The 17 Threats To The True Church

[MormonVideoGame]

19 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I believe that faith is a choice but belief is not. 

What is the difference between faith and belief? 

It is mostly genetics, environment, and chance. Many people that are devoutly religious tend to have the God gene or were raised by religious parents. 

Genes may also contribute to the way people behave, some LDS just can't obey the commandments and stay in church. 

"Variant alleles of the D2 dopamine receptor gene may play a role in determining nicotine addiction"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9498485

"Thrill-Seeking Gene Can Lead to More Sex Partners"

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientists-discover-gene-responsible-cheating-promiscuous-sex-habits/story?id=12322891

Quote

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

Another threat to the church is problem solving. Why? Many people join (or stay in) the church because they have a lot of problems and are looking for God and blessings. Perhaps that is one of the reason why the church is not doing well in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria. All of them are good economies, and don't have a lot of problems compared to other countries. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, Dehlin had also been excommunicated before this power point.

I'm just saying it's revealing to see who the leaders actually named and who they didn't. They have their own perspective and it seems odd to some of us maybe, but it must have made sense to them.

I think we would all agree that Dehlin continues to have influence against the Church, even post-excommunication.

I agree with you that both inclusions and omissions are interesting. Are we even certain that this leak is genuine? The coordination and timing of the release with MormonStories and the panel seem pretty --- tightly coordinated. 

What if MormonLeaks started "leaking" fake stuff, now that they have made a splash with prior offerings? How could that even be proven? The Church isn't going to comment much on the leaks, either way?

[MormonVideoGame]

Never mind 

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

What is the difference between faith and belief? 

It is mostly genetics, environment, and chance. People that are devoutly religious tend to have the God gene or were raised by religious parents. 

Genes may also contribute to the way people behave, some LDS just can't obey the commandments and stay in church. 

"Variant alleles of the D2 dopamine receptor gene may play a role in determining nicotine addiction"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9498485

"Thrill-Seeking Gene Can Lead to More Sex Partners"

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientists-discover-gene-responsible-cheating-promiscuous-sex-habits/story?id=12322891

Say what?

I reject the idea that the difference between faith and belief is genetic. That seems patently absurd. Do individuals have different physical challenges and addictions and personality styles? Of course. No news there.

I tend to think of "faith" in terms of "faithfulness" because expressing faith is often behavioral. Behaviors can be changed...modified...controlled. Belief is more internal. Like I said earlier, it would be impossible for me to believe in a flat earth or in Santa Clause with his flying reindeer. To me those things are verifiably false so I am unable to believe in them and I have no desire to believe in them.

There may be other things that I do desire to believe, but I can't. But regardless of belief I can choose to be faithful to any prospect I wish, whether it is being faithful to the myth of Santa as I share it with my children, or even reenact rituals like putting out milk and cookies. But that doesn't mean I believe.

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think we would all agree that Dehlin continues to have influence against the Church, even post-excommunication.

I agree with you that both inclusions and omissions are interesting. Are we even certain that this leak is genuine? The coordination and timing of the release with MormonStories and the panel seem pretty --- tightly coordinated. 

Well the guy who leaks the info was on the panel discussing this on Dehlin's podcast.  Sounds like he gave Dehlin a heads up or advance information on this leak.  I'm not sure, but that's how it appears (I think the leak and the podcast were only released publicly a few hours apart at the most, right?)

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think we would all agree that Dehlin continues to have influence against the Church, even post-excommunication.

I agree with you that both inclusions and omissions are interesting. Are we even certain that this leak is genuine? The coordination and timing of the release with MormonStories and the panel seem pretty --- tightly coordinated. 

What if MormonLeaks started "leaking" fake stuff, now that they have made a splash with prior offerings? How could that even be proven? The Church isn't going to comment much on the leaks, either way?

I don't know how these leaks could be verified but the church could make statements about them if they chose.

Regarding the coordination of the release and the podcast, I don't see your point. In the podcast they acknowledged that they recorded and timed the release of the podcast with the release of the leak. The founder of MormonLeaks was part of the panel so he gave them access to the material prior to general release so they could discuss.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

*Note: I believe that the 15 apostles actually hold real priesthood keys and are authorized by God.*

That said, I also think that the hyper-corporatization of the Church over a span of decades has led to some of the problems it now faces. I don't personally think a lot of this business model approach to administering the Church is remote-controlled or micro-managed by God. In other words, I think that God has allowed Church leaders some leeway and slack in making decisions on how the Church runs. I also see an overall decline in the Church (but not a falling away) as being predicted by the Book of Mormon, so I think these problems were foreseen. 

