12 Reasons Millenials are Over Church

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Calm,  Serious question. Do you lie when you get your temple recommend?  Eating meat in summer is against the word of wisdom and yet I'm guessing you're guilty of ignoring that little gem in the WoW as are most Mormon's.  So when you ask do they lie...my guess is that they just see a lot more room in parts of the WoW  just as you find more room in other parts that you chose to ignore to accommodate your interpretation of the WoW.  For many millennials...its just not a big deal.  Funny...but its as if they've taken on the attitude of their great grandparents...from the 1920-30 who drank tea and coffee, held recommends and saw no problem doing so.

I knew a grandmotherly type personally, back in the 80's, that would get a recommend and drank black/green tea. And her bishop knew it, she didn't mince words.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[notHagoth7]

23 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I'll say this much:

You are moving the goal post.

For example:

2 Nephi 5: 21

 "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."....

Are you sure?

Please consider Nephi's contemporary Daniel (the one of whom Jesus said "whoever reads, let him/her understand"...as in "whoever lacks wisdom, let him/her ask of God"...as in "let there be light").

What of Daniel's intriguing use of the word "white"?

For example:

Here.

And here.

The premise being that a fall of countenance...visage...aura...or whatever one chooses to call it...makes the former's attraction/appearance polarize....making them the opposite of enticing to those who genuinely love God.

That doesn't mean the latter stop loving the former. It simply means one can make an almost tangible distinction...once such a hopefully-temporary curse sets in.

(Keep in mind what curses are largely for...to humble a recalcitrant one to eventual repentance/restoration.)

What are your initial thoughts/impressions on that as an onramp to discussion?

Moving the goal post?

Or extra point?

My name is John, which means, among other things, it is part of my birthright to use potty humor, if appropriate. To wrap up the thought about skin, consider "Hidden Figures." One of the two best quotes in the film: "Here at NASA we all pee the same color."

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Ouagadougou]

6 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Are you sure?

Please consider Nephi's contemporary Daniel (the one of whom Jesus said "whoever reads, let him understand"...as in whosoever lacks wisdom...as in let there be light), and Daniel's intriguing use of the word "white"

For starters...

Here.

And here.

The premise being that a fall of countenance...visage...aura...or whatever one chooses to call it...makes the former's attraction/appearance polarize....making them the opposite of enticing to those who genuinely love God.

That doesn't mean the latter stop loving the former. It simply means one can make an almost tangible distinction...once such a hopefully-temporary curse sets in.

(Keep in mind what curses are largely for...to humble a recalcitrant one to eventual repentance/restoration.)

What are your initial thoughts/impressions on that as an onramp to discussion?

I don't need to understand Daniel when it's obvious (through modern day prophets) that they considered this a curse of black skin.  They had it wrong for over 150 years until God apparently changed his mind in 1978.  

 

 

 

 

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Structure? We don't need no stinkin' badges! ;0)

Led by husband/wife pastoral team. Amazing people. A loving outreach in perhaps the deepest-hurting corner in all of Utah County. (2 buildings away from a stew kitchen/homeless shelter.)

Opens with up-tempo heart-tugging music by the husband/wife team, and a few backup people singing amazing, upbeat devotional music. Often also with a devotional music video or two.

They have a structure...but you wouldn't notice it. You get too caught up in the love conveyed in the message...and in the crystal-clear love from the pastor conveying it. 

Wow, wish I lived closer to Provo. But I'm such a born in the wool LDS, that may be out of my comfort zone, although I know that eventually it would feel more comfortable the more I'm there. 

Last week I thought of going to my insurance man's non LDS church right after my Sacrament meeting, but just went home instead. I try to go to SS and RS, but go home, it's so difficult to go to Sacrament let alone the rest of the block

[notHagoth7]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, wish I lived closer to Provo. But I'm such a born in the wool LDS, that may be out of my comfort zone, although I know that eventually it would feel more comfortable the more I'm there. 

Last week I thought of going to my insurance man's non LDS church right after my Sacrament meeting, but just went home instead. I try to go to SS and RS, but go home, it's so difficult to go to Sacrament let alone the rest of the block

There are similar outreaches in other cities. Roughly where are you?

Visiting another faith is much like hopping on a plane to a new country. Different. Invigorating. And expands your heart a wee bit (at least it did for my still-raisin-sized one) to realize it ain't all about me and my dogma.

