Future of the church

[BCSpace]

13 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Predicting the future of the church is a fool's errand. 

Not when truth is eternal.  Considering all the false claims made so far by our critics about doctrines somehow changing on these issues, I feel pretty safe.  All the Church has done it emphasize different facets of the doctrine to deflect criticism and they've done that quite well.  The real question is are members of the Church going to teach it correctly so prospective, new, and reactivating members aren't disappointed when they find out what the doctrine really is?

[Sky]

Ya know, Joseph Smith pretty well addressed this question.  The question is if we believe him or not.  

Quote

The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.

 

[california boy]

My prophecy on the future of the church is that it will continue to be a great place for straight families to raise their children.  It will continue to be hostile towards gays and a horrible place for gay families. The church will never be more than 2% of the worlds population and 98% of Gods children will find their way back to God away from the church. Many will leave  the church because of past beliefs and current policies, but the vast majority will stay.  They like the church, it's teachings and the good people they associate with on a regular basis. 

The real question is, what will happen in the church if polygamy becomes legal in the US. ...most will want to continue on the current course. But some will not.   Ok just something freaky to think about.  

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

98% of Gods children will find their way back to God away from the church.

Agreed with most of what you wrote except this.  There is only one path.

[jkwilliams]

9 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Not when truth is eternal.  Considering all the false claims made so far by our critics about doctrines somehow changing on these issues, I feel pretty safe.  All the Church has done it emphasize different facets of the doctrine to deflect criticism and they've done that quite well.  The real question is are members of the Church going to teach it correctly so prospective, new, and reactivating members aren't disappointed when they find out what the doctrine really is?

That's not what I was talking about, but OK. I'm not predicting doctrinal changes; in fact, I'm not predicting anything. 

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

My prophecy on the future of the church is that it will continue to be a great place for straight families to raise their children.  It will continue to be hostile towards gays and a horrible place for gay families. The church will never be more than 2% of the worlds population and 98% of Gods children will find their way back to God away from the church. Many will leave  the church because of past beliefs and current policies, but the vast majority will stay.  They like the church, it's teachings and the good people they associate with on a regular basis. 

The real question is, what will happen in the church if polygamy becomes legal in the US. ...most will want to continue on the current course. But some will not.   Ok just something freaky to think about.  

If the church got to 2% of the worlds population that'd be a huge step forward.  That's not likely to be achieved with it's current direction. 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, BCSpace said:

The essay itself implies the opposite.  For example:
It wouldn't matter if the president of the quorum objected, McKay went with it. Notice also that it is not the ban that is disavowed, but certain notions surrounding it:

sdfg

Actually the essay seeks to harmonize variant opinions, and glosses over the fact that Pres McKay wanted to end the ban outright.  Only after objection from Pres of the Twelve Joseph Fielding Smith did Pres McKay attempt to find another way.  He was not about to run roughshod over his long-time friend and colleague, Pres Smith -- always seeking unanimity in decision-making.  Thus he sought the will of the Lord in prayer, but was not as successful as Pres Kimball would later be.

There are various opinions as to why that was so:  Did the Lord not consider the Mormon people quite ready for the change?  What other possible reasons might there be for waiting until 1978?  Both Jan Shipps and Elder LeGrand Richards independently gave the same immediate reason for seeking the 1978 revelation -- completion of a temple in Brazil was pending, and it was not clear how the high percentage of Afro-Brazilians would be able to deal with the need for priesthood and temple recommends.  Purely as a practical matter, how would one screen for racial purity?  Since revelation typically comes when needed, and not before, it may have been as simple as that.  But, who knows the mind and will of the Lord in such matters?

[Tacenda]

Hope it's okay to post this podcast on this topic.  Wondering if it's going to be the wave of the future.  http://mormonmatters.org/

333: Mormonism and Future Generations

"In a wonderful new book, Future Mormon: Essays in Mormon Theology, Adam Miller sets his spirit and intellect loose on the important task of helping clear away debris and suggesting some possible new framings for Mormonism that might appeal to coming generations. As he writes in the Introduction, “Every generation must live its own lives and think its own thoughts and receive its own revelations. And, if Mormonism continues to matter, it will because they, rather than leaving, were willing to be Mormon all over again. Like our grandparents, like our parents, and like us, they will have to rethink the whole tradition, from top to bottom, right from the beginning, and make it their own in order to embody Christ anew in this passing world. To the degree that we can help, our job is to model that work in love and then offer them the tools, the raw materials, and the room to do it themselves.”

