The 17 Threats To The True Church

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

What I'm saying is that I don't judge their capability. If they truly are incapable, then God (as I understand him) would not hold them accountable. 

I apologize, but I thought you were suggesting that someone could insincerely say that they are incapable, even though they could choose belief, and that we should therefore make a judgment as to whether they really are incapable.

No, i was speaking in literal terms.  People may claim they are incapable of something, but that doesn't mean that that's literally true.  

We don't need to judge who is capable or who isn't, but from an LDS point of view, it makes sense to assume that God has made most of us capable of choosing truth.  Given that, it makes sense that an LDS person may say 'unwilling' instead of incapable.  

I would not expect an atheist to be forced to use 'unwilling' just because that reflects my belief system, but neither do i think that an LDS person should be forced to use 'incapable' just because that reflects an atheist's world view.

I think both points of view are valid, depending on who is use the word. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

There is probably regional variation on this. In ultra-conservative areas, this is the case --- in spades. In areas with more ideological diversity, I'm sure there are more active liberal members. You correctly draw attention to the fact that I have always lived in ultra-conservative areas as an adult, and this colors my perception.

Well, those I named are very upset over the Church's doctrine and policy on LGBT issues, for instance. I think all of them would also strongly support women ordination. I personally don't know any self-described conservative LDS who feel that way about either issue.

You seem to think that conservatives and liberals are monolithic. Being conservative doesn't mean I accept every  conservative plank of the current party system. Liberal and conservative are spectrums where people are conservative in some issues and liberal in others.

Look at libertarians for example. In some ways they are ultra conservative but in others very liberal. FYI- there are plenty of conservatives who also believe in marriage equality. Female ordination isn't any kind of political statement so I don't know how that applies.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Many of those people you are claiming to be anti-Mormon desperately want the church to live up to the ideals that it proclaims.  Listen to the podcast.

 

This is a sincere question that i've always wondered-If the person isn't a member of the church, why do they care if the church lives up the ideals that it proclaims?  

I mean, i spend about zero minutes a day making sure other religions live up to the ideals they claim to support.  My husband left the Lutheran church and he spends no time checking in to see what the Lutherans are up to, even though he still has family and friends in that church.

Why are some people, who are no longer affiliated with the church, desperate for the church to do anything?

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not really. Personally harboring these thoughts would not make one an "anti-Mormon." Publicly trying to convince others to disbelieve in truth claims or the legitimacy of the prophets would be. I think it has to do with behavior, although one could be "anti-Mormon" in one's sentiments, but nobody would know that if they weren't being vocal about it.

Those on the panel aren't publicly trying to convince others to disbelieve in the truth claims/legitimacy of the prophets.  So I guess they aren't anti-Mormon.

 

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, those I named are very upset over the Church's doctrine and policy on LGBT issues, for instance. I think all of them would also strongly support women ordination. I personally don't know any self-described conservative LDS who feel that way about either issue.

My disagreement with the Church's doctrine and policy on LGBT issues and women's ordination is based on my understanding of the gospel, NOT on political ideology.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is a sincere question that i've always wondered-If the person isn't a member of the church, why do they care if the church lives up the ideals that it proclaims?  

I mean, i spend about zero minutes a day making sure other religions live up to the ideals they claim to support.  My husband left the Lutheran church and he spends no time checking in to see what the Lutherans are up to, even though he still has family and friends in that church.

Why are some people, who are no longer affiliated with the church, desperate for the church to do anything?

Gina Colvin and Lindsay Hansen Park are members of the Church.  That's who I had in mind with respect to that statement.

Dehlin wanted to remain a member of the Church.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is a sincere question that i've always wondered-If the person isn't a member of the church, why do they care if the church lives up the ideals that it proclaims?  

I mean, i spend about zero minutes a day making sure other religions live up to the ideals they claim to support.  My husband left the Lutheran church and he spends no time checking in to see what the Lutherans are up to, even though he still has family and friends in that church.

