How can the Church ever do enough?

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ah well the church:

gave up to the US government on the practice of polygamy so Utah could become a state and so the US government would release the church property it has seized.

changed its position on the preisthood banned and most recently tossed all the LDS leaders explanations for the ban as false and folklore.

Repudiated BYs odd teachings on Adam/God and blood atonement.

published an essay that the BOA may not be a literal translation. Of the papyri but the papyri may have been a catylist

removed from canon without a vote the lectures on faith that were canonized with a vote and did so clearly because they disagreed with later LDS teachings about the Godhead.

 

 

All that has been stipulated. The question is, supposing the Church comes clean with all the concerns you expressed, will that be sufficient for you? Will you be satisfied?

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It will not be neutered. There are lots of attempts to water it down.

Speaking hypothetically, from the active progressive point of view.... What else needs to be watered down?

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Well, depends on what the end goal is. In order to maintain the same kind of status it's had the last 50 years or so, it needs to continue to follow the rights revolution about generation or so behind the rest of the country. That way it appeals to conservatives and maintains an appearance of stability in a world that is always shifting. But it doesn't lag SO far behind so as to make continued membership intolerable for functional members of society.

So, what is your end goal? What should the Church do to catch up and make membership more tolerable?

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Love this.  Treating and trusting members does a lot for their self worth and creates a better community of understanding.  Treating adults as adults.

It also speaks for seeing a better value of agency.

But to be saved, we must become as little children. How should the Church change in order to value agency better?

Edited March 8, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, what is your end goal? What should the Church do to catch up and make membership more tolerable?

If the church wants to maintain the status it's always had, it should be evolving a bit more quickly than it is now. Assuming the traditional trajectory we've always taken, it's not yet time for it to fully accept gay marriage, but the church could stop persecuting gay couples and driving them out of the church.

As for my end goal? I'd like the church to be more willing to recognize goodness, to drop the fundamentalist hard line, and to be a bigger tent institution. I don't know that that will happen though. While the acceptance of gay marriage in the church is inevitable, I'm not sure the church will ever not be fundamentalist in its general approach.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Why do we still have a prophet leading the church if nothing needs to be changed?

Further light and knowledge means more information and guidance, not God changing previously revealed truth.  Any revelation that contradicts previous revelation may be assumed false.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

maintain the status it's always had

LOL

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for expressing your thoughts. I hear you saying that one thing to change would be to deal openly and honestly with controversial historical issues.  

Thank you for hearing me correctly, Bernard.

I appreciate your respectful discussion.

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

But to be saved, we must become as little children. How should the Church change in order to value agency better?

I think Jeanne was responding to my longish post encouraging the Church to be more honest with its members.

It seems to me that agency cannot exist in a vacuum of information.

And that, as a general rule, the more information, the more agency.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What goodness do we need to embrace that we are not now embracing? Will acceptance of ssm and ordination of women be enough to satisfy the needs of progress?

I've already given some hints to this.  I'm not saying things like ordination of women is an answer.  It is quite possibly a step in the right direction.  It is perhaps one thing we could to be improve the world, our affairs, God's purposes, charity and the promotion of good things.  There will always likely be things we simply don't completely grasp and thus our views limit our embrace of the divine, and goodness.  I don't see us arriving someday saying all is well in Zion because we figured it all out.  It seems part of our journey is learning to accept that we can't see it all clearly.  We have to live with weakness.  I don't see that as a throw in the towel approach and think we've arrived as far as we can.  It's accepting that there's always more ahead of us, there is always more to uncover. 

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think Jeanne was responding to my longish post encouraging the Church to be more honest with its members.

It seems to me that agency cannot exist in a vacuum of information.

And that, as a general rule, the more information, the more agency.

Excellent point. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Speaking hypothetically, from the active progressive point of view.... What else needs to be watered down?

Our hard line "we are the only way to exaltation' line. Soften up on the law of chastity. Cancel our plans for world domination. That sort of thing.

[CA Steve]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

All that has been stipulated. The question is, supposing the Church comes clean with all the concerns you expressed, will that be sufficient for you? Will you be satisfied?

Can you see Bernard how much of a loaded question you keep trying to get people to answer?

For example how would you react to the following question?

Lets say tomorrow at a youth fireside an apostle revealed that the prophet had recently told the twelve he had had his last revelation, one which confirmed to the prophet that the church was perfect now the way it is and would never need any more divine direction going forward. God told him the cannon was closed and there would be no more direct heavenly intervention, will that be sufficient for you? Will you be satisfied?

I don't think you would agree with the premise of my question any more than those who you are trying to get to answer your question do about it.

I think we all believe the church and its leaders are not perfect, but it is amazing how quickly the conversation turns to blame when someone does point out what those imperfections might be.