For those whose schedules don't allow much Sunday cross-pollination, there are mosques on Fridays, synogagues and Adventist services on Saturdays, awesome bible studies on most Wednesday nights...etc, etc.

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7

[JLHPROF]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sacrament meeting last week, Jesus was mentioned specifically only one time. Sure He's there in a round about way. Maybe my thinking is askew since my faith crisis, but we really need to talk about His life more. I know we don't have much to go on, but it would be nice to have more of it.

I really don't know why we need to.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

-focus of worship from peripheral issues to focus on worshipping deity

That would certainly go a long way towards moving us back towards "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

We worship God by doing what he says.  Following the commandments, partaking in the ordinances.  God doesn't want our empty praises without our actions.

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Being able to use your phone to fact check data within a minute or so has also changed the dynamic significantly.  

Are you talking about verifying alternative facts, real facts, or facts because I say they are facts.  Exactly who is defining the facts we are finding? 

[oremites]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sacrament meeting last week, Jesus was mentioned specifically only one time.

You may want to mention this to your Bishop because that's not how Sacrament meetings should be.  Jesus should be specifically mentioned at least 5 times:

1. Opening prayer

2. Sacrament hymn

3. Blessing on the bread

4. Blessing on the water

5. Closing prayer

Just curious, which of those were left out of your Sacrament meeting?

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That would certainly go a long way towards moving us back towards "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

We worship God by doing what he says.  Following the commandments, partaking in the ordinances.  God doesn't want our empty praises without our actions.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/worship-bible-verses/ I believe worshipping in the way I mentioned is welcomed and taught in the Bible. I noticed in the scripture below, it is similar to the one you quoted with an emphasis on 'human rules' and I'm afraid some in our religion is human made also. 

Isaiah 29:13

 Chapter Parallel Compare

13 The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, oremites said:

You may want to mention this to your Bishop because that's not how Sacrament meetings should be.  Jesus should be specifically mentioned at least 5 times:

1. Opening prayer

2. Sacrament hymn

3. Blessing on the bread

4. Blessing on the water

5. Closing prayer

Just curious, which of those were left out of your Sacrament meeting?

Ha ha, real funny, but not laughing...because you think it should be enough. But I do understand where you and JL are coming from. But is it going to shock you both if it really wasn't enough and a personal relationship with Him was what was needed, though knowing JL he has that. And do we worship rules or IOW, do we worship the temple and ordinances more?

Edited February 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/worship-bible-verses/ I believe worshipping in the way I mentioned is welcomed and taught in the Bible. I noticed in the scripture below, it is similar to the one you quoted with an emphasis on 'human rules' and I'm afraid some in our religion is human made also. 

Isaiah 29:13

 Chapter Parallel Compare

13 The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.

I think many (Millenials and otherwise) love the gospel of Jesus Christ but really feel much of the church rules come from man (ie. only one ear piercing, no facial hair for men working in the temple, the need to wear white shirts only, etc., etc.).  

These are the rules that a lot of the youth feel have nothing to do with Jesus Christ. Then add to that the new policy regarding SSM and their children, and they are not wanting to be a part of that or support that.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Ha ha, real funny, but not laughing...because you think it should be enough. But I do understand where you and JL are coming from. But is it going to shock you both if it really wasn't enough and a personal relationship with Him was what was needed, though knowing JL he has that. And do we worship rules or IOW, do we worship the temple and ordinances more?

Sacrament meeting lasts 70 mins.    Even using Oremite's tongue in cheek approach that means Christ is mentioned just in administrative things once every 14 minutes.
And then there is testimony meeting every 4th week, where almost every speaker will bear testimony that Christ is their Savior.

If we are looking for our meetings to create our personal relationship with our Savior we are missing the boat.  Our meetings teach us how to serve God, our Savior, and our fellow men.  Through the methods God has given to us to accomplish this - laws, commandments, ordinances.
Without this teaching we are little better than those who claim to be saved and praise God for saving them yet go on with their sinful practices.

I would be disappointed if every sacrament meeting every week spent the majority of the meeting doing nothing but praising Christ.  And so would Christ.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Christianity offers a wide variety of beliefs on who is and isn't saved so it isn't the stark choice you present here.