Why are some people, who are no longer affiliated with the church, desperate for the church to do anything?

Simple. Because family, friends and other people they love are still impacted by the church. An individual may decide it's best for them to step away but still worry about how their loved ones may be impacted negatively.

When your husband left the Lutheran church was he treated like an apostate? Did his former church mates and/or family tell him he was going to hell or significantly alter the way they interact with him? I know that happens in all religions at times, but I think it can have a lasting impact on a person. I think it can also depend on the level of activity and devotion prior to changing religions. If someone has devoted their entire life to a church it would be pretty hard to walk away without any looking back.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is a sincere question that i've always wondered-If the person isn't a member of the church, why do they care if the church lives up the ideals that it proclaims?  

I mean, i spend about zero minutes a day making sure other religions live up to the ideals they claim to support.  My husband left the Lutheran church and he spends no time checking in to see what the Lutherans are up to, even though he still has family and friends in that church.

Why are some people, who are no longer affiliated with the church, desperate for the church to do anything?

Mainly because family is involved.  Kudos to your husband..but the LDS has a different hold on the ideals of family  We are judged by the family..disowned sometimes..and we care about them!  I want to know if my gay stepson is affected...or how he is treated.  I want to know if there are certain changes in the church that would ease some of conflict that is in my families minds..and heart.  It will affect every day of my life..because my kids are shunned by their father's family...because of me!

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Simple. Because family, friends and other people they love are still impacted by the church. An individual may decide it's best for them to step away but still worry about how their loved ones may be impacted negatively.

When your husband left the Lutheran church was he treated like an apostate? Did his former church mates and/or family tell him he was going to hell or significantly alter the way they interact with him? I know that happens in all religions at times, but I think it can have a lasting impact on a person. I think it can also depend on the level of activity and devotion prior to changing religions. If someone has devoted their entire life to a church it would be pretty hard to walk away without any looking back.

I think some did, but he's not one to be bothered by what people think of him though.  He's a nonconformist at heart.  But he was very devoted to his church before he left and he left because he felt they were going down the wrong path and not behaving like they should.

I get what you are saying though.  

It just seems weird to me for a nonmember or ex-member to spend so much emotional and mental energy on a church that they are neither for nor against.  In my experience, people don't really do that.  They don't really spend a lot of emotional energy on things they are neutral about.

 

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is a sincere question that i've always wondered-If the person isn't a member of the church, why do they care if the church lives up the ideals that it proclaims?  

I mean, i spend about zero minutes a day making sure other religions live up to the ideals they claim to support.  My husband left the Lutheran church and he spends no time checking in to see what the Lutherans are up to, even though he still has family and friends in that church.

Why are some people, who are no longer affiliated with the church, desperate for the church to do anything?

I'll add this to my answer:

In the podcast on this topic (from yesterday), Lindsay Hansen Park commented (paraphrasing) that just the other day she sat across the dinner table from a Mormon father and his daughter who showed Lindsay her inner thigh where she had carved the word "wrong". She said that she comes across people like this everyday.  Dehlin commented that his experience is similar.

But, take that with a grain of salt because, according to Rongo, Lindsay is an anti-Mormon.

Once I realized/accepted what an emotional minefield our church can be for many members, it changed my perspective in many ways.  Tonight is our ward's mutual night.  I'll be there serving in my calling and my son will come to be with his quorum.  He'll come with the highest of hopes for a good experience.  But if it turns out like most weeks, we will end the night trying to leave the building quickly while he holds back his tears until he gets into my car.  I'm already dreading that part of the night.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think some did, but he's not one to be bothered by what people think of him though.  He's a nonconformist at heart.  But he was very devoted to his church before he left and he left because he felt they were going down the wrong path and not behaving like they should.

I get what you are saying though.  

It just seems weird to me for a nonmember or ex-member to spend so much emotional and mental energy on a church that they are neither for nor against.  In my experience, people don't really do that.  They don't really spend a lot of emotional energy on things they are neutral about.