It's like the old saying:

Quote

Catholics claim the pope is perfect but don't believe it, Mormons claim the prophet isn't perfect but believe he is.

Even if someone answers your question, there is no one-size-fits-all response. The 'critics' seems to be this boogeyman term most often used to differentiate between personal views of the church. So even if someone, like Consiglieri did above, gives you a list of what he thinks need changing, it is just one persons view and not reflective of everyone. If say Consiglieri were to be satisfied with some changes, I am sure there would be many members still looking for other changes. Is everyone who is looking for change a critic? Can I look forward to a day where my wife can participate in the same circle with me in the blessing of our children and grandchildren without being call a critic?

What is a critic and who gets to decide that?

If everyone honestly believes the church and its leaders are not perfect we should be able to discuss what we think needs changing without being labeled as critics, apostates, heretics, doubters, and so on, but that does not seem to be the case. Instead what we see are the immediate labeling of those asking questions by those who think all is well in Zion. The very fact this process happens like that shows all is not well in Zion.

If you ask me what needs to be changed, the very first thing I would like is to see more open discussions, even in church environments, about what problems and doubts members have with the church.

Edited March 8, 2016 by CA Steve

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I think we all believe the church and its leaders are not perfect, but it is amazing how quickly the conversation turns to blame when someone does point out what those imperfections might be.

It's like the old saying:

Because it is not your job or the critics who take it upon themselves to criticize the church to correct it. That they want to take it upon themselves makes them completely untrustworthy in my eyes.

The saying is actually that Mormons say their prophet is imperfect and nobody believes them. In other words they think we think our prophet is infallible. We just take seriously the prohibition of casting aspersions or doubts on the Lord's Anointed.

[CA Steve]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Because it is not your job or the critics who take it upon themselves to criticize the church to correct it. That they want to take it upon themselves makes them completely untrustworthy in my eyes.

The saying is actually that Mormons say their prophet is imperfect and nobody believes them. In other words they think we think our prophet is infallible. We just take seriously the prohibition of casting aspersions or doubts on the Lord's Anointed.

And it begins.

 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

And it begins.

 

 

Let them come. My axe longs to hew Orc necks.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I've already given some hints to this.  I'm not saying things like ordination of women is an answer.  It is quite possibly a step in the right direction.  It is perhaps one thing we could to be improve the world, our affairs, God's purposes, charity and the promotion of good things.  There will always likely be things we simply don't completely grasp and thus our views limit our embrace of the divine, and goodness.  I don't see us arriving someday saying all is well in Zion because we figured it all out.  It seems part of our journey is learning to accept that we can't see it all clearly.  We have to live with weakness.  I don't see that as a throw in the towel approach and think we've arrived as far as we can.  It's accepting that there's always more ahead of us, there is always more to uncover. 

Would you agree that it's the duty of the apostles and prophets to bring us to a unity of the faith, not progressive members?   Ephesians 4: 11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,

12to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Our hard line "we are the only way to exaltation' line. Soften up on the law of chastity. Cancel our plans for world domination. That sort of thing.

I understand you to say that the Church must lay aside its claim to the Restoration, the covenants of the temple, and its role in the coming of the Kingdom of God

in order to be right with the world.

I'm not sure what the plans for world domination are, but that sounds ambitious and a bit nefarious.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Can you see Bernard how much of a loaded question you keep trying to get people to answer?

For example how would you react to the following question?

Lets say tomorrow at a youth fireside an apostle revealed that the prophet had recently told the twelve he had had his last revelation, one which confirmed to the prophet that the church was perfect now the way it is and would never need any more divine direction going forward. God told him the cannon was closed and there would be no more direct heavenly intervention, will that be sufficient for you? Will you be satisfied?

I don't think you would agree with the premise of my question any more than those who you are trying to get to answer your question do about it.

I think we all believe the church and its leaders are not perfect, but it is amazing how quickly the conversation turns to blame when someone does point out what those imperfections might be.

It's like the old saying:

Even if someone answers your question, there is no one-size-fits-all response. The 'critics' seems to be this boogeyman term most often used to differentiate between personal views of the church. So even if someone, like Consiglieri did above, gives you a list of what he thinks need changing, it is just one persons view and not reflective of everyone. If say Consiglieri were to be satisfied with some changes, I am sure there would be many members still looking for other changes. Is everyone who is looking for change a critic? Can I look forward to a day where my wife can participate in the same circle with me in the blessing of our children and grandchildren without being call a critic?

What is a critic and who gets to decide that?

If everyone honestly believes the church and its leaders are not perfect we should be able to discuss what we think needs changing without being labeled as critics, apostates, heretics, doubters, and so on, but that does not seem to be the case. Instead what we see are the immediate labeling of those asking questions by those who think all is well in Zion. The very fact this process happens like that shows all is not well in Zion.