Can you name a church that teaches there is a great and ongoing missionary effort among the spirits of the dead, a great mission of mercy that will ultimately bring each soul to Christ and forgiveness, with the exception of the relative few who will be numbered among the son's of perdition? If not, what, specifically, is taught that even approaches the LDS doctrine of salvation for the dead?

[Kevin Christensen]

Among other things, Ouagadougou said:

Quote

Isn't the BoM suppose to be the most correct book on Earth?  So skin no longer means skin? 

 

Which leads to suppose Ouagadougou missed the recent thread in which I observed this sort of thing in the Book of Mormon, as discussed in Ethan Sproats recent JBMS essay, and my recent thread on "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon.

Quote

Alma 3:5–6 is comprised of two sentences, in each of which the word skin(s) appears. Commentaries handle the two sentences in one of three ways: (1) by treating both of them independently, as if two very different things were at issue; (2) by commenting on only the second of the two sentences, remaining silent about the first; or (3) by failing to comment on either sentence.³ All three of these approaches miss the fact that, when read in context, the use of skins in the second sentence appears to form part of a historical explanation of the use of skin in the first sentence. Here is the text:

“Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth. And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.” (Alma 3:5–6)⁴

According to a reading I will defend in the course of this article, this passage suggests the possibility that “the skins of the Lamanites” are to be understood as articles of clothing, the notable girdle of skin that these particular Lamanites wear to cover their nakedness. Significantly, these are the only two references to skins in Alma 3, which contains the Book of Mormon’s most thorough explanation of the Lamanite curse and the curse’s relationship to skins. Thus situated, Alma 3:5–6 might serve as an interpretive Rosetta stone. If both instances of skins in Alma 3:5–6 refer to clothing, then the other five references to various-colored or cursed skins in the Book of Mormon could also refer to clothing and not—as traditionally assumed—to human flesh pigmentation.

I was discussing the essay here:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3592&index=6

Ouagadougou's post quotes Alma 3:6, but not Alma 3:5, which happens to make a huge difference, leaving him to suppose that skin means skin and to suggest otherwise is a manifestation of (drumroll) "cognitive dissonance", something that inevitably happens to other people.  But to me, he demonstrates what can happen when you don't read carefully, and what happens when you don't contextualize carefully.  Some guy named Jesus was under the impression that the same words can have completely different meanings, yields, harvests, all depending on soil and nurture, that is, contextualization and care.  He even said of the parable, "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?"

And if an LDS member goes to the trouble of reading D&C 1:25-30, they can acquire a set of robust and tolerant expectations regarding what they should expect from Church leaders and by implication, manuals and teachers, and, if we take the possibility of eye-beams seriously, ourselves.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I knew a grandmotherly type personally, back in the 80's, that would get a recommend and drank black/green tea. And her bishop knew it, she didn't mince words.

Green tea supplements are fairly common the past years especially as a weight loss technique (primarily from elevated heart rate I suspect). Given how ubiquitous these are in Utah Valley I'd bet the majority of purchasers are getting temple recommends. 

I'm not saying that's right, mind you. Although I just examined a "green smoothie powder" my wife has been putting into my breakfast protein drink and there was green tea in it. I didn't realize it before, and perhaps most people are like me. I've not yet decided if I should stop drinking it or not given that it's a pretty small dose (one small ingredient in a small scoop that included raspberry leaf and a lot else).

In the same way I don't count alcohol in vanilla extract (presumably vodka) to be breaking the word of wisdom and assume most nice meals at good restaurant - especially Italian ones - have wine added. (And no the myth of it all burning off is just that - a myth) Yet I remember when at BYU a roommate who wouldn't eat anything with vinegar because there's typically small amounts of alcohol in it (since vinegar is typically just fermented past the alcohol stage with rice or wine).

Put an other way, I don't typically get hung up on very small amounts that are ubiquitous in our food and just limit it to the drinks. If the Brethren come out with a conference talk asking us to stop then I'll probably start asking if there is ground coffee in restaurant chocolate cake (often there is), if a dish is cooked with alcohol (again many sauces are), and stop using vanilla extract in non-cooked deserts. But I'm not holding my breath.

Edited February 24, 2017 by clarkgoble

[oremites]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

But is it going to shock you both if it really wasn't enough and a personal relationship with Him was what was needed...

I'm actually a bit offended by that statement, which surprises me because I don't get offended easily. 

What do you know about my relationship with Christ?  You seem to think I treat those items (prayers, hymns and sacrament) as simply some agenda points that need to be checked off.  Far, far from it. 

I love singing the Sacrament hymn because of it's message about Christ.  How many times have we been taught that we need to concentrate on our Savior during the Sacrament and really think about the Atonement?  It's mentioned all the time because of it's importance.  All of those items, if we approach them with proper spirit, can and do help bring us closer to Christ and increase our personal relationship with him.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound harsh.  I do want to say I'm glad you have a real desire to have personal relationship with Christ.  I hope that creates friendship rather than letting any differences in approach create bad feelings.

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, oremites said:

I'm actually a bit offeapologisedhat statement, which surprises me because I don't get offended easily. 

What do you know about my relationship with Christ?  You seem to think I treat those items (prayers, hymns and sacrament) as simply some agenda points that need to be checked off.  Far, far from it. 

I love singing the Sacrament hymn because of it's message about Christ.  How many times have we been taught that we need to concentrate on our Savior during the Sacrament and really think about the Atonement?  It's mentioned all the time because of it's importance.  All of those items, if we approach them with proper spirit, can and do help bring us closer to Christ and increase our personal relationship with him.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound harsh.  I do want to say I'm glad you have a real desire to have personal relationship with Christ.  I hope that creates friendship rather than letting any differences in approach create bad feelings.

Whoa, never did I mean how you took this. I sincerely apologise. I'm on my phone or I'd go on further about my regret.

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Calm,  Serious question. Do you lie when you get your temple recommend?  Eating meat in summer is against the word of wisdom and yet I'm guessing you're guilty of ignoring that little gem in the WoW as are most Mormon's.  So when you ask do they lie...my guess is that they just see a lot more room in parts of the WoW  just as you find more room in other parts that you chose to ignore to accommodate your interpretation of the WoW.  For many millennials...its just not a big deal.  Funny...but its as if they've taken on the attitude of their great grandparents...from the 1920-30 who drank tea and coffee, held recommends and saw no problem doing so.

I knew a grandmotherly type personally, back in the 80's, that would get a recommend and drank black/green tea. And her bishop knew it, she didn't mince words.

 

My own grandmother wanted to get a temple recommend after years of drinking coffee and her Bishop challenged her to try to quit drinking it so he could give her the recommend.
She gave it a good try but her old body could not take the withdrawal of not having it, so he finally told her that if she could just cut it down to a half cup per day he would give her the recommend.
That she was able to do and he gave her the recommend. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Calm,that would be so easy.

What would be easy?

[BlueDreams]

On 2/23/2017 at 8:09 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

A discussion yesterday reminded me of this article and I'm curious about your thoughts. While some will claim that Millenials are leaving because they are lazy, self-centered, non-resilient etc, I think there is a lot more going on here. This Article lists 12 Reasons Millenials are Over Church. Some reasons are self-explanatory but others require a little context so I encourage you to read the article if you don't understand the point. This phenomena with Millenials is in no way limited to our church, but rather is a cultural shift to which all churches need to adapt.

 

1. Nobody’s Listening to Us

2. We’re Sick of Hearing About Values & Mission Statements

3. Helping the Poor Isn’t a Priority

4. We’re Tired of You Blaming the Culture

5. The “You Can’t Sit With Us” Affect

6. Distrust & Misallocation of Resources

7. We Want to Be Mentored, Not Preached At

8. We Want to Feel Valued

9. We Want You to Talk to Us About Controversial Issues (Because No One Is)

10. The Public Perception

11. Stop Talking About Us (Unless You’re Actually Going to Do Something)

12. You’re Failing to Adapt

http://www.recklesslyalive.com/12-reasons-millennials-are-over-church/

It seems to me that without significant adaptation, churches in general, and the LDS church in particular, will lose the majority of a generation which will be difficult to regain. I'm curious what kind of adaptation you feel would be useful.

If you view adaptation as wrong, why?