 

Well.....you are speaking as someone that hasn't lost their testimony. Coming from that vantage point it is huge. I wish I could explain it better. I've lived the talk here. Everyday I'm consumed with the church. I want others to know what I know. I don't want to be a freak that can't feel like I belong anymore.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'll add this to my answer:

In the podcast on this topic (from yesterday), Lindsay Hansen Park commented (paraphrasing) that just the other day she sat across the dinner table from a Mormon father and his daughter who showed Lindsay her inner thigh where she had carved the word "wrong". She said that she comes across people like this everyday.  Dehlin commented that his experience is similar.

But, take that with a grain of salt because, according to Rongo, Lindsay is an anti-Mormon.

Once I realized/accepted what an emotional minefield our church can be for many members, it changed my perspective in many ways.  Tonight is our ward's mutual night.  I'll be there serving in my calling and my son will come to be with his quorum.  He'll come with the highest of hopes for a good experience.  But if it turns out like most weeks, we will end the night trying to leave the building quickly while he holds back his tears until he gets into my car.  I'm already dreading that part of the night.

Are you saying that Dehlin and Park believe it's the church's fault if someone cuts themselves?  Self Harm is classified as a mental disorder and i don't think it happens more in LDS populations than other populations.  

I truly hope that tonight goes well for you and your son.  I think that as disciples of Christ we always can be doing better to be motivated by love and sincere concern, even while we try to do what we believe God asks of us.  And i think we need to step up our desires to actually do better instead of just giving it lip service!

I don't think that our weaknesses in that area are caused by the church though.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well.....you are speaking as someone that hasn't lost their testimony. Coming from that vantage point it is huge. I wish I could explain it better. I've lived the talk here. Everyday I'm consumed with the church. I want others to know what I know. I don't want to be a freak that can't feel like I belong anymore.

You want others to know the church isn't true?  (I'm just asking for clarification to see if i'm understanding you right).

And in case i'm not being clear, i'm not saying that it's weird that people would be 'consumed' with the church, only weird that they would be consumed if they are neutral towards it.

If someone is against the church (or for it, or even incredibly conflicted in both directions) then i would expect them to be somewhat consumed by it.

Edited March 1, 2017 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

You want others to know the church isn't true?  (I'm just asking for clarification to see if i'm understanding you right).

No, just know what I know and figure out a way for everyone to live with that knowledge and make the church even better. Maybe some ex members will come back also. But I know this is a dream and the church won't become a Community of Christ church.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

It just seems weird to me for a nonmember or ex-member to spend so much emotional and mental energy on a church that they are neither for nor against.  In my experience, people don't really do that.  They don't really spend a lot of emotional energy on things they are neutral about.

 

I'm not sure all non LDS nor Ex-LDS consider themselves neither for nor against the Church, but I'm not for or against some things that I care about.  I've been heavily into sports my whole life and I can still sit and watch a game without caring who wins, for instance.  I think largely people, even ex-LDS, want to see a beautiful functioning world.  And particularly if they have family in the Church they want to see it work and change if need be, for the sake of those whom they love.  I don't think this has much to do with caring what others think of them, so much as caring about other people. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

No, i was speaking in literal terms.  People may claim they are incapable of something, but that doesn't mean that that's literally true.  

We don't need to judge who is capable or who isn't, but from an LDS point of view, it makes sense to assume that God has made most of us capable of choosing truth.  Given that, it makes sense that an LDS person may say 'unwilling' instead of incapable.  

I would not expect an atheist to be forced to use 'unwilling' just because that reflects my belief system, but neither do i think that an LDS person should be forced to use 'incapable' just because that reflects an atheist's world view.

I think both points of view are valid, depending on who is use the word. 

True but if you use the word 'unwilling' to describe them, they will likely react similarly as you did to Johnnie's use of the word 'manipulate'.