This is why Denver Snuffer and Robert Norman (whom I hadn't heard of either until this thread) and people like them are a niche threat to the Church in a way that garden variety liberal ex-mormons and Church critics aren't. Not numerically, but Snuffer, Norman, Watterman, etc. are appealing to some members who believe strongly in the Restoration, but feel that too many accommodations have been made and that the Church has been over-corporatized --- with the end result being a decline approaching loss of spiritual gifts, particularly from the top down. There are good, non-wacky people who get drawn into this net, and they are typically much stronger members than the ones who leave who are attracted by the liberal end of the spectrum (the Dehlins, the Reisses, the Reels, the Kellys, etc.). I have a cousin who is a Snufferite, and he is a gospel scholar. His brothers (also gospel scholars) asked me to read and comment on "Passing the Heavenly Gift" (just for my thoughts; they are perfectly capable of doing their own thinking, but they wanted to know my observations). Snuffer jumps the shark and oversteps with his rival church formation and excessive claims of visits from Christ, but it is easy to understand the yearning for prophets who experience and relay to the members spiritual gift power of bygone days. The corporate nature of everything having to do with how the Church is run, lack of apparent "old-school" revelation (members always have to come up with things like lowering the mission age as examples of revelation from Church leaders --- simple policy moves), and an overall lowering of expectations among most members for expecting to see spiritual gifts at work create demand for false prophets like Snuffer, et. al.

I fully reject these and other false prophets, but I can understand their appeal.

Some of the points you make here emphasize the problems I have with this slide.

Setting aside the left/right, liberal/conservative designations that don't entirely fit and will lead to false conclusions...

"John Dehlin" is not an idea or issue that leads people away from the gospel or church.  John isn't setting himself up as a prophet (like Snuffer).  John has simply provided a forum for issues and ideas to be discussed and has promoted those issues and ideas... it is those issue and ideas that have led people out.  As John put it in his podcast on this leak:  He isn't the one who falsely claimed he could translate an ancient papyrus from Abraham.  If the Brethren can't replace some of the people and organizations in the circles on this diagram with the ACTUAL REASONS people leave, than I have very little hope of the problem ever being adequately addressed.

Also, Rongo, I think you miss the mark in suggesting that the right side of this diagram represents the "stronger members".  John McLay was a member of my stake high council, he was a lifelong CES instructor and, at the time of his resignation, he was our local institute director.  He was as strong a member as they come until he came across some of the troubling issues in church history and resigned.

 

[MormonVideoGame]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I reject the idea that the difference between faith and belief is genetic.

I never said it is all genetics, but it contributes. Welcome to science. 

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do individuals have different physical challenges and addictions and personality styles? Of course. No news there.

but it is harder for some because of their genes. 

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I tend to think of "faith" in terms of "faithfulness" because expressing faith is often behavioral. Behaviors can be changed...modified...controlled. Belief is more internal. Like I said earlier, it would be impossible for me to believe in a flat earth or in Santa Clause with his flying reindeer. To me those things are verifiably false so I am unable to believe in them and I have no desire to believe in them.

I still don't see the difference between faith and belief. Faith is not "faithfulness" but that is fine. I think I understand what you are trying to say. 

You don't believe in Santa Claus? don't you feel the spirit of Christmas when you sing Christmas hymns?  

Quote

To me those things are verifiably false

you can't disprove Santa Claus. The existence of Santa Clause is not a scientific question. 

In Science you learn how the Universe works. 

Santa Claus is the meaning (the why) of Christmas. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[rongo]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know how these leaks could be verified but the church could make statements about them if they chose.

I think the leakers are banking on the Church talking as little about them as possible.  

Regarding the coordination of the release and the podcast, I don't see your point. In the podcast they acknowledged that they recorded and timed the release of the podcast with the release of the leak. The founder of MormonLeaks was part of the panel so he gave them access to the material prior to general release so they could discuss.

