cinepro Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 A recent public sharing of a PowerPoint presentation presented to the Quorum of the 12 in December of 2015 lists these "issues and ideas" (and people) who are contributing to people leaving the Church. Interesting range of issues. And why is "Robert Norman" on the list? Is it this guy? I also think the use of the term "incredulity" is misused in regards to Church history: Quote the quality or state of being incredulous; inability or unwillingness to believe. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/incredulity I don't know if it's intentional, but it misframes the issue many people have with LDS history. The problem isn't "incredulity", or "unwillingness to believe." It would probably be more correct to say they are "incapable of believing" based on the current evidence. 2
hope_for_things Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, cinepro said: A recent public sharing of a PowerPoint presentation presented to the Quorum of the 12 in December of 2015 lists these "issues and ideas" (and people) who are contributing to people leaving the Church. Interesting range of issues. And why is "Robert Norman" on the list? Is it this guy? I also think the use of the term "incredulity" is misused in regards to Church history: I don't know if it's intentional, but it misframes the issue many people have with LDS history. The problem isn't "incredulity", or "unwillingness to believe." It would probably be more correct to say they are "incapable of believing" based on the current evidence. Mormon Stories did a podcast on this topic release this morning. I just listened to it, its very interesting. I hadn't heard of Robert Normon before, but it sounds like the same guy you link to. The story shared on that podcast that I'm paraphrasing from memory, is that this guy was a very popular speaker and eventually he claimed to receive authority to seal himself to another woman, behind his current wife's back, and eventually was excommunicated for this. The idea being that he's now preaching that the church has lost its way and doesn't have prophetic authority anymore, somewhat along the lines of a Denver Snuffer is what it sounded like to me, but perhaps a little different. I'm thinking that these kinds of events have happened throughout church history, but that because of the internet and the ability people have of reaching a wider audience, that they are no longer small and localized phenomenon. 2
Popular Post MormonVideoGame Posted February 28, 2017 Popular Post Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) The real threat to the church are wards that are not friendly enough to new investigators and the less active. You increase friendship in a ward, you increase the success. Friendship and socialization are the keys to success. I know by personal experience. Edited February 28, 2017 by MormonVideoGame 5
bluebell Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 Is the issue of unwilling/incapable one of semantics? If we were talking about atheists, for example, who define their beliefs as 'incapable of believing based on current evidence,' would it really matter if we (as theists) defined them as 'unwilling to believe'? Sincere question. 1
cinepro Posted February 28, 2017 Author Posted February 28, 2017 13 minutes ago, Calm said: Source? Are we allowed to link directly to the leaks? If so... https://www.docdroid.net/FSgWOMk/powerpoint-on-threats-to-the-church.pdf.html#page=5
Popular Post cinepro Posted February 28, 2017 Author Popular Post Posted February 28, 2017 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: Is the issue of unwilling/incapable one of semantics? If we were talking about atheists, for example, who define their beliefs as 'incapable of believing based on current evidence,' would it really matter if we (as theists) defined them as 'unwilling to believe'? Sincere question. Think of something you don't believe in for a good reason. For example, "the Earth isn't flat." If someone believed that the Earth was flat, would you find the following two statements equivalent? "Bluebell is unwilling to believe the Earth is flat." "Bluebell is incapable of believing the Earth is flat based on the current evidence." Obviously, the first statement isn't about the claim, it's about a character flaw (stubbornness) in the person who is "unwilling" to believe. If they didn't have the flaw, then they would believe as we do. The second claim is about the nature of the claim itself. It isn't about stubbornness or Bluebell's mental state. It's about the evidence. Maybe Bluebell doesn't know all the evidence and hasn't heard the best arguments; but that's different than saying it's because of unwillingness. 6
bluebell Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, cinepro said: Think of something you don't believe in for a good reason. For example, "the Earth isn't flat." If someone believed that the Earth was flat, would you find the following two statements equivalent? "Bluebell is unwilling to believe the Earth is flat." "Bluebell is incapable of believing the Earth is flat based on the current evidence." Obviously, the first statement isn't about the claim, it's about a character flaw (stubbornness) in the person who is "unwilling" to believe. If they didn't have the flaw, then they would believe as we do. The second claim is about the nature of the claim itself. It isn't about stubbornness or Bluebell's mental state. It's about the evidence. Maybe Bluebell doesn't know all the evidence and hasn't heard the best arguments; but that's different than saying it's because of unwillingness. I understand what you are saying, but I actually like the first bolded statement better. I am unwilling to believe the earth is flat (due to the evidence). Describing me as 'being incapable' of believing something sounds too weak to me. Like i'm not in control of myself and am being ruled by something beyond my control. But maybe i'm weird in how i view that. Sticking with your interpretation, we all have character flaws and sometimes they keep us from recognizing truth or being able to accept it. That's as true for LDS as it is for anyone else. Is it wrong to come at issues from that point of view just because others won't like it? I'm really not trying to argue. I'm trying to feel the subject out. 4
