Toward Ever More Intelligent Discipleship

[Ahab]

Well said, pogi.

Maybe some people just want to hear more things like what you said but from our General Authorities instead of from us rank and file members.

We don't need them to tell us how to be prophets, though, or for them to tell us we are. We can be prophets just as well and just as easily as they can, even without having the same stewardships they have as General Authorities.

[Gray]

There is certainly depth and richness to be found in LDS restoration theology, if you're willing to dig for it. As to why we don't get much of that from official channels, the answer seems to be that there are many Mormonisms. The most orthodox and "branded" version is not necessarily the best for everyone. Your mileage may vary, and you may choose your own adventure. The Mormonism of Terryl Givens is not necessarily the Mormonism of Elder Bednar, and David Bokovoy's Mormonism is quite different from either of theirs. And of course the Mormonism of the Julie Rowe crowd is quite another thing altogether. 

Edited September 14, 2015 by Gray

[Ahab]

There is certainly depth and richness to be found in LDS restoration theology, if you're willing to dig for it. As to why we don't get much of that from official channels, the answer seems to be that there are many Mormonisms. The most orthodox and "branded" version is not necessarily the best for everyone. Your mileage may vary, and you may choose your own adventure. The Mormonism of Terryl Givens is not necessarily the Mormonism of Elder Bednar, and David Bokovoy's Mormonism is quite different from either of theirs. And of course the Mormonism of the Julie Rowe crowd is quite another thing altogether.

That's a good point and a good thing to keep in mind when interacting with other Mormons, or as some of us prefer to be called latter day saints.

Not all Mormons are alike, even though all are Mormons... members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And not every Mormon needs to be like every other Mormon.

Just bring all the good that you have and see if we can add to it, and while we're at it let's see if we can also help to get rid of some of the bad things you have and replace them with more good things.

Prrfecting the saints isn't all over yet.

[Walden]

"I actually think we were lulled somewhat into complacency by the seeming congruence of Mormon values with American civic religion during much of the twentieth century. We were often depicted, and sometimes thought of ourselves, as simply a family church with an extra book (and, generations earlier, with extra wives). And, of course, we are that. But Mormonism is far, far more, as well."

 

The "congruence of Mormon values with American civic religion during much of the twentieth century," that Daniel Peterson tries to associate with 20th-century societal acceptance of LDS values is quite interesting and amusing. I would argue that this "congruence" was not the result of an American culture that held similar beliefs as the church, but rather, was the result of a concerted effort by the LDS church to tone down it's outdated beliefs, practices and teachings. This is reflected in everything from the push by McKay to re-invent how Mormons presented themselves (abandoning the long-bearded "polygamist" look for clean-shaven, white shirt and ties) to the rejection of polygamy, the acceptance of blacks into the priesthood and the softening of any number of teachings that were once prevalent (blood atonement, etc.)

 

America was unkind to the 19th-century version of the LDS faith. Only by becoming more liberal in it's practices, softening or straight-out abandoning archaic principles and teachings and aligning itself more towards the perspective of 20th-century American culture did the LDS church begin to receive some level of acceptance in American culture. 

Edited September 15, 2015 by Walden

[pogi]

There is certainly depth and richness to be found in LDS restoration theology, if you're willing to dig for it. As to why we don't get much of that from official channels, the answer seems to be that there are many Mormonisms. The most orthodox and "branded" version is not necessarily the best for everyone. Your mileage may vary, and you may choose your own adventure. The Mormonism of Terryl Givens is not necessarily the Mormonism of Elder Bednar, and David Bokovoy's Mormonism is quite different from either of theirs. And of course the Mormonism of the Julie Rowe crowd is quite another thing altogether. 