My point wasn't very good. Obviously, it was all coordinated between the various anti-Mormon groups on the panel.  But Ryan McKnight's claims of impartiality, "just trying to help the cause of transparency along," release and let people draw their own conclusions, etc. kind of go out the window now at this point, don't they? Putting all of this together within an hour shows what has been obvious all along, but McKnight was trying to spin otherwise: the intent of the leaks is to embarrass and hurt the Church (well, duh?). 

[Duncan]

I,like others, find it truly gobsmacking that Robert Norman is mentioned. I can't find anything out of the norm on him online, except his weird blog stuff that ended in 2014 and his wife passed away and mentioned she is living with a daughter and he takes care of her until her passing, but nothing peculiar. He is giving an interview in Jan. 2015 for a CN article 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620150/Missionary-preparation-begins-earlier-than-ever.html

I take it something happened in 2015 for him to go off the rails so much so the brethren took notice of him 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Let me give you an example and why I somewhat bristle at this particular subject.  For many years, I've taken my wife and family out to dinner on Mothers Day at the Grand American.  In past years we've seen General Authorities, Blue blood Mormon's and the like...its a nice way for her to have a day off and celebrate Motherhood.  My wife remains a believer, is very active , Is Stake Relief Society President, you get the jist. saw no harm in this once a year celebration of her motherhood.  Well last year I suggest that I best get reservations early for Mothers Day at the Grand American...my wife proceeds to tell me that she doesn't want to go any more...when I ask why, she tells me of the new and improved directive from on high to keep the Sabbath day holy...I remind my wife how we see the Mormon blue bloods and GA's at the dinner so its ok and it doesn't seem to bother them...but she's dug in her heals and logic no longer matters because of the new emphasis. The church came out with a new behavior modification to beat my wife up over with, she complies, but we all pay the price of it. I find it ridiculous. So now despite years of guiltless Mother's days eating out on that one Sunday a year...all of a sudden its forbidden and a sin...all because of the new emphasis by the church.

I'm sorry this has caused an issue between you and your wife.  I really am.  I'm sure it's tough.  But, aren't you worried that you are selling your wife short by implying that she's being controlled by the church rather than that she believes the Holy Ghost has told her that she needs to do better so she's trying to do so?

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

My point wasn't very good. Obviously, it was all coordinated between the various anti-Mormon groups on the panel.  But Ryan McKnight's claims of impartiality, "just trying to help the cause of transparency along," release and let people draw their own conclusions, etc. kind of go out the window now at this point, don't they? Putting all of this together within an hour shows what has been obvious all along, but McKnight was trying to spin otherwise: the intent of the leaks is to embarrass and hurt the Church (well, duh?). 

Why does McKnight's claim about helping transparency "go out the window"?  I don't see your evidence for that.

The MS podcast panel was not comprised of "various anti-Mormon groups".  Here are the panelists:

• John Dehlin:  excommunicated but still working with many members as a counselor
• Dr. Gina Colvin:  LDS, runs "A Thoughtful Faith" podcast
• Lindsey Hansen Park: Assistant Director of Sunstone
• Pastor John Hamer:  Toronto Community of Christ
• Ryan McKnight:  Founder of MormonLeaks

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I,like others, find it truly gobsmacking that Robert Norman is mentioned. I can't find anything out of the norm on him online, except his weird blog stuff that ended in 2014 and his wife passed away and mentioned she is living with a daughter and he takes care of her until her passing, but nothing peculiar. He is giving an interview in Jan. 2015 for a CN article 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620150/Missionary-preparation-begins-earlier-than-ever.html

I take it something happened in 2015 for him to go off the rails so much so the brethren took notice of him 

Does he even have any followers or is he trying to start his own church, do you know?

No one seems to know who he is (other than you . And you didn't know he'd resigned).

Why would they name him and not some others? That's the question no one seems to know the answer to (other than the 12).  They must have had their reasons.

He's still on this website too:

https://rsc.byu.edu/authors/norman-robert-j

I wonder how HE feels about being named.  I'll bet he's shocked too!!  Maybe he'll speak out or give a statement.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[Buckeye]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do you believe they aren't accountable for their disbelief in God then since they are incapable of believing in Him thru no fault of their own?

