The 17 Threats To The True Church

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

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.   

Yes, and this is true across the board in all organizations (religious & secular).  Several very successful megachurches have been built on such principles.  and it doesn't hurt to have leaders (preachers) with charisma and star-power. However, such a movement can also lead to disaster, as with the Peoples' Temple led by Jim Jones.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Stipend

The US government screwed up that then as well as we were given a stipend while teaching on a Fulbright grant in Moscow.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that's precisely why the graphic heading reads, 'Issues and ideas leading people away from the gospel' and not 'Issues and ideas leading people away from the Church'.

Possibly.  But still not an accurate descriptor.  One can lose faith in the LDS Church's truth claims and still be as strong as ever in the gospel. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

One can lose faith in the LDS Church's truth claims and still be as strong as ever in the gospel. 

Certainly, if one defines 'gospel' in a way not immediately recognisable to most Latter-day Saints.

I'm guessing that it's similar to being able to assert in multiple interviews that one recognises Thomas S. Monson as the only person on the earth authorised to exercise all priesthood keys whilst elsewhere declaring that one has lost all belief in the authority of the Brethren?

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

Stipend

The actual IRS appears to apply a much broader definition in case you're genuinely interested: 'Are you a volunteer? If so, you should be aware that income or reimbursements you receive for volunteering — such as stipends, education awards, bonuses and allowances — may be considered taxable income'.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Certainly, if one defines 'gospel' in a way not immediately recognisable to most Latter-day Saints.

I'm guessing that it's similar to being able to assert in multiple interviews that one recognises Thomas S. Monson as the only person on the earth authorised to exercise all priesthood keys whilst elsewhere declaring that one has lost all belief in the authority of the Brethren?

Maybe, but that's a problem with how Latter-day Saints recognize the gospel. They think the restoration is the gospel. It's not. The gospel of Jesus Christ is about Jesus condescending to be born, live, die, resurrect to save us. That is the gospel. Everything else is merely an appendage.

[Five Solas]

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

I find it interesting "the brethren" view all this through the lens/spectrum of political ideology.  As though it's helpful to think of John Dehlin as a Bernie Sanders supporter or that Denver Snuffer voted for President Trump.  And what does this teach us about so-called "moderates," those in the middle?  Well, they're really into porn (big circle) and/or are numbered among the "ites" whatever exactly that means.  Pornites, perhaps.  Maybe what this really tells us is the brethren have a rich sense of humor, deep down inside...

As to why "Letter to a CES Director" didn't make the cut, but various names and behaviors do--I suspect this also reveals something of their worldview.  They don't see a clash of ideas, they see a clash of personalities.  That, and bad behavior.

--Erik

[rongo]

*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.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe, but that's a problem with how Latter-day Saints recognize the gospel. They think the restoration is the gospel. It's not. The gospel of Jesus Christ is about Jesus condescending to be born, live, die, resurrect to save us. That is the gospel. Everything else is merely an appendage.

If by the traditionally defined "gospel" I would agree that is the "good news".
But the so-called "appendages" explain our part in the applying the "good news" as God intended.
 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Certainly, if one defines 'gospel' in a way not immediately recognisable to most Latter-day Saints.

I'm guessing that it's similar to being able to assert in multiple interviews that one recognises Thomas S. Monson as the only person on the earth authorised to exercise all priesthood keys whilst elsewhere declaring that one has lost all belief in the authority of the Brethren?

The gospel is studied, believed, and followed by many who are not LDS.  

Believing that Pres. Monson is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys isn't the same as believing that those keys are being exercised. 

[Duncan]

Just now, 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.

2 Timothy 4:3

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

if you're bored at Church hey this or that person will tell you some secret stuff or intriguing information or whatever

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes 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 agree.

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. 

I agree

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.

The ultra conservative/orthodox people who get caught in this net are good people. They often have a broader, more studied understanding of the gospel, past and present and therefore recognize the decline you talk about. They recognize the lack of prophesying or manifestations of spiritual gifts. They yearn for some of the Pentecostal experiences the newly restored church experienced. But these people are not some kind of a small niche. I think they represent a growing portion of membership that believes in the fundamentalist origins of the restoration and doesn't understand why the church has moved away from it. In that way, they're not wrong. The church has shunned many of the more unique and fundamentalist teachings of the church. These Snufferite types want a restoration of the restoration church.