Don’t apply

Nobody’s Listening to Us

We’re Sick of Hearing About Values & Mission Statements

We’re Tired of You Blaming the Culture

Distrust & Misallocation of Resources

We Want to Be Mentored, Not Preached At

We Want You to Talk to Us About Controversial Issues (Because No One Is)

The Public Perception

You’re Failing to Adapt

The big problem with all of these is that it assumes a church hierarchy system that we don’t have a Mormons. Our wards are very grassroots oriented. We have a hierarchy, yes. They have an effect. Yes. But the day-to-day of the culture and church experience happens with a smaller group of local members. So the membership can take on different flavors even though there’s central gospel messages. Likewise, where I’m at, a large chunk of us single millennials are in YSA’s, not family wards. The other half who are married are in family wards. But in YSA’s much of the qualms here and how they are described don’t apply or we already have systems to mentor. The preaching is usually by fellow YSA’s, there are group discussion classes, the way something is covered often has some touch of controversial issues, and they’re often about how we can stand for righteousness (or something like that) in our own way. I’m one of those people who always needs to find the exceptions. And there’s quite a few that I can think of in the YSA’s I’ve attended in the last few years. Though the bishopric is usually older men with their wives attending fairly frequently, the councils, EQ’s, RS presidencies, and every other calling is filled by the YSA’s. That means there’s generally direct discussion between the leaders and the millennial base in just about ever meeting held in a YSA ward/branch.

 

Off the top of my head some of the controversial topics I’ve had covered or discussed and integrated in the last 5 years in some way:

-         LGBT/SSA concerns and how we interact with those who may see differently (overwhelmingly positive)

-        Heavenly Mother and women’s roles…. Fairly regularly. (I once had one woman in a ward who whenever she would pray would thank god for HM…but She can also pop up in discussion)

-        YSA concerns, particularly related with stress, college, dating/marriage (that one maybe a little too much), and starting careers

-        Sex (mixed bag. My presentation went over really really well, I had a bishop who was good at discussing this, and one that sucked)

-        Addictions or working through troubling habits

-        Loneliness

-        And just last weekend, Environmental stewardship by a woman who gave a talk

-        Etc

Because we’re local-based, neighborhood integration is dependent on the ward/stake. In some areas the ward/stake basically IS the neighborhood. In Texas, I know the members worked to through group work. When Hurricane Katrina and a local tornado came through, we did helping hands work. In my ward here I can think of a number of service based activities. I also had several people offer to make and bring food for my roommate who is struggling financially and the bishop agreed to help her with some of her payments this month and had previously for several months and still is for therapy.  She is currently less active working to get herself back up.

 

I know some would feel resources are misallocated and a distrust….but for Millenial LDS, that’s not a big concern. I can’t remember the last time I heard someone talk about it beyond message boards. Part of that is because we’ve served missions, are in leadership meetings, etc and see how funds are divied. We may have some disagreements, but for the most part I’m not super concerned when I fill out my tithing slip online. I remember someone here posted a survey that pointed out that younger people were more likely to pay tithes and more likely to pay on their Net income. That’s not showing a shrinking distrust. It could also be seen as they’re investing in their community in a sense.

 

 

Maybe

Stop Talking About Us (Unless You’re Actually Going to Do Something)

The “You Can’t Sit With Us” Affect

Helping the Poor Isn’t a Priority

 

I’ve heard some have concerns with these. I think sometimes we can err into these concerns. But it’s not what I would describe and universal concerns.

 

Helping the poor, I feel, is a priority, but could always be a bigger priority. We have a lot of outlets that are built into our infrastructure, humanitarian work, education system, and welfare programs to help the poor among us.

 

More Applicable

 

We Want to Feel Valued
I think there can be a little of a disconnect between higher authorities and the YSA population, though I know that they work to not have that. I think it still happens. So sometimes messages can be a little tone deaf. I’m still surprised that I still get compliments about the lesson I taught about sexuality for FHE. It’s been 2 months. The comments are similar: that’s how we SHOULD talk about sex. I had a conversation with my SP where I realized he was a little reticent about certain forms of frank dialogue. He’s a great SP, I really enjoy our leaders currently, but some things do take longer to really hear from the younger cohort.

There’s other dorky ones, like wards that have a tendency to place certain cohorts into certain callings. Such as having young marrieds in primary or in calling that they may feel more shut off from the ward. I know another young married who felt a little patronized in her ward because she was young and had a husband and no kids. The assumption that life was a bunch of lollipops and sunshine. I knew she struggled with anxiety, had chronis pain and health problems, and had a treasure trove of medication to help with the symptoms as doctors poked and prodded her to find the root cause. Though that’s extreme, there’s still a tendency for the older generation to assumed the “get” the pressures of the millennial generation…or lack there of. But they don’t fully. Our generation face a number of unique wealth gaps and debt concerns that other generations could avoid. When they don’t, it can lead to attitudes of us complaining or wonderment as to why we can’t just do what they did at our age. Millenial perspectives can be very different from the older generations, which can also lead to a little error in translation.