If you ask me what needs to be changed, the very first thing I would like is to see more open discussions, even in church environments, about what problems and doubts members have with the church.

Loaded? We all seem to agree the Church and its leaders are fallible. After we get things right by ordaining women to the Priesthood and embracing ssm as many here fervently want, 

what other basic changes in doctrine and practice need to be made? I understand you would like to have more of open discussions - isn't that what we are doing? -  but that's not the kind of change I am asking about. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Jeanne]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

But to be saved, we must become as little children. How should the Church change in order to value agency better?

They can quit making threats of eternal damnation..making guilt and fear a tool against simply making a choice.  (I am not talking life and death) but a chance without brainwashing to actually learn by mistakes and let their strengths be had by their own..not because of someone else's inspiration or interpretation of a life event.

Being as a little children..their chance to be saved belongs to them..how they learn...how they grow..and not because someone says you will burn in hell or you lose an entire family..and be honest with the promises.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you agree that it's the duty of the apostles and prophets to bring us to a unity of the faith, not progressive members?   Ephesians 4: 11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,

12to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Well sure it's the responsibility of the apostles and prophets. But if they aren't "progressive" enough in their thinking, then they can't possibly be doing it right, can they?

So they need the "progressive" members to steady the -- er, I mean, to help them out.

And yes, we all know Ephesians 4. But why should Jesus be the one to decide? That's not very democratic, is it? It smells like a theocracy to me.

And we can't possibly have a church that's run like a theocracy.

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

If the church wants to maintain the status it's always had, it should be evolving a bit more quickly than it is now. Assuming the traditional trajectory we've always taken, it's not yet time for it to fully accept gay marriage, but the church could stop persecuting gay couples and driving them out of the church.

Is that like someone suggesting that you should stop beating your wife?

The Church hasn't started "persecuting [sob] gay couples and driving them out of the church," so there isn't anything to stop.

The Church has moral standards. Everyone is equally welcome in the Church, but they are expected to adhere to those standards.

That's not "persecution" by any rational definition.

12 hours ago, Gray said:

As for my end goal? I'd like the church to be more willing to recognize goodness, to drop the fundamentalist hard line, and to be a bigger tent institution. I don't know that that will happen though. While the acceptance of gay marriage in the church is inevitable,

No.

It's not.

That assumption is only held by those who fail to understand the Church at the most fundamental level.

12 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure the church will ever not be fundamentalist in its general approach.

Like I said: you fail to understand the Church at the most fundamental level.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

They can quit making threats of eternal damnation..making guilt and fear a tool against simply making a choice.  (I am not talking life and death) but a chance without brainwashing to actually learn by mistakes and let their strengths be had by their own..not because of someone else's inspiration or interpretation of a life event.

Being as a little children..their chance to be saved belongs to them..how they learn...how they grow..and not because someone says you will burn in hell or you lose an entire family..and be honest with the promises.

I don't understand what you have written, but maybe I hear you saying the Church needs to abandon its emphasis on keeping commandments, obeying the Lord, concepts of good and evil, reward and punishment. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Well sure it's the responsibility of the apostles and prophets. But if they aren't "progressive" enough in their thinking, then they can't possibly be doing it right, can they?

So they need the "progressive" members to steady the -- er, I mean, to help them out.

And yes, we all know Ephesians 4. But why should Jesus be the one to decide? That's not very democratic, is it? It smells like a theocracy to me.

And we can't possibly have a church that's run like a theocracy.

 

 

It appears that some members believe the apostles and prophets are failing to lead the Church as Jesus would have them do. Someone is needed to point out their errors

or even demand corrections so the Church will continue to thrive and progress.

When the leaders are out of the Way, someone must fill the breach. I'm asking what the apostles and prophets must change to align the Church more with

our modern sensibilities.

 

So far, I have learned that the Church needs to be more open and honest, admit to its mistakes, embrace ssm, ordain women to the Priesthood, 

relinquish its truth claims about the Priesthood, Restoration and temple covenants, and stop preaching repentance from sin.

 

Have I missed anything?

Edited March 9, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

If the church wants to maintain the status it's always had, it should be evolving a bit more quickly than it is now. Assuming the traditional trajectory we've always taken, it's not yet time for it to fully accept gay marriage, but the church could stop persecuting gay couples and driving them out of the church.

As for my end goal? I'd like the church to be more willing to recognize goodness, to drop the fundamentalist hard line, and to be a bigger tent institution. I don't know that that will happen though. While the acceptance of gay marriage in the church is inevitable, I'm not sure the church will ever not be fundamentalist in its general approach.

I understand you are saying the time will come to fully accept gay marriage. Does that include temple sealing? Once gay marriage is accepted, what remains of our fundamentalism?

Edited March 9, 2016 by Bernard Gui