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 disagree. I think these are very ultra orthodox/heterodox members but I don't see anything that suggests they are stronger members than the "liberal end of the spectrum". Both sides are displaying a lack of trust in church leadership. The "right wingers" because they feel modern leaders aren't following the footsteps of the restorationists and the "left wingers" because they lost trust in past leadership that also transfers onto current leadership. It's all about trusting leadership and there is a significant trust deficit in the church.

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.

I agree that it's easy to understand why some members miss the traditional fundamentalism of the restoration. They want to return to Joseph's and Brigham's teachings. But I find your phrase "excessive claims of visits from Christ" to be funny. If it happened, why would any mention be excessive. And does it only seem excessive in comparison to the dearth of claims from church leaders?

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.

So in a very real way the church is responsible for creating the environment in which the "liberals" are less likely to believe in the miraculous truth claims because the church essentially rejects the continuation of miraculous events. The church doesn't support members like Snuffer or Norman who claim miraculous visitations. They get excommunicated because they are seen as a threat to the leadership authority of church leaders. After all, if Jesus was going to appear, it would be to church leaders, not Snuffer, right? At least that's the way they seem to view it. I can totally understand both the right and the left side in their growing distrust of leadership, albeit for different reasons.

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

Lots to review here. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Johnnie Cake]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Elder Oaks wife, sister Oaks, spoke to the sisters in my stake a month ago and (i realize this is hearsay) she spoke about how the push to focus on Sabbath Day observance was due to the apostles fasting and praying in the temple on how to help the members and God revealing to them that lax Sabbath day observance was part of the problem.  

But I have to ask, why chose to use the word 'manipulate'?  I know you have lamented lately how posters won't believe your motives or give you the benefit of the doubt, and the use of emotionally charged and negatively connotative words like manipulate (when other neutral words could easily get your point across) is likely part of the reason some posters think your posts are largely meant to throw the church under the bus.

So I've had time to reflect on my use of the word manipulate...perhaps the phrase or term that I should have used is  "behavior modification".  While it may still stick in the craw of believers and is also less than satisfactory to me than manipulate, it carries the general meaning of what I was attempting to put forth... that members of the 12 have an ulterior motive (not sinister) when they direct the focus of the entire church on a particular subject.  They see a particular problem (from their perspective) and try to illicit change within the church...so they shine a spot light on a particular subject to create "behavior modification" within the body of the church...whether one sees this as a good thing or a bad thing...depends on ones viewpoint...but the end result is a calculated intentional move to change the behavior of church members to align with the behavior that the 12 desire.  We also see this with the emphasis on porn use, lack of commitment or any number of the other bogymen that the church focuses on.  The church needs a club to beat the members over the head with to create the guilt and self loathing necessary to illicit the type of behavior modifications that the 12 are seeking when members of the church fail in being perfect and doing all they can do.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that it's easy to understand why some members miss the traditional fundamentalism of the restoration. They want to return to Joseph's and Brigham's teachings. But I find your phrase "excessive claims of visits from Christ" to be funny. If it happened, why would any mention be excessive. And does it only seem excessive in comparison to the dearth of claims from church leaders?

That was a clumsy phrasing on my part. I firmly believe that rank-and-file members can, and do, have personal visitations from Christ, so I'm not putting that as a claim beyond the pale (i.e., that Snuffer claiming that he has had visits would de facto disqualify his claims). The manner in which he did it, and how things unfolded, are what I was referring to as "excessive." 

So in a very real way the church is responsible for creating the environment in which the "liberals" are less likely to believe in the miraculous truth claims because the church essentially rejects the continuation of miraculous events. The church doesn't support members like Snuffer or Norman who claim miraculous visitations. They get excommunicated because they are seen as a threat to the leadership authority of church leaders. After all, if Jesus was going to appear, it would be to church leaders, not Snuffer, right? At least that's the way they seem to view it. I can totally understand both the right and the left side in their growing distrust of leadership, albeit for different reasons.