clarkgoble Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, cinepro said: A recent public sharing of a PowerPoint presentation presented to the Quorum of the 12 in December of 2015 lists these "issues and ideas" (and people) who are contributing to people leaving the Church. Interesting range of issues. And why is "Robert Norman" on the list? Is it this guy? What's the source for this? (Edit: posted after link posted) I suspect this Robert Norman is who they are referring to. I'd never heard of him before. (Edit: my bad that's the same guy -- probably not him now that I read through the blog) Edit2: It is him. This is what Dehlin said: Quote Robert Norman = Former 30+ year CES instructor w/ expertise in Old Testament. Former mission president. Believes he's seen Christ and Noah. Believes that he personally will usher in the 2nd coming of Christ. Believes that God sealed him to a new wife while his current wife was sick/dying. Was threatened with excommunication, and so resigned. We discuss him here: http://www.mormonstories.org/how-the-lds-q12-think/ Edited February 28, 2017 by clarkgoble
MiserereNobis Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 Is Martin Luther and the protestant rebellion on the list...? 3
Ahab Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 35 minutes ago, cinepro said: ... a PowerPoint presentation presented to the Quorum of the 12 in December of 2015 lists these "issues and ideas" (and people) who are contributing to people leaving the Church. Contributing, yeah, seems reasonable to me. I suppose the size of the bubble is intended to represent the size of the problem. I think the chart needs some more bubbles, but I don't want to derail the thread.
Popular Post stemelbow Posted February 28, 2017 Popular Post Posted February 28, 2017 This hardly seems helpful to me. Why do they name John Dehlin, Robert Norman, or secular is beyond me. This tells me very little other than it's evidence that the brethren aren't really clued in, and continue to set up enemies that amount to fighting against windmills. 5
Popular Post rockpond Posted February 28, 2017 Popular Post Posted February 28, 2017 36 minutes ago, cinepro said: A recent public sharing of a PowerPoint presentation presented to the Quorum of the 12 in December of 2015 lists these "issues and ideas" (and people) who are contributing to people leaving the Church. Interesting range of issues. And why is "Robert Norman" on the list? Is it this guy? I also think the use of the term "incredulity" is misused in regards to Church history: I don't know if it's intentional, but it misframes the issue many people have with LDS history. The problem isn't "incredulity", or "unwillingness to believe." It would probably be more correct to say they are "incapable of believing" based on the current evidence. This is, for me, the most fascinating of the "leaks" thus far... assuming it was actually presented to and discussed by the Q12 and FP. Ryan McKnight is also claiming that it was sent to all the GA's. I'd also be curious to know who drafted the document. From my personal observation, they seem to have a reasonably good handle on the challenges facing the church today. To critique this particular slide: It seems inappropriate to title these things as leading people away from "the Gospel" though I understand that is likely the POV of the author. The left-right designations strike me as odd -- I personally identify with issues on both the left and right of this diagram. I find the mix of issues with people to be fascinating. Side note: There were two other docs released with this one that I think many would consider to shine a very favorable light on the Church. 6
Duncan Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) Just now, hope_for_things said: Mormon Stories did a podcast on this topic release this morning. I just listened to it, its very interesting. I hadn't heard of Robert Normon before, but it sounds like the same guy you link to. The story shared on that podcast that I'm paraphrasing from memory, is that this guy was a very popular speaker and eventually he claimed to receive authority to seal himself to another woman, behind his current wife's back, and eventually was excommunicated for this. The idea being that he's now preaching that the church has lost its way and doesn't have prophetic authority anymore, somewhat along the lines of a Denver Snuffer is what it sounded like to me, but perhaps a little different. I'm thinking that these kinds of events have happened throughout church history, but that because of the internet and the ability people have of reaching a wider audience, that they are no longer small and localized phenomenon. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAt?????????? I liked him!!! I remember listening to him in BYU education weeks and other things, he has a blog https://rjnorman.blogspot.ca/ Edited February 28, 2017 by Duncan 1
stemelbow Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 Alright so the 12 are called to go out to areas that need help with something (areas deviating from established doctrine, areas with severe lack of commitment, areas with significant diversity with language and culture, or to meet and teach those not of our faith), as it may pertain to the items listed on the slide shown in the OP? Addressing problem areas? Ok. Sounds interesting. Any evidence that this proposal was accepted? has anyone experienced a conference that may addressed these items directed by a member of the 12? I'd love to see a follow up to this identifying these problem areas. 1
Duncan Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) Just now, stemelbow said: Alright so the 12 are called to go out to areas that need help with something (areas deviating from established doctrine, areas with severe lack of commitment, areas with significant diversity with language and culture, or to meet and teach those not of our faith), as it may pertain to the items listed on the slide shown in the OP? Addressing problem areas? Ok. Sounds interesting. Any evidence that this proposal was accepted? has anyone experienced a conference that may addressed these items directed by a member of the 12? I'd love to see a follow up to this identifying these problem areas. now that you said that last year we had like 4 stake conferences, given one was a broadcast but the other ones all had General Authorities at, which for us is so peculiar, why the need to keep sending so many brethren here for all these meetings? One of them was a special Priesthood meeting with Elder Renlund and some others but my brother said it was about routine stuff, and nothing out of the ordinary. We had the groundbreaking for the Temple here in December, about 400 people attended all told, which for our stake is 1/3 of the "active" people, and that 1200 is out of the 3000ish people on our rolls Edited February 28, 2017 by Duncan
stemelbow Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 39 minutes ago, rockpond said: Side note: There were two other docs released with this one that I think many would consider to shine a very favorable light on the Church. Sure I"d agree on the immigration one. It sure could be seen that way. but the one on a GA getting 200 bucks a month less because his child turned 24? I don't see how that's possibly putting the Church in a favorable light.