 

I believe they are accountable, just not to me. Everyone's personal testimony is their own. They may be lying. They may be deceived or misguided. They may be 100% truthful. But unless there is some concrete evidence to look out - and there's not with subjective pronouncements of belief in deity - then I take people at their word. If God told them the LDS church is true, I believe them. If God told them the local Baptist church is true, I believe them. If they say they are incapable of a belief in God, I believe them. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Buckeye

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think we would all agree that Dehlin continues to have influence against the Church, even post-excommunication.

I agree with you that both inclusions and omissions are interesting. Are we even certain that this leak is genuine? The coordination and timing of the release with MormonStories and the panel seem pretty --- tightly coordinated. 

What if MormonLeaks started "leaking" fake stuff, now that they have made a splash with prior offerings? How could that even be proven? The Church isn't going to comment much on the leaks, either way?

I predict they mention some things at General Conference coming up.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Also, Rongo, I think you miss the mark in suggesting that the right side of this diagram represents the "stronger members".  John McLay was a member of my stake high council, he was a lifelong CES instructor and, at the time of his resignation, he was our local institute director.  He was as strong a member as they come until he came across some of the troubling issues in church history and resigned.

1) I remember my first (and only) John Dehlin podcast watch was the McLay interview. It was mostly the camera pointed at Dehlin, with him talking at me. 

2) Of course there are strong, active members who resign over troubling issues. McLay appears to be one of them --- although, was he more conservative, or more liberal? I have no idea. It was sad that they got divorced after --- his wife had resigned with him. My experience is that liberal members struggle much more with Church policy and culture --- and this leads to there being a disproportionate amount of struggles with historical issues as well. Conservative members, as others have agreed, tend to be very committed to the Restoration, and when they leave, it is generally because they feel that the drift away from the Restoration is too much. For many liberal members, the Restoration and appendages to it are kind of embarrassing, and they tend to lean toward non-literal scriptures and things like that (much more so than conservative members, who tend to lean towards literal scriptures). 

If you look just on this board here (small sample size, but I'll bet it bears me out), the LDS members who are most often critical of Church doctrine and policy, like you, Gray, stemelbow, HappyJackWagon, etc. . . . . . .  are they politically liberal, or politically conservative?

Assuming that the slide is genuine, I think there is a good reason for the "left/right" portion: left/right is generally a good indicator for whether people might struggle with the Church, and where these struggles might be.

3) In my experience, liberal members tend to be much less active from an attendance and calling standpoint than conservative members. 

[Duncan]

Just now, JulieM said:

Does he even have any followers or is he trying to start his own church, do you know?

No one seems to know who he is (other than you . And you didn't know he'd resigned).

Why would they name him and not some others? That's the question no one seems to know the answer to (other than the 12).  They must have had their reasons.

I remember watching him on BYU Education weeks and that sort of thing and with all  this I am dumbstruck, I hadn't heard a peep about him in the last few years other than his blog, which was strange stuff but his isn't alone in that regard! I don't know what his latest activities are or if he is trying to start anything, I can't find anything out of sorts online, but as others said maybe the brethren knew him and felt he was a threat or a reminder of who can fall away from the Gospel? 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

1-I never said it is all genetics, but it contributes. Welcome to science. 

but it is harder for some because of their genes. 

2- I still don't see the difference between faith and belief. Faith is not "faithfulness" but that is fine. I think I understand what you are trying to say. 

3- You don't believe in Santa Claus? don't you feel the spirit of Christmas when you sing Christmas hymns?  

4- you can't disprove Santa Claus. The existence of Santa Clause is not a scientific question. 

5- In Science you learn how the Universe works. 

6- Santa Claus is the meaning (the why) of Christmas. 

1- I'm curious about your scientific background. You seem to be holding yourself up as some kind of scientific expert.

2- If you can't see it, I can't help you.

3- I do feel the spirit of Christmas, yet it would be foolish to extrapolate from that that Santa is real and delivers presents to the world's children every Christmas eve on a flying sleigh.

4- I never said anything about proof. I can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist somewhere in the universe yet I can't believe that either.

5- Again, what are your scientific credentials?

6- Um...no  

 

 

(Are you VideoGameJunkie)?