 

I think the most orthodox and "branded" version of Mormonism, as you say, is the simple framework that I was talking about.  I think sometimes we look beyond the mark.  The depth and richness of the gospel for me are found in hope, faith, charity, humility, forgiveness, atonement, covenants, temple work, and the eternal depths of prayer.  I feel that one could spend a lifetime in the discipline of just one of those principles and never reach the depths or richness that it provides entirely.  I personally feel that there is far more depth and spiritual fulfillment found in these basic principles than any King Follet discourse.  I think the brethren have refined their message over time to focus primarily on these core principles for good reason. 

[Robert F. Smith]

  I just read the essay.  It is a good essay.  It rings of things seemingly used to discuss in Church in the 70s and even early 80s.   But these topics have at least where I attend, all but disappeared. We are told to stick to the manuals for SS and Priesthood and RS meetings.   So much to the richness Dr. Peterson discusses are long absent from the manuals.  Where are such topics in the Ensign?   Where are the Institute classes that cover such topics?  When was the last general conference talk that someone delved into the doctrines Dr. Peterson refers to?  How is this more intelligent discipleship supposed to come about when we don't talk, teach or write much about them where the main stream members will have access to them?

If you set the bar unreasonably high, Teancum,. then, of course, you will always be disappointed.  If all you see are the individual trees, you will definitely miss the forest.  If you declare a renaissance null and void unless everybody is a part of it, such a renaissance will die aborning.   We would never have experienced the richness of the historical Renaissance.  Or do you deny that it ever took place?

 

I'm not sure what your "main stream members" think and do, but the golden age is upon us Mormons -- with or without the mainstream.  I see it on this board and in a hundred different expressions every day, in personal encounters and online, in books and in talks and lessons at Church.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................................................

If what you say is true why does it not reflect as such?  The Church has anemic growth.  It barley kept up with the population growth in the USA the past 25 years.  It is declining in other industrialized nations.  Yes in third world countries it is growing some.  But retention over all is just awful.

 

We love to tout that we are a 15 million member church (which over all is pretty small and has a small impact on the world over all)  but activity rate is 35% or so at best!  So we have 5-6 million active members.  Golden Age?  Really?

 

Further if the Church has more growth in poor nations and less in wealthy nations it may become unsustainable from financial stand point.

 

Further you and mfbukowski Talk about the appeal of the theology in a humanistic and secular world.  And guess what. I agree. There is much that is compelling in the depth of Mormon Theology.  I think Mark referred to Pratt and Hyde.  They were great!  But where is that today in the Church?  This thread is about a more intelligent discipleship.  And that is great. But I don't see it from the top. GC sessions are banal and boring and focus on the elementary gospel issues over and over. Same in the wards. The lesson manuals are dumbed down.  Sitting in church 3 hours every Sunday at least for me is torture. The past few sacrament meetings are typical....

.........................................................

You lack perspective and depth in your reliance on overall numbers, local growth, or atrophy -- as you depict it.  You could equally look at the actual decline of Roman Catholic numbers in the northeastern USA.  Rather than new parishes being formed, they are closing churches.  The same decline is happening to most Protestant churches -- Methodists, for example.  Reform and Conservative Judaism is plagued by declining birthrates and elderly members, while Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox numbers are increasing.  Lack of interest in religion in Europe is noteworthy.  Yet Mormon stats continue to impress overall, even in countries which do not permit our missionaries.  Looking at the big picture, the birthrates and increase of certain types of traditional religion are continuing, and are not losing ground to the pagans -- who decline in numbers because they refuse to reproduce.  Thus, the pagans are not gaining -- except in fantasy versions of wish-fulfillment.

 

The current richness of the Mormon artistic, intellectual, and spiritual scene (developing now for generations) has come into its own, and does not depend on local ward attendance stats.  Pogi expresses it well poetically and spiritually, while Mark Bukowski grokes it (understands it) philosophically.  I admire it and am amazed by it.  I'd feel somewhat lost if I were not able to participate in it.  It provides me a sense of "home."

[Teancum]

If you set the bar unreasonably high, Teancum,. then, of course, you will always be disappointed.  If all you see are the individual trees, you will definitely miss the forest.  If you declare a renaissance null and void unless everybody is a part of it, such a renaissance will die aborning.   We would never have experienced the richness of the historical Renaissance.  Or do you deny that it ever took place?