Agreed. The reasons are very different.

I can't help but think of the attached slides I made for a community fireside "Can Mormon Prophets Stand up to Scrutiny?" It saddens me that an expectation of spiritual gifts could be waning in the Church through disuse and de-emphasis. My point in the slides, obviously, was that these reside in the Church. I believe that they do for those who look for them and expect them. 

I also think that what Elder Roberts pointed out to President Grant in letters back in the 1920s applies today to many good members: heartache and doubt can result from an appearance of an inability of Church leaders to receive needed revelation or to be able to give sufficient answers. In our day, this may be more of a function of failure to ask, opting instead for a committee, briefing, PowerPoint, focus group, business model approach. 

I just wanted the brethren to know that I was quite disappointed in the results of our conference, but not withstanding I shall be most earnestly alert upon the subject of Book of Mormon difficulties, hoping for the development of new knowledge, and for new light to fall upon what has already been learned, to the vindication of what God has revealed in the Book of Mormon; but I cannot be other than painfully conscious of the fact that our means of defense, should we be vigorously attacked along the lines of [these] questions, are very inadequate.

What shall our answer be then? Shall we boldly acknowledge the difficulties in the case . . . and await the vindication of the revealed truth? …What will the effect be upon our youth of such a confession of inability to give a more reasonable answer to the questions submitted, and the awaiting of proof for final vindication? Will not the hoped for proof deferred indeed make the heart sick? … Again I ask, is silence our best answer? And again the question comes, can we remain silent in our age of free inquiry? …These questions are put by me . . . not for self-embarrassment, surely, nor for the embarrassment of others, but to bring to the consciousness of myself and my brethren that we face grave difficulties in all these matters, and that if there is any way by which we may ‘find wisdom, and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures’—-for I am sure that neither an appeal to the books written by men, nor even to the books of scripture now in our possession, will solve our present difficulties—then a most earnest appeal should be made to that source of wisdom and knowledge, and with a faith and persistence that will admit of no denial.

(Sources listed in my footnotes 9 and 11 in my article here: http://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony   )

BHR_excerpt.pptx

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Certainly, if one defines 'gospel' in a way not immediately recognisable to most Latter-day Saints.

I'm guessing that it's similar to being able to assert in multiple interviews that one recognises Thomas S. Monson as the only person on the earth authorised to exercise all priesthood keys whilst elsewhere declaring that one has lost all belief in the authority of the Brethren?

Latter-day Saints don't recognize that the gospel is the "good news" of Jesus' resurrection? 

[JulieM]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps he is well known among the conservative group.

I don't think so (I've read on different forums about this leak and everyone's asking who Robert Norman is).

He must be known to the leaders though. He did give several firesides with President Faust back in the 1990's titled "Foreordained/Hope For Suffering".

 

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So I've had time to reflect on my use of the word manipulate...perhaps the phrase or term that I should have used is  "behavior modification".  While it may still stick in the craw of believers and is also less than satisfactory to me than manipulate, it carries the general meaning of what I was attempting to put forth... that members of the 12 have an ulterior motive (not sinister) when they direct the focus of the entire church on a particular subject.  They see a particular problem (from their perspective) and try to illicit change within the church...so they shine a spot light on a particular subject to create "behavior modification" within the body of the church...whether one sees this as a good thing or a bad thing...depends on ones viewpoint...but the end result is a calculated intentional move to change the behavior of church members to align with the behavior that the 12 desire.  We also see this with the emphasis on porn use, lack of commitment or any number of the other bogymen that the church focuses on.  The church needs a club to beat the members over the head with to create the guilt and self loathing necessary to illicit the type of behavior modifications that the 12 are seeking when members of the church fail in being perfect and doing all they can do.

I don't have a problem with that term, but I do think that the best way to phrase it would be from the perspective of the men you are attempting to speak for.   You said they had a good motive, and I don't think that motive can be ignored when you are trying to explain their behavior.  

And from their perspective, their motive isn't about getting members to do what they want, it's about getting members to do what they believe God wants.