That said, I don’t think I feel un-valued by them. Or by just about anyone in the church. And I get the sense from most leaders I’ve worked with or met who are working with millennial populations and youth, are concerned and earnestly trying to make them valued and integretated with the church community.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Calm,  Serious question. Do you lie when you get your temple recommend?  Eating meat in summer is against the word of wisdom and yet I'm guessing you're guilty of ignoring that little gem in the WoW as are most Mormon's.  So when you ask do they lie...my guess is that they just see a lot more room in parts of the WoW  just as you find more room in other parts that you chose to ignore to accommodate your interpretation of the WoW.  For many millennials...its just not a big deal.  Funny...but its as if they've taken on the attitude of their great grandparents...from the 1920-30 who drank tea and coffee, held recommends and saw no problem doing so.

That makes sense.

Though I will point out I find room not to abstain from eating meat because I believe that is the standard the church leadership accepts.  

I would not say I am doing something if I know the person expects me to do something a particular way and I didn't.  For example, a semi trivial example (I say semi because it can cause major problems if recognition of what is going on is lacking)...I asked my kid to do the dishes...growing up that meant in my family cleaning the whole kitchen.  My kid responds by just loading the dishes into the dishwater.  This happens a few times even after I explain if I slip and don't use the more accurate phrasing, please be sure I mean clean the kitchen.  For me, if I did this, knowing the expectation was for the whole kitchen, I believe using the excuse "I did what you said" would be a lie.  If I know something is expected of me and knowingly avoid doing it based on a technicality, I would when asked about it explain what I did so that the other could then decide if they were satisfied with the technical fulfillment or if they needed more to see me meeting my end of the arrangement.

I don't believe the temple recommend questions are completely structured with a "do you follow your personal interpretation of the commandment" attached.  If someone says they are fulfilling the standard, knowing if they clarified what they are doing they would be judged as not fulfilling it, if it was me, I would see myself as lying, as intentionally deceiving.  I do not understand the rationale of those who don't, but I accept it as a possibility and will not judge it as right or wrong, at least until I heard more of their personal reasons for making the choice to engage in what is to me deception.

Btw, I say when I remember that I follow the WoW as required by the Church, not perfectly as outlined in the scriptures.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Calm

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Among other things, Ouagadougou said:

 

Which leads to suppose Ouagadougou missed the recent thread in which I observed this sort of thing in the Book of Mormon, as discussed in Ethan Sproats recent JBMS essay, and my recent thread on "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon.

I was discussing the essay here:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3592&index=6

Ouagadougou's post quotes Alma 3:6, but not Alma 3:5, which happens to make a huge difference, leaving him to suppose that skin means skin and to suggest otherwise is a manifestation of (drumroll) "cognitive dissonance", something that inevitably happens to other people.  But to me, he demonstrates what can happen when you don't read carefully, and what happens when you don't contextualize carefully.  Some guy named Jesus was under the impression that the same words can have completely different meanings, yields, harvests, all depending on soil and nurture, that is, contextualization and care.  He even said of the parable, "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?"

And if an LDS member goes to the trouble of reading D&C 1:25-30, they can acquire a set of robust and tolerant expectations regarding what they should expect from Church leaders and by implication, manuals and teachers, and, if we take the possibility of eye-beams seriously, ourselves.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

This contradicts the church's own depiction of Lamanites in the late 1970's.  

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35666_eng.pdf

[Yirgacheffe]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Can you name a church that teaches there is a great and ongoing missionary effort among the spirits of the dead, a great mission of mercy that will ultimately bring each soul to Christ and forgiveness, with the exception of the relative few who will be numbered among the son's of perdition? If not, what, specifically, is taught that even approaches the LDS doctrine of salvation for the dead?

Many Christian churches see no need for the LDS missionary efforts for the dead, they view them as unnecessary in their universalist view of salvation, and that doesn't include religions where salvation is met with a question mark.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What would be easy?

To tell a bishop that you don't drink coffee...you want to go to the wedding! Granted it is not the right or honest thing to do..but I am sure it happens because..it is so easy.