 

I'm not sure what your "main stream members" think and do, but the golden age is upon us Mormons -- with or without the mainstream.  I see it on this board and in a hundred different expressions every day, in personal encounters and online, in books and in talks and lessons at Church.

Ah I see. Since I see it differently and have different expectations I am at fault. the Church constantly teaches to raise the bar. Peterson's essay seems to encourage that. Maybe you see such wonderful thngs that really are not happening because you set the bar to low.

[Kenngo1969]

... Prrfecting the saints isn't all over yet.

Said your cat?

 

 

Sorry.  

 

Couldn't resist!

[Gray]

I think the most orthodox and "branded" version of Mormonism, as you say, is the simple framework that I was talking about.  I think sometimes we look beyond the mark.  The depth and richness of the gospel for me are found in hope, faith, charity, humility, forgiveness, atonement, covenants, temple work, and the eternal depths of prayer.  I feel that one could spend a lifetime in the discipline of just one of those principles and never reach the depths or richness that it provides entirely.  I personally feel that there is far more depth and spiritual fulfillment found in these basic principles than any King Follet discourse.  I think the brethren have refined their message over time to focus primarily on these core principles for good reason. 

 

Often you do get simple and essential truths (charity/humility/forgiveness etc) from the orthodox and "branded" form of Mormonism. But with that you also get things that are really not helpful to my spiritual path at least. Ideas like hero worship, exact obedience, loyalty over conscience, focus on the outward appearance, etc. I find these elements to be shallow and a distraction. Which is why I say, "choose your own adventure." 

Edited September 15, 2015 by Gray

[stemelbow]

"I actually think we were lulled somewhat into complacency by the seeming congruence of Mormon values with American civic religion during much of the twentieth century. We were often depicted, and sometimes thought of ourselves, as simply a family church with an extra book (and, generations earlier, with extra wives). And, of course, we are that. But Mormonism is far, far more, as well."

 

The "congruence of Mormon values with American civic religion during much of the twentieth century," that Daniel Peterson tries to associate with 20th-century societal acceptance of LDS values is quite interesting and amusing. I would argue that this "congruence" was not the result of an American culture that held similar beliefs as the church, but rather, was the result of a concerted effort by the LDS church to tone down it's outdated beliefs, practices and teachings. This is reflected in everything from the push by McKay to re-invent how Mormons presented themselves (abandoning the long-bearded "polygamist" look for clean-shaven, white shirt and ties) to the ejection of polygamy, the acceptance of blacks into the priesthood and the softening of any number of teachings that were once prevalent (blood atonement, etc.)

 

America was unkind to the 19th-century version of the LDS faith. Only by becoming more liberal in it's practices, softening or straight-out abandoning archaic principles and teachings and aligning itself more towards the perspective of 20th-century American culture did the LDS church begin to receive some level of acceptance in American culture. 

Good points. Perhaps adapting is something we need to get back to.

[pogi]

Which is why I say, "choose your own adventure." 

 

I agree with this.  My spiritual path is vastly different in my experience from others in the church.  I think it is supposed to be personal.  Like I said, the church simply provides the basic foundation for personal spiritual experience and discovery.  What I get out of church is at times vastly different than what other's get out of church because of my personal path.  For example, I do not feel that the brethren practice or teach hero worship or exact obedience, etc. I have a feeling that they would also deny those claims.

Edited September 15, 2015 by pogi

[Teancum]

You lack perspective and depth in your reliance on overall numbers, local growth, or atrophy -- as you depict it.  You could equally look at the actual decline of Roman Catholic numbers in the northeastern USA.  Rather than new parishes being formed, they are closing churches.  The same decline is happening to most Protestant churches -- Methodists, for example.  Reform and Conservative Judaism is plagued by declining birthrates and elderly members, while Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox numbers are increasing.  Lack of interest in religion in Europe is noteworthy.  Yet Mormon stats continue to impress overall, even in countries which do not permit our missionaries.  Looking at the big picture, the birthrates and increase of certain types of traditional religion are continuing, and are not losing ground to the pagans -- who decline in numbers because they refuse to reproduce.  Thus, the pagans are not gaining -- except in fantasy versions of wish-fulfillment.