It would also be better to say something like "I believe the church needs a club...." rather than the bolded above because while you have the right to state your opinion and to judge their motives however you want, you don't have the knowledge or ability to make statements of fact on their behalf.  

[Duncan]

I was thinking about the CES letter aspect and why it isn't listed, Runnells resigned in April of 2016 but maybe by Dec. 2015 the brethren didn't think the letter was that much of a threat , which since maybe it has I don't know but comparable to these other perceived threats it just wasn't on the radar screen. I wonder if this slide was made today it would be included, as a lot has transpired since since Dec. 2015

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

As to why "Letter to a CES Director" didn't make the cut, but various names and behaviors do--I suspect this also reveals something of their worldview.  They don't see a clash of ideas, they see a clash of personalities.  That, and bad behavior.

It's also a bit revealing that 3 men are named (one virtually unknown from what I've read), but no women are named.  Why didn't Kate Kelly or Julie Rowe have a bubble (but Robert Norman did?).

They name these women's causes or organizations.  But not their names?  I wonder why that was done or how it was decided.

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't have a problem with that term, but I do think that the best way to phrase it would be from the perspective of the men you are attempting to speak for.   You said they had a good motive, and I don't think that motive can be ignored when you are trying to explain their behavior.  

And from their perspective, their motive isn't about getting members to do what they want, it's about getting members to do what they believe God wants.

It would also be better to say something like "I believe the church needs a club...." rather than the bolded above because while you have the right to state your opinion and to judge their motives however you want, you don't have the knowledge or ability to make statements of fact on their behalf.  

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.

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It's also a bit revealing that 3 men are named (one virtually unknown from what I've read), but no women are named.  Why didn't Kate Kelly or Julie Rowe have a bubble (but Robert Norman did?).

They name these women's causes or organizations.  But not their names?  I wonder why that was done or how it was decided.

I believe Rowe backed off her comments. Especially after the special conference in Idaho with Oaks. So far as I know she's still an active member. (Correct me if I'm wrong in that)

I think though the main reason they put names rather than movements is because there really isn't a movement name with the named people whereas there is for Ordain Women. i.e. I think it's just a matter of what's more prominent the movement name or individual name. I also suspect they are more worried about Norman as much as they are just because many have history with polygamist apostate groups. The Manti movement was just 20 years ago and several of the older apostles like Monson remember the earlier groups. So while Snuffer might be in practice a bigger threat, I suspect it's hard for them to avoid the nature of people claiming polygamy authority.

 

 

[clarkgoble]

Quote

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.

Well technically not buying stuff on Sunday when you don't have to has always been a teaching. 

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I believe Rowe backed off her comments. Especially after the special conference in Idaho with Oaks. 

This power point was presented in December, 2015 (don't know when it was created), do you know when the conference was held? (I'll look too)

It would be interesting to look up what was going on with Julie Rowe's movement at that time and also with Kate Kelly. 

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It's also a bit revealing that 3 men are named (one virtually unknown from what I've read), but no women are named.  Why didn't Kate Kelly or Julie Rowe have a bubble (but Robert Norman did?).

They name these women's causes or organizations.  But not their names?  I wonder why that was done or how it was decided.

I think it's a matter of "market share." Snuffer has thousands of followers, many of whom have been rebaptized into Snufferism. While Kate Kelly has some influence (had, really. Her excommunication effectively stopped a lot of her influence) with some liberal members, her actual number of people affected pales by comparison. 

Most of Julie Rowe's followers remain LDS, and pretty active. They have some nutty ideas, but are (at this point) not breaking off and forming their own movement (that could change, with the "tent city" people, but as yet, there isn't an actual numerically-significant movement). 

It looks to me like Robert Norman's inclusion was more because he was known and respected by GAs, and his leaving the rails hits home and indicates "Danger, Will Robinson." I interpret his inclusion as more of a function of personal knowledge by some GAs, and not market share or influence. 

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it's a matter of "market share." Snuffer has thousands of followers, many of whom have been rebaptized into Snufferism. While Kate Kelly has some influence (had, really. Her excommunication effectively stopped a lot of her influence) with some liberal members, her actual number of people affected pales by comparison. 

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.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM