President Nelson: Goal is not to increase the number of Church members

[CV75]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

It was a complete 180 degree turn in and it came about by looking at things differently.  

Understood, but how does this relate to aligning your minds with a Church teaching you previously disagreed with by experiencing spiritual revelation as taught by the LDS Church? https://www.lds.org/topics/revelation?lang=eng

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with this but probably not in the way you intended it.

 

It applies to all of us.  Even you.

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As is anyone.

The problem comes, of course, when one tries to supplant the revelations and teachings of apostles and prophets with one's own quirky vision of what the Church of Jesus Christ should say/do.

I'm not trying to supplant teachings, but I'm interpreting the teachings differently than you, and I'm not bringing the same assumptions to the table.

I don't think we should throw everything out the window as that would be irresponsible and I would lose out on learning good things that could enrich my life.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not trying to supplant teachings, but I'm interpreting the teachings differently than you, and I'm not bringing the same assumptions to the table.

I don't think we should throw everything out the window as that would be irresponsible and I would lose out on learning good things that could enrich my life.  

If you're harboring an image of the Book of Mormon as being fictional, you differ with the teachings of the apostles and prophets. To the extent, if any, that you try to promulgate that view, you endeavor to supplant their teachings with your own interpretation.

[cinepro]

19 hours ago, UtahTexan said:

I did not ask for a back peddle.  You made a statement.  Please provide the definitive proof...

if you have no proof, then admit you over spoke and say it is simply another of your opinions.

 

My statement was worded in the context of odds of something happening.  If you disagree with my guess and feel the odds should be higher or lower, let me know.

The initial post was made in response to Scott Lloyd's comment that the Church hadn't acknowledged young adult retention as one of the reasons for the age change.  I was just suggesting that the Church would never acknowledge that as one of the motivators, even if it were the case, because they would never, ever want to publicly acknowledge a serious problem with young adult retention in a place like General Conference (where the emphasis when it comes to things like growth and activity seems to tilt towards "all is well.")

As for "definitive proof", I can only assume you suggested that as an attempt at humor, this being an LDS-themed discussion board and all.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It applies to all of us.  Even you.

I repeat, "The problem comes, of course, when one tries to supplant the revelations and teachings of apostles and prophets with one's own quirky vision of what the Church of Jesus Christ should say/do."

I don't consciously try to do this.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Understood, but how does this relate to aligning your minds with a Church teaching you previously disagreed with by experiencing spiritual revelation as taught by the LDS Church? https://www.lds.org/topics/revelation?lang=eng

I can tell you there are many church teachings that I think differently about now than how I viewed them earlier in my personal life.  Like the works & grace teaching that I taught on my mission.  Or how I viewed LGBT individuals.  Both of those have similar outcomes where I felt very entrenched in one opinion, but later had a complete 180 degree turn after learning, researching, praying and considering the issue in greater depth.  

Does this align with the perspective of the author of that lds.org link or not?  I'm not sure, haven't read it, you can be the judge.  

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeat, "The problem comes, of course, when one tries to supplant the revelations and teachings of apostles and prophets with one's own quirky vision of what the Church of Jesus Christ should say/do."

I don't consciously try to do this.

Neither do I.

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you're harboring an image of the Book of Mormon as being fictional, you differ with the teachings of the apostles and prophets. To the extent, if any, that you try to promulgate that view, you endeavor to supplant their teachings with your own interpretation.

Holding a different view is not supplanting something.  I'm not even promulgating it, I'm just sharing my opinion, no coordinated efforts to promote or make widely known.  

There has been a softening in recent years towards those who don't believe in the historicity of the BoM.  I see it in Mormon studies circles and I believe this will have an influencing effect on church leadership over time.  Look at Maxwell Institute for example, they produce articles that talk about the BoM as literature.

Progress is being made.  Upsetting to some fundamentalist types I'm sure, but I like to think of it as a stone cut out of the mountain, the truth will roll forth.  :-) 

Edited October 7, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Holding a different view is not supplanting something.  I'm not even promulgating it, I'm just sharing my opinion, no coordinated efforts to promote or make widely known.  

There has been a softening in recent years towards those who don't believe in the historicity of the BoM.  I see it in Mormon studies circles and I believe this will have an influencing effect on church leadership over time.  Look at Maxwell Institute for example, they produce articles that talk about the BoM as literature.

Progress is being made.  Upsetting to some fundamentalist types I'm sure, but I like to think of it as a stone cut out of the mountain, the truth will roll forth.  :-) 

I submit that In heralding a "softening" toward those who reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon and expressing a belief and implied hope "that this will have an influencing effect on Church leadership over time," you are in effect endeavoring to supplant the clear teachings of apostles and prophets with your own view. I'm not greatly worried that you will prevail in this, but a bit more candor about your intent would be refreshing.

 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Holding a different view is not supplanting something.  I'm not even promulgating it, I'm just sharing my opinion, no coordinated efforts to promote or make widely known.  

There has been a softening in recent years towards those who don't believe in the historicity of the BoM.  I see it in Mormon studies circles and I believe this will have an influencing effect on church leadership over time.  Look at Maxwell Institute for example, they produce articles that talk about the BoM as literature.

Progress is being made.  Upsetting to some fundamentalist types I'm sure, but I like to think of it as a stone cut out of the mountain, the truth will roll forth.  :-) 

I agree.  We are seeing many more members come in to discuss this and other topics of concern.  I know that members are at least beginning to be open to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is not a literal history, but is still an inspired book ("inspired fiction").  I think it's a way for them to continue having a testimony after they learn about DNA issues and the lack of evidence that should exist or should have been found, etc.

.

Edited October 7, 2016 by ALarson

[cinepro]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I submit that In heralding a "softening" toward those who reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon and expressing a belief and implied hope "that this will have an influencing effect on Church leadership over time," you are in effect endeavoring to supplant the clear teachings of apostles and prophets with your own view. I'm not greatly worried that you will prevail in this, but a bit more candor about your intent would be refreshing.

 

Well, it worked for Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel, and pre-Adamites.  Maybe it will work for the literal Book of Mormon as well...?

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I submit that In heralding a "softening" toward those who reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon and expressing a belief and implied hope "that this will have an influencing effect on Church leadership over time," you are in effect endeavoring to supplant the clear teachings of apostles and prophets with your own view. I'm not greatly worried that you will prevail in this, but a bit more candor about your intent would be refreshing.

 

The softening is already underway, Scott, so Hope isn't supplanting anything.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I can tell you there are many church teachings that I think differently about now than how I viewed them earlier in my personal life.  Like the works & grace teaching that I taught on my mission.  Or how I viewed LGBT individuals.  Both of those have similar outcomes where I felt very entrenched in one opinion, but later had a complete 180 degree turn after learning, researching, praying and considering the issue in greater depth.  

Does this align with the perspective of the author of that lds.org link or not?  I'm not sure, haven't read it, you can be the judge.  

I don't want to judge. I want to understand. I was looking for an example from your experience of the point you made about revelation (that it can significantly alter our view on a matter), but I didn't see any reference to / acknowledgement of revelation in the example you gave to support your statement that "Revelation …is received …at a personal level quite often, as we get informed about something, as we research and think and pray about something, we often change our position entirely from our preconceived notions.” That you said it happens quite often and involves prayer caught my attention, and am wondering how your evidently frequent experience resulted in aligning with a Church teaching.

Edited October 7, 2016 by CV75

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  We are seeing many more members come in to discuss this and other topics of concern.  I know that members are at least beginning to be open to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is not a literal history, but is still an inspired book ("inspired fiction").  I think it's a way for them to continue having a testimony after they learn about DNA issues and the lack of evidence that should exist or should have been found, etc.

Which is a nice trick of rationalization, but I think the testimony has to be correspondingly strengthened to transcend any dependency on rationalization. Otherwise charity, the least rational thing imaginable, hasn't sufficient place.

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The softening is already underway, Scott, so Hope isn't supplanting anything.

By publicly giving such alleged softening as a reason to hope that "that this will have an influencing effect on Church leadership over time," he is doing just that.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Which is a nice trick of rationalization, but I think the testimony has to be correspondingly strengthened to transcend any dependency on rationalization. Otherwise charity, the least rational thing imaginable, hasn't sufficient place.

If this is how members are able to continue having a testimony, then I'm not going to undermine it or criticize them.  I see how this is working for some members in our ward and I believe if I started telling them they now have a "dependency on rationalization", that would just push them away.  

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By publicly giving such alleged softening as a reason to hope that "that this will have an influencing effect on Church leadership over time," he is doing just that.

I meant that the softening and the influencing effect on Church leadership is already underway.  I assume you've been listening to all these talks over the past few years.  The change in tone, the admissions of past errors and difficulties, the disavowals, the pleading with people to ignore the problems and look to Christ.  

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If this is how members are able to continue having a testimony, then I'm not going to undermine it or criticize them.  I see how this is working for some members in our ward and I believe if I started telling them they now have a "dependency on rationalization", that would just push them away.

I agree, just making the observation as a participant in this conversation. I think our eventual aim is to get them past that point, not to discourage them while in it. I think that involves their experiencing charity from those helping them.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I meant that the softening and the influencing effect on Church leadership is already underway.  I assume you've been listening to all these talks over the past few years.  The change in tone, the admissions of past errors and difficulties, the disavowals, the pleading with people to ignore the problems and look to Christ.  

I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that the leadership of the Church is caving in on the subject of Book of Mormon historicity and validating the false and and untenable notion that the Book of Mormon is not what it purports to be.

In fact, if being exposed to the murmuring from internal critics of the Church on this or any other message board ever makes me downcast in any degree, I need only immerse myself in the doctrine, teachings and wisdom of a general conference session, and my spirits are immediately lifted back up to where they need to be. (See the four quotes in my signature line, from general conference speakers. I was alert to each of them, partly due to content I had seen on Internet message boards and blogs.)

Edited October 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I submit that In heralding a "softening" toward those who reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon and expressing a belief and implied hope "that this will have an influencing effect on Church leadership over time," you are in effect endeavoring to supplant the clear teachings of apostles and prophets with your own view. I'm not greatly worried that you will prevail in this, but a bit more candor about your intent would be refreshing.

 

Haha!!!  You caught me!

If only I had the motivation to qualify as "endeavoring to supplant" or "promulgate" my personal beliefs.  Unfortunately, I'm just a regular schmo replying to a comment on a discussion board.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Haha!!!  You caught me!

If only I had the motivation to qualify as "endeavoring to supplant" or "promulgate" my personal beliefs.  Unfortunately, I'm just a regular schmo replying to a comment on a discussion board.  

What a convenient medium is an internet discussion board. With no requirement or expectation that we disclose our identity, we are free to state whatever we want, publish it to the world, and assure ourselves that we need take no responsibility for our words.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  We are seeing many more members come in to discuss this and other topics of concern.  I know that members are at least beginning to be open to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is not a literal history, but is still an inspired book ("inspired fiction").  I think it's a way for them to continue having a testimony after they learn about DNA issues and the lack of evidence that should exist or should have been found, etc.

Yes, I can see this too.  It takes time, but a development of thought is continuing to happen.  You can see the signs everywhere, the gospel topics essays are being incorporated slowly into institute and seminary and eventually Sunday school.  Books published at Deseret Book with more nuanced ways of viewing things are increasing in popularity.  Even conference talks are addressing the issues of faith crisis and disaffection.  

The ways they address these issues are often lacking well rounded context, and suggestions about theology and interacting with those who have unorthodox views are often defensive and immature, but its still progress.  It will take time, but there is no doubt that things are moving in this direction.  

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What a convenient medium is an internet discussion board. With no requirement or expectation that we disclose our identity, we are free to state whatever we want, publish it to the world, and assure ourselves that we need take no responsibility for our words.

I believe that most (or even close to all) on here try to be honest regarding their posts and in expressing their thoughts or experiences.  What a waste of time if someone is here trying to lie or deceive.  I know I don't have time for that.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I believe that most (or even close to all) on here try to be honest regarding their posts and in expressing their thoughts or experiences.  What a waste of time if someone is here trying to lie or deceive.  I know I don't have time for that.

One need not be insincere to be wrong.