 

The current richness of the Mormon artistic, intellectual, and spiritual scene (developing now for generations) has come into its own, and does not depend on local ward attendance stats.  Pogi expresses it  re well poetically and spiritually, while Mark Bukowski grokes it (understands it) philosophically.  I admire it and am amazed by it.  I'd feel somewhat lost if I were not able to participate in it.  It provides me a sense of "home."

 

 

Robert I do not see how I lack perspective and depth re local growth, activity, retention, etc.  The numbers are what they are. We are not a 15 million member strong church.  The amount of converts per missionary has dropped substantially over the past few decades.  How is this a lack of depth and perspective on this issue?

Arguing that other churches are struggling and losing members, that Europe in increasingly secular and that perhaps the USA is heading more that way does not really help substantiate your comments that today is the Golden Age of Mormonism.  So yes, the LDS Church may be doing better in grown then the other religions.  But being the best of what appears to be a bad situation for religion in general does not really, at least to me, herald a golden age. 

 

I am not sure what pagans have to do with it. Who are these pagan?  Who claimed the pagans, whoever they are, are gaining ground on theistic religion?  I certainly did not.

 

Anyway, it seems you want to dismiss my thoughts simply because unlike you, you think I lack some deep perspective and cannot see the forest for the trees.  Ok. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Ah I see. Since I see it differently and have different expectations I am at fault. the Church constantly teaches to raise the bar. Peterson's essay seems to encourage that. Maybe you see such wonderful thngs that really are not happening because you set the bar to low.

I was thinking more in terms of the bar being set to demand perfection and infallibility (both fallacies and not in keeping with Mormon theology anyhow).  Of course you can be disappointed, but that disappointment may tell us more about you than about the nature of the Church.  Attitude counts for a lot in estimating the value of anything.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert I do not see how I lack perspective and depth re local growth, activity, retention, etc.  The numbers are what they are. We are not a 15 million member strong church.  The amount of converts per missionary has dropped substantially over the past few decades.  How is this a lack of depth and perspective on this issue?

Arguing that other churches are struggling and losing members, that Europe in increasingly secular and that perhaps the USA is heading more that way does not really help substantiate your comments that today is the Golden Age of Mormonism.  So yes, the LDS Church may be doing better in grown then the other religions.  But being the best of what appears to be a bad situation for religion in general does not really, at least to me, herald a golden age. 

 

I am not sure what pagans have to do with it. Who are these pagan?  Who claimed the pagans, whoever they are, are gaining ground on theistic religion?  I certainly did not.

 

Anyway, it seems you want to dismiss my thoughts simply because unlike you, you think I lack some deep perspective and cannot see the forest for the trees.  Ok. 

I am well aware of the gross membership figures for the various religions worldwide, and know full well that they are merely abstract, gross figures which tell us nothing about rates of attendance/activity.  Depth and perspective is little concerned with outward appearance and is always concerned more with reality -- which you seem to ignore.

 

We have many times on this board discussed the detailed statistics for the LDS and other churches, examined local and regional differences, and concluded that some churches (and other religious organizations) are indeed suffering losses of various kinds, some of them catastrophic -- when projected into the future.  Your conclusions do not jibe with what we know of the broad LDS stats.

 

You might find some perspective and reality therapy at http://fornspollfira.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-do-they-leave.html?m=1 .

Compare also:

http://youthandreligion.nd.edu/research-findings/reports/ .

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64733-why-are-youth-leaving-the-church/ .

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-impulse-society-9781608198146/ .

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/12/news-of-the-church?lang=eng .

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/relevance-religion .