Calm Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, cinepro said: Are we allowed to link directly to the leaks? I don't think so, but you could just say Mormonleaks. Links are not required in certain cases.
Popular Post rockpond Posted February 28, 2017 Popular Post Posted February 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Sure I"d agree on the immigration one. It sure could be seen that way. but the one on a GA getting 200 bucks a month less because his child turned 24? I don't see how that's possibly putting the Church in a favorable light. For me, having pay based on their family situation, does make it seem more like a stipend than a salary. 6
Calm Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, cinepro said: Think of something you don't believe in for a good reason. For example, "the Earth isn't flat." If someone believed that the Earth was flat, would you find the following two statements equivalent? "Bluebell is unwilling to believe the Earth is flat." "Bluebell is incapable of believing the Earth is flat based on the current evidence." Obviously, the first statement isn't about the claim, it's about a character flaw (stubbornness) in the person who is "unwilling" to believe. If they didn't have the flaw, then they would believe as we do. The second claim is about the nature of the claim itself. It isn't about stubbornness or Bluebell's mental state. It's about the evidence. Maybe Bluebell doesn't know all the evidence and hasn't heard the best arguments; but that's different than saying it's because of unwillingness. "Incredulity" means both: "the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something." (Google, dictionary.com says the same thing..."inability or unwillingness") 1
stemelbow Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 Anyone want to shed light on the "Language and Cultural Problems "-ites"" one? I'm sure the Church struggles in some areas because of cultural issues and/or language. I'm not sure what the "-ites" included may mean, though. Any ideas?
stemelbow Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 Just now, rockpond said: For me, having pay based on their family situation, does make it seem more like a stipend than a salary. I see. I saw it as they get a base pay (or stipend, which was revealed to be around 120,000/yr I believe from a previous leak) and get additional moneys on top of that base for dependent family.
Calm Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) 55 minutes ago, stemelbow said: This hardly seems helpful to me. Why do they name John Dehlin, Robert Norman, or secular is beyond me. This tells me very little other than it's evidence that the brethren aren't really clued in... That would depend on the sources they got it from. Given their past efforts, I would not be surprised if this was reported based off a survey where they asked leaders what problems they saw their congregations having and that was how they got the varying weights of importance (size of circles). It looks like the same sort of that name/word program I can't think of the name for that people create posters and such out of. Saw one yesterday for Utah in the shape of the state where size of name was based on population. It may be the lack of your awareness and not theirs. Fairmormon gets questions about generic issues such as listed, but we also get questions about specific individuals. If we ran our questions through such a word frequency program we might get something similar, though we would be missing most of the blues. Edited February 28, 2017 by Calm 2
stemelbow Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, Calm said: "Incredulity" means both: "the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something." (Google, dictionary.com says the same thing..."inability or unwillingness") In every case I've encountered it's not Church history that has caused the incredulity, although there are plenty of reasons to doubt based on it, but the issue is more that the Church has misled by going with a more favorable sounding narrative for Church history that simply is not true added to what is the stickiness of Church history.
stemelbow Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, Calm said: That would depend on the sources they got it from. Given their past efforts, I would not be surprised if this was reported based off a survey where they asked leaders what problems they saw their congregations having and that was how they got the varying weights of importance (size of circles). It looks like the same sort of that name/word program I can't think of the name for that people create posters and such out of. Saw one yesterday for Utah in the shape of the state where size of name was based on population. It may be the lack of your awareness and not theirs. Fairmormon gets questions about generic issues such as listed, but we also get questions about specific individuals. If we ran our questions through such a word frequency program we might get something similar, though we would be missing most of the blues. A survey conducted by the Church for those who leave? That'd be awesome. I'd feel greatly encouraged if the Church did that. But as history indicates I'd say the Church went more along the lines of surveying local leaders or something asking them to define the challenges they've faced with those who leave.
Recommended Posts