In this episode, Adam Miller, Rosalynde Welch, and Jim McLachlan join Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for a discussion of Future Mormon and various themes in Adam’s thinking. What question that we hear quite often in Mormonism seems too “thin” to lead us to the kind of “load-bearing” answers that can serve us in the midst of “white knuckling” prayers? Is “truth” static, sitting in God’s mind or heart like a vault waiting to be opened and shared, or is the ideal approach to truth something more dynamic, something that calls on us each, in our lives, to “make” true, to see how far a truth can carry us? Are there more powerful ways to think of “grace” beyond its role in the Atonement and matters of our salvation? Have we in Mormonism skipped over some elements that the apostle Paul might claim are essential, Christianity 101 kind of things—and how can these animate our lives in fresh and powerful ways? The discussion moves fast, and at times perhaps might seem a bit too “insider-ish” (as the four panelists talk about things in a book most listeners will not have read), but those moments pass in this immensely enjoyable conversation.

Please help continue the conversation in the comments section below!"

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/24/2016 at 0:21 AM, california boy said:

My prophecy on the future of the church is that it will continue to be a great place for straight families to raise their children.  It will continue to be hostile towards gays and a horrible place for gay families. The church will never be more than 2% of the worlds population and 98% of Gods children will find their way back to God away from the church. Many will leave  the church because of past beliefs and current policies, but the vast majority will stay.  They like the church, it's teachings and the good people they associate with on a regular basis. 

This is probably true up to the second coming.  When the wicked are swept off, the Church will grow extremely fast as Satan will be bound.  

[why me]

On 23.5.2016 at 3:28 AM, Tacenda said:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67613-weakened-testimony-from-church-history/?do=findComment&comment=1209625988

I'll just link RPN's post in Weakened Testimony From Church History in Social, I hope he doesn't mind.  Read #1.  It may not present the evidence you need, but it somewhat explains a little of how I feel.  Pres. Hinckley said polygamy isn't doctrinal.  The new, or semi new church essays, have basically disavowed the ban on blacks receiving the PH.  

 

I  wish that people would give President Hinckley a break. He was an old guy at that time and was answering a fireball of questions. Amazing how people hold on to one sentence said by a man who lived a very long time and did much service. And if the lds church no longer practices polygamy, it actually isn't doctrinal anymore.

 

 

[why me]

On 24.5.2016 at 10:21 AM, california boy said:

My prophecy on the future of the church is that it will continue to be a great place for straight families to raise their children.  It will continue to be hostile towards gays and a horrible place for gay families. The church will never be more than 2% of the worlds population and 98% of Gods children will find their way back to God away from the church. Many will leave  the church because of past beliefs and current policies, but the vast majority will stay.  They like the church, it's teachings and the good people they associate with on a regular basis. 

The real question is, what will happen in the church if polygamy becomes legal in the US. ...most will want to continue on the current course. But some will not.   Ok just something freaky to think about.  

Hostile is a strong word. I don't think that the church is hostile toward gays. But I can understand why you would use such a word. It has strong implications for whomever may read your post. Interestingly, islam is growing by leaps and bounds and it has a very strong antigay platform. Not to mention the sanctioning of polygamy. I hear very little complaints about Islam from the gay community or from the media. And I would think that being muslim and gay can be much worse than being gay and mormon. So, much depends on the media and how the media portrays a religion. And much depends on what people are saying on the internet. The LDS church has been receiving much negativity on the internet about its history and about the book of mormon. It has definitely had an impact on some lds members. The future? Who  knows. Maybe in the future, the lds church will be looked upon as a church of stability and many may find this attractive to raise their family in. And gay parents can certainly find much to emulate from the lds church: the word of wisdom, chasity, prayer, family oriented etc when it comes to raising a family.

Edited June 6, 2016 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/22/2016 at 6:28 PM, Tacenda said:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67613-weakened-testimony-from-church-history/?do=findComment&comment=1209625988

  Pres. Hinckley said polygamy isn't doctrinal.  

