The Increasing Size Of The Tent Of Mormonism

[why me]

I think that we are dealing with two churches both united in bringing people closer to god. First, there is the church of the correlation committee. They provide the manuals and give us our magazines and other materials. Then there are the other people who wish the church to return to the old days when information was out there and discussed. This ended during the late eighties and early nineties.

At the moment there is a struggle between the two groups. Givens and Bushman represent the second grouping, most likely supported by some GAs. But the other crowd control the publications. And this is where it matters. Once the Bushman's and Givens' of the church claim the Ensign and manuals, true change in information will occur and the lds apologists will be more the happy for it.

[DBMormon]

In your first post you said the following.

Have you shared thoughts on that issue or heards others share thoughts without push back? If you do not want to share I understand.

Only to the extent that I have

1.) made it clear the SSA is not sin according to the church while acting on it is.

2.) If a revelation came allowing them full fellowship, I would welcome it

[DBMormon]

I couldn't find an online source for History of the Church so I couldn't look up the quote, but does it insinuate a path to exaltation that is outside that of receiving the saving ordinances through the proper priesthood (which is currently only in the LDS church)? I've always thought that exaltation is only through this path, and that many will have the opportunity to get on this path after death.

All will need ordinances, but culturally many mormons see their path as a better more likely path for salvation, in that God has placed a higher likelyhood of Salvation on his favorite .2% (point two percent) Mormon Children. They struggle to grasp the benefit of the church is something other then likelyhood of coming home (peace, avoid pitfalls, faster growth, more support from community, more chances to serve)

[Bob Crockett]

The difference may be what I taught. I have taught the following

- explicit lesson on what it means to be true and living - stating we don't have all keys, don't have all truth, don't have the only path to exhaltation (HOTC vol. 4:78-80),

I certainly dispute this teaching of yours. It should be no surprise.

The provision of the History of the Church you quote is here. It is a press clipping from a non-Mormon:

Mathew S. Davis' Description of the Prophet, and a Report of his Washington Discourse.

Washington, 6th February, 1840.

My Dear Mary:—I went last evening to hear "Joe Smith," the celebrated Mormon, expound his doctrine. I, with several others, had a desire to understand his tenets as explained by himself. He is not an educated man: but he is a plain, sensible, strong minded man. Everything he says, is said in a manner to leave an impression that he is sincere. There is no levity, no fanaticism, no want of dignity in his deportment. He is apparently from forty to forty-five years of age, rather above the middle stature, and what you ladies would call a very good looking man. In his garb there are no peculiarities; his dress being that of a plain, unpretending citizen. He is by profession a farmer, but is evidently well read.

He commenced by saying, that he knew the prejudices which were abroad in the world against him, but requested us to pay no respect to the rumors which were in circulation respecting him or his doctrines. He was accompanied by three or four of his followers. He said, "I state to you our belief, so far as time will permit." "I believe," said he, "that there is a God, possessing all the attributes ascribed to Him by all Christians of all denominations; that He reigns over all things in heaven and on earth, and that all are subject to His power." He then spoke rationally of the attributes of Divinity, such as foreknowledge, mercy &c., &c. He then took up the Bible. "I believe," said he, "in this sacred volume. In it the 'Mormon' faith is to be found. We teach nothing but what the Bible teaches. We believe nothing, but what is to be found in this book. I believe in the fall of man, as recorded in the Bible; I believe that God foreknew everything, but did not foreordain everything; I deny that foreordain and foreknow is the same thing. He foreordained the fall of man; but all merciful as He is, He foreordained at the same time, a plan of redemption for all mankind. I believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that He died for the sins of all men, who in Adam had fallen." He then entered into some details, the result of which tended to show his total unbelief of what is termed original sin. He believes that it is washed away by the blood of Christ, and that it no longer exists. As a necessary consequence, he believes that we are all born pure and undefiled. That all children dying at an early age (say eight years) not knowing good from evil, were incapable of sinning; and that all such assuredly go to heaven. "I believe," said he, "that a man is a moral, responsible, free agent; that although it was foreordained he should fall, and be redeemed, yet after the redemption it was not foreordained that he should again sin. In the Bible a rule of conduct is laid down for him; in the Old and Testaments the law by which he is to be governed, may be found. If he violates that law, he is to be punished for the deeds done in the body.

I believe that God is eternal. That He had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end. I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning; it can have no end. Here he entered into some explanations, which were so brief that I could not perfectly comprehend him. But the idea seemed to be that the soul of man, the spirit, had existed from eternity in the bosom of Divinity; and so far as he was intelligible to me, must ultimately return from whence it came. He said very little of rewards and punishments; but one conclusion, from what he did say, was irresistible—he contended throughout, that everything which had a beginning must have an ending; and consequently if the punishment of man commenced in the next world, it must, according to his logic and belief have an end.

During the whole of his address, and it occupied more than two hours, there was no opinion or belief that he expressed, that was calculated, in the slightest degree, to impair the morals of society, or in any manner to degrade and brutalize the human species. There was much in his precepts, if they were followed, that would soften the asperities of man towards man, and that would tend to make him a more rational being than he is generally found to be. There was no violence, no fury, no denunciation. His religion appears to be the religion of meekness, lowliness, and mild persuasion.

Towards the close of his address, he remarked that he had been represented as pretending to be a Savior, a worker of miracles, etc. All this was false. He made no such pretensions. He was but a man, he said; a plain, untutored man; seeking what he should do to be saved. He performed no miracles. He did not pretend to possess any such power. He closed by referring to the Mormon Bible, which he said, contained nothing inconsistent or conflicting with the Christian Bible, and he again repeated that all who would follow the precepts of the Bible, whether Mormon or not, would assuredly be saved.

Throughout his whole address, he displayed strongly a spirit of charity and forbearance. The Mormon Bible, he said, was communicated to him, direct from heaven. If there was such a thing on earth, as the author of it, then he (Smith) was the author; but the idea that he wished to impress was, that he had penned it as dictated by God.

I have taken some pains to explain this man's belief, as he himself explained it. I have done so because it might satisfy your curiosity, and might be interesting to you, and some of your friends. I have changed my opinion of the Mormons. They are an injured and much-abused people. Of matters of faith, you know I express no opinion. I have only room to add—let William, if you cannot do it, acknowledge the receipt of this, with the enclosure.

Remember me to Sarah and the boys. Kiss the dear baby for me.

Affectionately your husband,

M. L. Davis.

Where does Joseph Smith say that the Church lacks all of the keys and is not the only path to "exhaltation?"

The line "would assuredly be saved" seems a lot upon which to pin your hopes, particularly when all the History is doing here is noting favorable press as it often did. That doesn't mean The History signed on to it. Do you have anything direct from the Prophet?

BC

Edited July 5, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[tyler90az]

Tyler, there is a difference between supporting the Constitutional and legal rights of gays to marry and saying that it is acceptable to The Lord for them to enter into such unions. From what you have said on other threads you crossed that line.

As of now I have never said that at church or to a leader.

[volgadon]

Volgadon, I wanted to communicate with you privately, but you apparently cannot receive any new PMs, so I am left with this clumsy means. Can you PM me with an alternative way to contact you? It depends upon whether or not you are conversant with the Russian language -- if not then, nevermind.

I'll try to PM you.

[Stone holm]

As of now I have never said that at church or to a leader.

My mistake. I thought you had said so on another thread. If a person is merely arguing that we should not try to legislate our religious standards then that should not be grounds for TR denial. If , however, we go beyond that and argue that The Lord finds entering into such relationships and the activity associated there with acceptable that is a different matter. As far as expanding the tent, I endorse trying to shed our current political cultural aura in favour of a less judgmental and less arrogant one. But do not favour one that suggests mythologizing our Church history. Being more open about blemishes yes, trying to do what mainstream Protestants did to the OT during the 30's to the 60's no.

[DBMormon]

I certainly dispute this teaching of yours. It should be no surprise.

The provision of the History of the Church you quote is here. It is a press clipping from a non-Mormon:

Where does Joseph Smith say that the Church lacks all of the keys and is not the only path to "exhaltation?"

The line "would assuredly be saved" seems a lot upon which to pin your hopes, particularly when all the History is doing here is noting favorable press as it often did. That doesn't mean The History signed on to it. Do you have anything direct from the Prophet?

BC

Where is it said we don't have all keys? Brigham Young said "We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more."

Edited to add - Where we do claim to not have all truth? Article of Faith #9 - many great and wonderful things yet to be revealed.... what is revelaed that is so great and wonderful..... MORE truth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob please answer his question for me and a simple yes or no will do.

Do LDS in general have a better chance at Salvation then Baptists, Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, or any other person of any other faith (excepting any faith that pushes for it's adherents to do evil)?

Edited July 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Where is it said we don't have all keys? Brigham Young said "We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please answer this question. Do LDS in general have a better chance at Salvation then Baptists, Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, or any other person of any other faith (excepting any faith that pushes for it's adherents to do evil)?

This isn't us vs them, either or Bob. God loves all his children and he is working throughout every facet and faith of this world to save each of his children, not just his precious mormon ones. Any view that places a better chance of exaltation with the Mormon Faith is no better then any other Faith that claims it is the only way and if you do not join, you shall be lost forever. While True and Living, it doesn't provide the only path and the one part that is necessary to all aka - ordinances will be provided to all.

[volgadon]

All will need ordinances, but culturally many mormons see their path as a better more likely path for salvation, in that God has placed a higher likelyhood of Salvation on his favorite .2% (point two percent) Mormon Children. They struggle to grasp the benefit of the church is something other then likelyhood of coming home (peace, avoid pitfalls, faster growth, more support from community, more chances to serve)

This is another cultural assumption.

[DBMormon]

This is another cultural assumption.

What I am correcting or what I am proposing. If you mean what I am correcting - the idea that mormons have a better chance at salvation - then yes it is a cultural assumption, one which if thought through to its end makes no sense, especially in light of Mormonism's inclusivity of all good people and the expanse of temple work and Joseph's vision of Alvin, Pres Woodruff's vision of the founders, ect...

[Stone holm]

All will need ordinances, but culturally many mormons see their path as a better more likely path for salvation, in that God has placed a higher likelyhood of Salvation on his favorite .2% (point two percent) Mormon Children. They struggle to grasp the benefit of the church is something other then likelyhood of coming home (peace, avoid pitfalls, faster growth, more support from community, more chances to serve)

What is the other benefit?

[DBMormon]

(peace, avoid pitfalls, faster growth, more support from community, more chances to serve)

[LordUther]

This isn't us vs them, either or Bob. God loves all his children and he is working throughout every facet and faith of this world to save each of his children, not just his precious mormon ones. Any view that places a better chance of exaltation with the Mormon Faith is no better then any other Faith that claims it is the only way and if you do not join, you shall be lost forever. While True and Living, it doesn't provide the only path and the one part that is necessary to all aka - ordinances will be provided to all.

The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only church on the face of the earth that has the keys & authority to perform the ordinances necessary for salvation. The ONLY church. People of other faiths may die without having been taught the gospel as revealed to Joseph Smith and still be saved because they will be taught the gospel in the spirit prison and their ordinances performed for them vicariously in the temples, ordinances only we have the authority to perform. They will then stand before the judgement bar of God & be judged according to the Laws that they knew. They will not be saved because of those other churches but in spite of them.

Do not get me wrong there are many good & inspired people in many different organisations around the globe, wether spiritual or not, but not one of those organisations has the power to save except this church.

Edited to add: & yes many many Mormons will fail to make the grade, because they knew the gospel & failed to live it. So yes a baptist will have as good a chance to be saved as a mormon, but not because of their religion but because of ours.

Edited July 5, 2013 by LordUther

[volgadon]

What I am correcting or what I am proposing. If you mean what I am correcting - the idea that mormons have a better chance at salvation - then yes it is a cultural assumption, one which if thought through to its end makes no sense, especially in light of Mormonism's inclusivity of all good people and the expanse of temple work and Joseph's vision of Alvin, Pres Woodruff's vision of the founders, ect...

What you are proposing.

[Bob Crockett]

Edited to add - Where we do claim to not have all truth? Article of Faith #9 - many great and wonderful things yet to be revealed.... what is revelaed that is so great and wonderful..... MORE truth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob please answer his question for me and a simple yes or no will do.

Do LDS in general have a better chance at Salvation then Baptists, Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, or any other person of any other faith (excepting any faith that pushes for it's adherents to do evil)?

Yes.

It is one thing to argue that the Brethren have yet to receive all keys and knowledge, because all haven't been revealed yet. It is quite another to say that Baptists and Scientologists have just as much a chance of receiving keys and revelation as do the Brethren. And, If what you're really saying is that someday the Baptist and the Scientologist may receive those keys from the Brethren through the conversion all Latter-day Saints have gone through, then I fault your rhetoric and logic as leaving out a lot to imply the salvation of Universalism. As we know, the salvation of Universalism is The Rejected Plan.

The path is straight and gate is narrow and few there will be who find it. The Muslim, the Baptist, the Pentecostal who are such on the date of their death are in hell and if they remain such on the day of judgment are outside God's presence.

Having said that, the History of the Church cite you offer is inapt by a very wide mile.

Terryl Givens said the manuals were deplorable

Where has he said that? I wouldn't put it past him or Dr. Bushman to say something like that, but I'd like to see the reference.

I read and enjoy Givens as much as the next Saint. I find his rhetoric lyrical and entertaining.

However, I trust the manuals profoundly. I'm a seminary teacher. I have 50 minutes to convey to teenagers that the only way to exaltation is by keeping the commandments and repenting of the times one doesn't, and to receive the priesthood ordinances. I would be out on my kiester if I deviated from the manual to say that it is possible that Baptists may receive salvation; if the Book of Mormon might not be an historical record; if it is fine with me if the church might change its stance on homosexual relations; if the Brethren were often wrong; if all you need is be "willing" to keep the commandments rather than keep them or else repent; if God is not a vengeful God to those who mock Him or disregard Him. (I'm not saying these are your beliefs; I give example of nuances I've seen.) I don't have the luxury for nuances like that which really cut against the grain of the essential teachings of the church.

Somehow I don't think that when Phillip converted the eunuch, Phillip said -- hey, wait, let me teach you the alternative theories which make it easier for you to be a Christian.

But, out of curiosity, which page in what manual of the church is what Givens, or you, think is deplorable?

Bob

Edited July 5, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

What you are proposing.

Help me understand how I am wrong. Outside of ordinances, which all truth seekers will accept in this life or the next, won't all who press forward towards improvement who forsake their shortcomings (recognizing eventually all we understand Christlike as the goal) be welcomed into the Celestial Kingdom.

Explain how LDS have an advantage? a real advantage that translates to a higher % of Mormons being saved then non-mormons

[DBMormon]

Yes.

It is one thing to argue that the Brethren have yet to receive all keys and knowledge, because all haven't been revealed yet. It is quite another to say that Baptists and Scientologists have just as much a chance of receiving keys and revelation as do the Brethren. And, If what you're really saying is that someday the Baptist and the Scientologist may receive those keys from the Brethren through the conversion all Latter-day Saints have gone through, then I fault your rhetoric and logic as leaving out a lot to imply the salvation of Universalism. As we know, the salvation of Universalism is The Rejected Plan.

The path is straight and gate is narrow and few there will be who find it. The Muslim, the Baptist, the Pentecostal who are such on the date of their death are in hell and if they remain such on the day of judgment are outside God's presence.

Having said that, the History of the Church cite you offer is inapt by a very wide mile.

CFR - Please show me where I said any other Church has any keys? I don't nor Do I mean it subliminally. We are the only church in this dispensaton with Keys, we simply don't have all keys

Edited July 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Help me understand how I am wrong. Outside of ordinances, which all truth seekers will accept in this life or the next, won't all who press forward towards improvement who forsake their shortcomings (recognizing eventually all we understand Christlike as the goal) be welcomed into the Celestial Kingdom.

Explain how LDS have an advantage? a real advantage that translates to a higher % of Mormons being saved then non-mormons

If in the end there is no increase in % of mormons over nonmormons in this life, then in this life the Church gives no increased advantage in terms of salvation or exaltation. But rather serves as a steward over the keys and ordinances and offers people additional blessings as mentioned earlier.

[DBMormon]

Yes.

It is one thing to argue that the Brethren have yet to receive all keys and knowledge, because all haven't been revealed yet. It is quite another to say that Baptists and Scientologists have just as much a chance of receiving keys and revelation as do the Brethren. And, If what you're really saying is that someday the Baptist and the Scientologist may receive those keys from the Brethren through the conversion all Latter-day Saints have gone through, then I fault your rhetoric and logic as leaving out a lot to imply the salvation of Universalism. As we know, the salvation of Universalism is The Rejected Plan.

The path is straight and gate is narrow and few there will be who find it. The Muslim, the Baptist, the Pentecostal who are such on the date of their death are in hell and if they remain such on the day of judgment are outside God's presence.

Having said that, the History of the Church cite you offer is inapt by a very wide mile.

Where has he said that? I wouldn't put it past him or Dr. Bushman to say something like that, but I'd like to see the reference.

I read and enjoy Givens as much as the next Saint. I find his rhetoric lyrical and entertaining.

However, I trust the manuals profoundly. I'm a seminary teacher. I have 50 minutes to convey to teenagers that the only way to exaltation is by keeping the commandments and repenting of the times one doesn't, and to receive the priesthood ordinances. I would be out on my kiester if I deviated from the manual to say that it is possible that Baptists may receive salvation; if the Book of Mormon might not be an historical record; if it is fine with me if the church might change its stance on homosexual relations; if the Brethren were often wrong; if all you need is be "willing" to keep the commandments rather than keep them or else repent; if God is not a vengeful God to those who mock Him or disregard Him. I don't have the luxury for nuances like that which really cut against the grain of the essential teachings of the church.

But, out of curiosity, which page in what manual of the church is what Givens, or you, think is deplorable?

Bob

you stated

The path is straight and gate is narrow and few there will be who find it. The Muslim, the Baptist, the Pentecostal, who are such on the date of their death are in hell and if they remain such on the day of judgment are outside God's presence.

who are such? such what. Still their faith? they go to hell? please clarify

In regards as to what is deplorable? Terryl said it, ask him. Though I agree with him it would take me hours to point out all of them. I will name one. A recent lesson spoke about apostacy and used the old stories of Marsh and the strippings and Simonds Ryder's name. The way it frames those, doesn't even touch on the nuance and intricate issues circling those situations and paints them with a broad brush that doesn't fit.

Edited July 5, 2013 by DBMormon

[Questing Beast]

Greg Prince

Terryl Givens

Richard Bushman

All active LDS whose views are nuanced and not traditional.

Whether not believing a historical BOM, defining "True and Living" way different then the Church's traditional explanation, and other flexible ways of fitting in the tent of mormonism that are markedly different then what we have been taught in generations past.

This type of preaching would have meant Church discipline 20 years ago.

Today one can speak of allowing gays full fellowship in the church, speak of allowing sisters priesthood, define the church in ways it has never described itself or it's truth claims, and still be an active member in full fellowship.

I see this tent enlarging as positive, as allowing others to hang on in spite if the difficult issues and still lead with faith. While we have to hang onto some things - BOM as scripture, Articles of Faith, belief that leaders are called of God and led by revelation, I also am grateful to rid ourselves of some of the nonsense

What think you?

"Nonsense".

If the religion morphs too much, too fast, it will unravel. Other religions have gone through it. Look at Christianity: unraveled big time during the Reformation period, it's still unraveling.

However, I don't concern myself with any of that, because I consider morphing religion to be part of the landscape of human reason....

[Bob Crockett]

CFR - Please show me where I said any other Church has any keys? I don't nor Do I mean it subliminally. We are the only church in this dispensaton with Keys, we simply don't have all keys

Here, you say:

The difference may be what I taught. I have taught the following

- explicit lesson on what it means to be true and living - stating we don't have all keys, don't have all truth, don't have the only path to exhaltation (HOTC vol. 4:78-80),

Reasonable people reading that quote, and the statement you've just made, "we are the only church in this dispensation with Keys," would think that you are saying that folks outside the priesthood structure in other "paths" can also find salvation. If that is not what you're saying, then I fault the post and what they say.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "only path" and what "other path" might exist for exaltation. Certainly, a Baptist accepting the Gospel in the hereafter is on the "only" path to salvation. Somewhere in one's existence you must accept Jesus Christ and submit to his ordinances. I see only one path. Perhaps you define path differently -- a resident of Sandusky could accept the Gospel on his "path" and a resident of Los Angeles on his "path." However, the way you express yourself definitely uses the verbiage of universal salvation.

In regards as to what is deplorable? Terryl said it, ask him.

I'm asking you for your reference. Did he really say this? I will likely be seeing Bro. Givens soon and I'd like that quote in hand to discuss it with him.

Though I agree with him it would take me hours to point out all of them. I will name one. A recent lesson spoke about apostacy and used the old stories of Marsh and the strippings and Simonds Ryder's name.

Which manual, which page? Do you have other examples?

who are such? such what. Still their faith? they go to hell? please clarify

Let me suggest that my post was pretty plain. Yes -- "still in their faith." Yes, "go to hell," they will, yes indeed. (Hell being, of course, the Latter-day Saint formula for the Spirit Prison). Edited July 5, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Johnnie Cake]

Greg Prince

Terryl Givens

Richard Bushman

All active LDS whose views are nuanced and not traditional.

Whether not believing a historical BOM, defining "True and Living" way different then the Church's traditional explanation, and other flexible ways of fitting in the tent of mormonism that are markedly different then what we have been taught in generations past.

This type of preaching would have meant Church discipline 20 years ago.

Today one can speak of allowing gays full fellowship in the church, speak of allowing sisters priesthood, define the church in ways it has never described itself or it's truth claims, and still be an active member in full fellowship.

I see this tent enlarging as positive, as allowing others to hang on in spite if the difficult issues and still lead with faith. While we have to hang onto some things - BOM as scripture, Articles of Faith, belief that leaders are called of God and led by revelation, I also am grateful to rid ourselves of some of the nonsense

What think you?

The notion that the LDS tent is enlarging to a mental illusion...Go ahead and test your claim in an actual church setting and see just how large that tent really is.

I challenge anyone posting here next Sunday to question the historicity of the Book of Mormon in a church setting….or to claim that we need to view that Book of Mormon as inspired scripture rather than literal history.

Go ahead and share your views that evolution was the means by which God created man, that Adam was an evolved being with Chimpanzee cousins verses the traditional view that God created Adam from the dust of the earth.

Tell your fellow ward members that the earth is millions of years old rather than the scriptural backed 6,000.

Please share your views that Lamanites were more a political party than a race of people and that the Book of Mormon should be viewed more like metaphor than actual historical events. That the cursing of Laman and Lemuel was not a changing of their skin color but again a metaphor.

Share with your fellow members that human language has evolved over 10’s of thousands of years rather than being changed in an instant at the Tower of Babel.

Be my guest in teaching the flood as a local event rather a universal occurance and see how many members ponce on you for teaching false doctrine and going against prophetic utterances of past prophets.

If an individual wishes to maintain a relationship with the church they must self-edit their views in order to retain that relationship. There is no such thing as free speech without consequences in the church. All of the compromise must be done by the individual wishing to remain inside the tent. I see none by the church.

For the record I was told by my former Stake President that if I were to discuss my “Large Tent” views with any member of my stake, including my own family members, I would face church discipline. I refused to accept his gag order…and well I guess the rest is history. I think the church is more interested in which way your tent is faced rather than how large their tent is. For those who can't decipher this metaphors meaning...the church is more interested that you received their traditional views of the church as taught in their manuals and that you accept church doctrine as taught today and that members recognize their authority and power over them than in the church keeping members in the church with non-traditional views and beliefs.