[Buckeye]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Or it is possible that even though the rates are dropping outside the Church in the US (hopefully the world as well), it has been normalized for so long now it is increasing within the Church population. (Just speculating, it could very well be as you say)

Sure, that's possible. To my knowledge, no one is tracking LDS abortion statistics. So I don't see how you, me (or church leaders) could come to this conclusion - other than just anecdotally. But I guess it's possible.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I predict they mention some things at General Conference coming up.

I predict that they don't. Not beyond very general "stay in the boat" or very general dealing with doubt items. 

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I remember watching him on BYU Education weeks and that sort of thing and with all  this I am dumbstruck, I hadn't heard a peep about him in the last few years other than his blog, which was strange stuff but his isn't alone in that regard! I don't know what his latest activities are or if he is trying to start anything, I can't find anything out of sorts online, but as others said maybe the brethren knew him and felt he was a threat or a reminder of who can fall away from the Gospel? 

Maybe he'll post something about this on his blog.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the leakers are banking on the Church talking as little about them as possible.  

 

 

My point wasn't very good. Obviously, it was all coordinated between the various anti-Mormon groups on the panel.  But Ryan McKnight's claims of impartiality, "just trying to help the cause of transparency along," release and let people draw their own conclusions, etc. kind of go out the window now at this point, don't they? Putting all of this together within an hour shows what has been obvious all along, but McKnight was trying to spin otherwise: the intent of the leaks is to embarrass and hurt the Church (well, duh?). 

I really don't think so. I think the leakers would be thrilled to open up a discussion in which the church participated. The only reason leaks are necessary at all is because the church is so secretive about everything they do.

The label of "anti-Mormon" does nothing more than attempt to poison the well.

I don't think McKNight is impartial but I do think he is primarily interested in providing sunshine to church operations. One of the leaks was about a policy on illegal immigrants and how church leaders should treat them with regard to financial assistance. It showed the church in a very positive light and all panelists acknowledged is was positive for the church. Why would he release that? To embarrass the church? No. To start discussions.

I'm not sure why the church would have so many embarrassing secrets. If they do, they should be known by the members who support the church.

 

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Some of the points you make here emphasize the problems I have with this slide.

Setting aside the left/right, liberal/conservative designations that don't entirely fit and will lead to false conclusions...

"John Dehlin" is not an idea or issue that leads people away from the gospel or church.  John isn't setting himself up as a prophet (like Snuffer).  John has simply provided a forum for issues and ideas to be discussed and has promoted those issues and ideas... it is those issue and ideas that have led people out.  As John put it in his podcast on this leak:  He isn't the one who falsely claimed he could translate an ancient papyrus from Abraham.  If the Brethren can't replace some of the people and organizations in the circles on this diagram with the ACTUAL REASONS people leave, than I have very little hope of the problem ever being adequately addressed.

Also, Rongo, I think you miss the mark in suggesting that the right side of this diagram represents the "stronger members".  John McLay was a member of my stake high council, he was a lifelong CES instructor and, at the time of his resignation, he was our local institute director.  He was as strong a member as they come until he came across some of the troubling issues in church history and resigned.

 

I remember early in my faith crisis listening to the MS's podcast with John McLay and his wife, Brook I think. I was so disheartened to see that their marriage ended after that. I think the church may be blamed for some of this happening to marriages in people's lives. I wonder if they will face the music at judgement day for withholding information about the church in their curriculum or elsewhere. I wonder if the McLays would still be married if they weren't in the church or the church's initial narrative was true. I know I'll get some flak for blaming the church, but I can't tell you how many stories I see where the members' marriages are broken over faith crises. Of course the McLays were both on the same page, so that skews it a bit. But still very sad it came to that.

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

John isn't setting himself up as a prophet (like Snuffer).  John has simply provided a forum for issues and ideas to be discussed and has promoted those issues and ideas... 

I'm sure the alt-right forums say the same sorts of thing. However in practice media matters a great deal. Thus why some get upset at Breitbart and the like even though they might not be the ones vandalizing graves.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm sure the alt-right forums say the same sorts of thing. However in practice media matters a great deal. Thus why some get upset at Breitbart and the like even though they might not be the ones vandalizing graves.

No. You really can't claim some kind of parity between Snuffer and Dehlin.

Dehlin goes out of his way to say he is not some kind of replacement leader where as Snuffer is receiving "revelation" for his followers and rebaptizing etc. HUGE difference.