 

This is a distortion. He said polygamy as it is being practiced today by apostate and schismatic groups isn't doctrinal. He said no such thing about plural marriage as it was given through Joseph Smith and as he was instructed to teach it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/22/2016 at 6:28 PM, Tacenda said:

The new, or semi new church essays, have basically disavowed the ban on blacks receiving the PH.  

 

This is also a false perception. The Gospel Topics essay does not disavow the ban itself, only the conjectural, speculative reasons for it that had been floated over the years.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, why me said:

I  wish that people would give President Hinckley a break. He was an old guy at that time and was answering a fireball of questions. Amazing how people hold on to one sentence said by a man who lived a very long time and did much service. And if the lds church no longer practices polygamy, it actually isn't doctrinal anymore.

 

 

President Hinckley was a master communicator, and he did very well.

It is the make-a-man-an-offender-for-a-word antagonists who are the problem.

[why me]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Hinckley was a master communicator, and he did very well.

It is the make-a-man-an-offender-for-a-word antagonists who are the problem.

I know. But there is always someone who wishes to make a point about what he said during the interview. For years now, I have seen people pull that quote out of their hats even when their is no context for them to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, why me said:

I know. But there is always someone who wishes to make a point about what he said during the interview. For years now, I have seen people pull that quote out of their hats even when their is no context for them to do so.

I suspect a good many of them pull the quotes from some website  where they have already been handed down many times over from somebody who took them out of context to begin with. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On May 24, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually the essay seeks to harmonize variant opinions, and glosses over the fact that Pres McKay wanted to end the ban outright.  Only after objection from Pres of the Twelve Joseph Fielding Smith did Pres McKay attempt to find another way.  He was not about to run roughshod over his long-time friend and colleague, Pres Smith -- always seeking unanimity in decision-making.  Thus he sought the will of the Lord in prayer, but was not as successful as Pres Kimball would later be.

There are various opinions as to why that was so:  Did the Lord not consider the Mormon people quite ready for the change?  What other possible reasons might there be for waiting until 1978?  Both Jan Shipps and Elder LeGrand Richards independently gave the same immediate reason for seeking the 1978 revelation -- completion of a temple in Brazil was pending, and it was not clear how the high percentage of Afro-Brazilians would be able to deal with the need for priesthood and temple recommends.  Purely as a practical matter, how would one screen for racial purity?  Since revelation typically comes when needed, and not before, it may have been as simple as that.  But, who knows the mind and will of the Lord in such matters?

My take is that earlier efforts to ascertain the will of the Lord regarding ending the priesthood restriction resulted in a collective stupor of thought among the Brethren. Latter-day Saints are taught to interpret a stupor of thought as a "no."

[california boy]

7 hours ago, why me said:

Hostile is a strong word. I don't think that the church is hostile toward gays. But I can understand why you would use such a word. It has strong implications for whomever may read your post. Interestingly, islam is growing by leaps and bounds and it has a very strong antigay platform. Not to mention the sanctioning of polygamy. I hear very little complaints about Islam from the gay community or from the media. And I would think that being muslim and gay can be much worse than being gay and mormon. So, much depends on the media and how the media portrays a religion. And much depends on what people are saying on the internet. The LDS church has been receiving much negativity on the internet about its history and about the book of mormon. It has definitely had an impact on some lds members. The future? Who  knows. Maybe in the future, the lds church will be looked upon as a church of stability and many may find this attractive to raise their family in. And gay parents can certainly find much to emulate from the lds church: the word of wisdom, chasity, prayer, family oriented etc when it comes to raising a family.

Hostile is a strong word.  Unfortunately, it is the correct word to use to describe the aggressive actions the church has made and continues to make against the gay community.  Is it the only church that is hostile to gays?  Absolutely not.  Unfortunately, there are others who are actively hostile to gays. What the church is currently doing in Mexico just reinforces that hostility.  Working to take away anyone's civil rights is a serious offense.  Passing laws that force religious beliefs on others is not a part of the Plan of Salvation that I signed up for.  It seems more like the plan I voted against.

I completely agree that there is much to emulate from the LDS church.  Unfortunately, the church has made it pretty impossible for gay families to be a part of the church.  But that doesn't mean that good things can not be taken from much of what the LDS church teaches. I think that many already find the church an attractive place to raise a family.  I think that will continue as long as your family is straight.