One more thought: How large can that tent get before the church loses all credibility and control over its membership...personally I don't think they can allow a large tent (to continue the metaphor) Mormonism only works within a small doctrinal tent...give the members too much intellectual freedom in nuancing doctrine so they can reconcile it with conflicts...and you lose them...at least that's been my experience.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[stemelbow]

I have for a long time felt it best to enlarge the tent of the religion, but I'm not sure I agree anymore. Part of my reasoning has been if the tent is not enlarged, I will soon find myself left out. There was a time I felt it was easy to be a part of the Church but that time is just a memory that gives me all sorts of conflicting feelings these days.

How true are statements that suggest if we are luke warm He will spew us out of His mouth? I have yet to meet a person in all my journeys who is not to some extent luke warm (but this is just my subjective judgment). With nearly everything I do when it comes to Church and religion, I question and scrutinize to death. I dont' want to offend, but I also don't want to just go ahead with things as if I'm sure I'm on board--as if my integrity is constantly under scrutiny itself. My mind and heart are so unsettled these days I don't know what statements, claims and ideas are those which lead us to good and those which are influenced by satan to some extent and are leading us to selfishness or other ugly character flaws. I find myself sinking generally but being bounced up every now and then by unexpected inspirational stories, ideas, and events--its as if I"m being tossed around on the waves by every wind of doctrine as it comes. I can think this but I can't correct it, if it needs correcting.

I don't know its fair of me to even ask or hope for me to go back to where I once was. I don't want ignorance (although a great deal of ignorance remains in me). I'm glad context is a larger part of my studies now. I don't want to miss plenty of interesting stuff by going back. But I also don't want to continue to have to question everything--not actually knowing anything it seems. For the Church I think it's easier to get things done if it's composed of people just happily faithfully doing what they're asked. I don't fit that mold anymore. In this, do I bring everyone else down? Am I slowing the work? Going back to the question of what is luke warm--am I the real luke warm one and its my own mixed up brain that thinks everyone is luke warm to some extent?

If the church was a smaller tent, it would possibly be more focused. More nuanced. It wouldn't have a bunch of me's running around slowing it down.

Certain positions in particular are hard for me to advocate now. I used to think without a doubt it's good to increase the size of the tent. Now I'm not so sure that's the best thing. I can see how keeping it focused and direct may actually be best. While in a very real and large way I want to be included, in another way I wonder if its best for me and for the Church if I'm on the outside. At some point in the eternities God is going to have to tell it like it is to me. He'll have to judge me as a luke warm one or something. Why not send me packing from the start or early on so I don't bog things down in the long run?

All too often me staying in and with the Church is just causing confusion. I'm pretty much relegated to not saying anything in church at all--cause when I do everyone is turned off or annoyed it seems. My bishop told me I'm not his brother in the gospel anymore--which has caused me to wonder he may be on to something. Get rid of the me's and the Church will be better off. I show up. I try to be nice and participate. But I'm completely out of place. My mind doesn't belong. My heart is broken. my spirit is contrite. whats worse in all of this now? My oldest is exactly like me. I'm steering the poor kid in the wrong direction. And I have others to follow (they're too young to know anything now). So does increasing the size of the tent help or hinder? I can see both sides of this. I don't know the answer.

[volgadon]

Help me understand how I am wrong. Outside of ordinances, which all truth seekers will accept in this life or the next, won't all who press forward towards improvement who forsake their shortcomings (recognizing eventually all we understand Christlike as the goal) be welcomed into the Celestial Kingdom.

Explain how LDS have an advantage? a real advantage that translates to a higher % of Mormons being saved then non-mormons

My point is more that the whole question stems from a cultural perspective. One might also ask if church membership offers no advantage, then why is it here? Why does God even bother?

I'm also saying that cultural understanding is not shorthand for false.

Edited July 5, 2013 by volgadon