Due to "raise the bar", I believe for every elder who is theoretically prevented from being an idiot in the mission field, there are many great ones who don't get to go, don't get to have their lives changed and prove themselves. "Raise the bar" was a conscious decision to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Personally I believe "raise the bar" was a Mormon culture experiment, and rather than the brethren admit it didn't exactly work out like they thought and reverse it (like they reversed the 18-month mission experiment), they're hoping that lowering the age will fix the numbers. Holland was a little disingenuous during his press conference when he stated that they weren't doing this because the numbers were down. He had Nelson quote increased percentages over the last 2 years, but didn't address the obvious elephant in the room that the numbers are way, way down from where they should have been without "raise the bar". There would have been more than 70,000 missionaries by now without "raise the bar". I've put "raise the bar" in quotes for a reason. I'm talking about the many great boys who heaven forbid find themselves in the "repent and go" scenario Ballard so dispises. Not sure his policy really cured anything, the really bad apples still just lie to get through their interviews. The honest ones are punished and banished, not banished by the church, but self-banished. Here's something most people aren't aware of. If you are a college-age convert who is on fire with the spirit and want to serve a mission, but before you even heard of the Mormon church, you had sex with multiple partners as most college kids do, you ain't going,,,,ever. Maybe, maybe, maybe depending on your local leaders, and after 3 years. Its a terrible one-size-fits-all policy and has absolutely no scriptural or historical basis, and I can give you tons of scriptural basis for the opposite (Alma the younger, Paul, etc etc).

Of course, someone will say how the service missionary program is so great. Its not even close to the life-changing experience you get as a full-time "real" missionary. And then you'll say that the mission field is not the place anymore to be converted, that that needs to happen before the mission. Bullcrap. Its still happening now exactly like it always did.

Could you provide some kind of backing for at least a few of these statements? Ones I'm oarticularly interested in would be that there would be 70,000 missionaries right now. The other is the one-size-fits-all comment about how a convert wouldn't be able to serve because of transgressions prior to membership.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting that someone who appears to be as knowledgable as this poster couldn't understand what was being referred to and had to dance around the subject. That seems to be the standard operating mode of many of the appolegetic posters here. Someone makes a statement that everyone knows is true but the appologist thinks he won't know the exact place it is stated simply ask for a CFR. We all know that Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man and that man can become like God. We all know that it was reiterated by Lorenzo Snow. We all also know that Gordon Hinkley appeared to deny it when he stated "I don't know that we teach that, we don't emphasize it" and also stated he didn't know much about it. Interestingly in the new Lorenzo Snow manual, it actually reiterates that we believe it.

FYI resorting to variations of the L word is the kiss of death on this board. Disagree all you want but if you plan on staying in the thread leave the character assaults at home.

Unfortunately, I didn't see the character assault until now, hence the lateness of this reply.

Interesting that someone who appears to be as knowledgable as this poster couldn't understand what was being referred to and had to dance around the subject. That seems to be the standard operating mode of many of the appolegetic posters here. Someone makes a statement that everyone knows is true but the appologist thinks he won't know the exact place it is stated simply ask for a CFR.

I gave Miserere Nobis a link to the King Follett discourse in its entirety, thus making it convenient for him to examine the document itself and support his claims with specific examples of authentic teaching as opposed to folklore. He declined to do so.

Why did you ignore this fact in your post?

We all know that Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man and that man can become like God. We all know that it was reiterated by Lorenzo Snow

But that is all we know. Neither the Prophet nor President Snow elaborated on the details of God having been "as man is."

We all also know that Gordon Hinkley appeared to deny it ....

Pure bunkum! President Hinckley did no such thing. Try reading the quote for comprehension.

Interestingly in the new Lorenzo Snow manual, it actually reiterates that we believe it.

That's quite unremarkable given the fact that neither President Hinckley nor any other Church leader has denied it. Saying we don't teach something (God's mortal state before He became God) because we don't know much about it is not the same thing as denying we believe it.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

President Hinckley when asked a direct question about our beliefs, waffled around the answer. When I read that interview I was still a TBM. That interview was one of the reasons I started asking myself, do I really believe this person is a prophet of god. Maybe my expectation is too high but I would expect a true prophet to boldly proclaim and affirm true doctrine, not waffle around the subject.

I will respond to this as I responded to you back in July, when you were beating this same drum and claimed, "I can't imagine someone asking Joseph Smith about any of these doctrines and not getting an authoritative and definitive answer."

Are you sure Joseph Smith responded with absolute candor in each and every instance? What about the matter of plural marriage?

I think it is wise to occasionally be very guarded in how we speak of our beliefs lest we give unfriendly elements occasion to "turn again and rend" us, to put it in scriptural terms.

That you see such wisdom and prudence as evidence against President Hinckley's prophethood is sad indeed.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

... Apparently, their genital regions would look like Ken and Barbie dolls.

Why do I find that such a disquieting thought?