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

Hostile is a strong word.  Unfortunately, it is the correct word to use to describe the aggressive actions the church has made and continues to make against the gay community.  Is it the only church that is hostile to gays?  Absolutely not.  Unfortunately, there are others who are actively hostile to gays. What the church is currently doing in Mexico just reinforces that hostility.  Working to take away anyone's civil rights is a serious offense.  Passing laws that force religious beliefs on others is not a part of the Plan of Salvation that I signed up for.  It seems more like the plan I voted against.

I completely agree that there is much to emulate from the LDS church.  Unfortunately, the church has made it pretty impossible for gay families to be a part of the church.  But that doesn't mean that good things can not be taken from much of what the LDS church teaches. I think that many already find the church an attractive place to raise a family.  I think that will continue as long as your family is straight.

Despite not being able to agree with everything in this post, I do appreciate your level-handedness, CB.

Do you ever consider the future of the GLBTQIA identity?  Fluidity, etc...? Do you think that someday the way it's thought about now, even by gays themselves, will be considered outdated later?

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I suspect a good many of them pull the quotes from some website  where they have already been handed down many times over from somebody who took them out of context to begin with. 

 

5 hours ago, why me said:

I know. But there is always someone who wishes to make a point about what he said during the interview. For years now, I have seen people pull that quote out of their hats even when their is no context for them to do so.

It is what it is.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, why me said:

I  wish that people would give President Hinckley a break. He was an old guy at that time and was answering a fireball of questions. Amazing how people hold on to one sentence said by a man who lived a very long time and did much service. And if the lds church no longer practices polygamy, it actually isn't doctrinal anymore.

 

 

Not really. Polygamy is still doctrinal but is currently against church policy. That's it.

Conversely, the Word of Wisdom isn't doctrinal (at least as a commandment) but the practice of keeping the word of wisdom is a church policy.

It's interesting how church policy trumps doctrine.

[california boy]

51 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Despite not being able to agree with everything in this post, I do appreciate your level-handedness, CB.

Do you ever consider the future of the GLBTQIA identity?  Fluidity, etc...? Do you think that someday the way it's thought about now, even by gays themselves, will be considered outdated later?

It already has changed significantly.  And it will change completely in the future.  People no longer have black friends, asian friends, latino friends or gay friends.  They just have friends.  The barriers and prejudice disappear and humanity is what is left.  But I live in San Francisco.  It has always been more accepting and welcoming to all.  Of course there are many parts of the country that seem to hold tight to prejudice and bigotry where people are defined by their differences rather than their commonality.  Many millennials especially, reject the bias teachings their parents try to pass on to them.  It all seems so pointless and silly to them.  

In the end, I hope the LGBT community completely fades away into nothing.  There will be no reason for a LGBT community to exist.  Yeah I know.  Pretty unrealistic.  But it can happen. And it has already started to happen in some parts of the world.

[Bernard Gui]

On May 21, 2016 at 6:05 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

I have no idea what the future holds. I doubt members in the 1950s saw the priesthood ban being lifted in 1978 and I didn't see gay marriage being legalized nationwide when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize it in 2003. Especially not this fast. Who knows what the world will be like.

I was a member in the 50s and 60s and I was hoping for and expecting the priesthood ban to be lifted.

[why me]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

It is what it is.

Not quite. We need to remember the context and when the quote was given. People are allowed to misspeak. Or to have a brain freeze. However, it is obvious that you will not give the poor old guy a break. Also, who is perfect? It reminds me of a quote from margaret mead: Always remember that you are absolutely perfect. Just like everyone else.  At the end of the day, he was just a human being first. Father second. Prophet third.

[Tacenda]

Just now, why me said:

Not quite. We need to remember the context and when the quote was given. People are allowed to misspeak. Or to have a brain freeze. However, it is obvious that you will not give the poor old guy a break. Also, who is perfect? It reminds me of a quote from margaret mead: Always remember that you are absolutely perfect. Just like everyone else.  At the end of the day, he was just a human being first. Father second. Prophet third.

It is you and Scott who won't give him a break.  Why change his words, do you ever stop and think that it might be what he felt in his heart?