 

 

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that Dehlin and Park believe it's the church's fault if someone cuts themselves? 

No.  That wasn't their point.

I think many here who are critical of them never actually LISTEN to what they say and how they say it.

[HappyJackWagon]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that Dehlin and Park believe it's the church's fault if someone cuts themselves?  Self Harm is classified as a mental disorder and i don't think it happens more in LDS populations than other populations.  

I truly hope that tonight goes well for you and your son.  I think that as disciples of Christ we always can be doing better to be motivated by love and sincere concern, even while we try to do what we believe God asks of us.  And i think we need to step up our desires to actually do better instead of just giving it lip service!

I don't think that our weaknesses in that area are caused by the church though.

I don't think this is what he was suggesting. When I listened to the podcast I understood that she shared the story to explain how deeply enmeshed they still are on a daily basis because people come to them with their problems. Often times they are ministering to people who don't seem to receive ministry from other sources, including the church (I'm sure there are many reasons for that). I think there is a very large group of disenfranchised members who don't feel like they have anywhere to turn. They look at their priesthood leaders who can't fathom why anyone would have doctrinal/historical problems, or who may express themselves as saying it's "not a big deal" when only 50 members resign. They feel lost and so they reach out to others.

Rongo had stated earlier that clearly Dehlin was trying to hurt the church because he counsels people and it's not with the church's best interests in mind. I would agree that the church's interests are unlikely to be Dehlin's top priority, but then again, when counseling it shouldn't be. The focus should be on the individual's needs, not any kind of agenda of the therapist, either for or against the church.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

True but if you use the word 'unwilling' to describe them, they will likely react similarly as you did to Johnnie's use of the word 'manipulate'.

 

 

I get that, but i think that depends a lot on personality so I'm not sure how we could logically say one way is better than the other.

When we are talking about people, manipulate has a negative connotation in pretty much all uses (it's definition is to control or influence cleverly, unfairly or unscrupulously), but unwilling doesn't.  It's a pretty neutral word, on it's own. 

As i said earlier, i am unwilling to believe the earth is flat, for example.  If someone says that i am incapable of believing the world is flat, it sounds like i'm part of the Borg or something with no free will.  I would much rather someone said i was unwilling to believe something than for someone to say i was incapable.  The second sounds more like an insult to me than the first.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think this is what he was suggesting. When I listened to the podcast I understood that she shared the story to explain how deeply enmeshed they still are on a daily basis because people come to them with their problems. Often times they are ministering to people who don't seem to receive ministry from other sources, including the church (I'm sure there are many reasons for that). I think there is a very large group of disenfranchised members who don't feel like they have anywhere to turn. They look at their priesthood leaders who can't fathom why anyone would have doctrinal/historical problems, or who may express themselves as saying it's "not a big deal" when only 50 members resign. They feel lost and so they reach out to others.

Rongo had stated earlier that clearly Dehlin was trying to hurt the church because he counsels people and it's not with the church's best interests in mind. I would agree that the church's interests are unlikely to be Dehlin's top priority, but then again, when counseling it shouldn't be. The focus should be on the individual's needs, not any kind of agenda of the therapist, either for or against the church.

It's true... the church's interests are not Dehlin's top priority.  I think in this podcast he mentioned that saving marriages was.  Those who have followed him closely probably believe him when he says that.  I do.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Yes! And so much more!!!

It's the non-acceptance of the 'so much more' part that makes people Catholic, Baptist, Adventist, Evangelical, Russian Orthodox, Witnesses, etc. instead of LDS.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

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".

 

Maybe he is into the polygamy interest groups.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Calm

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

 

For the record my wife would find most of the posters here both believers and non,  heathens.  As to your concern...I'm pretty sure that if the church had stuck to it's own business and not come out suggesting members double down on the Sabbath...I would still get my one day a year out on a Sunday with wife and family Holy Ghost not withstanding

Edited March 1, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes! And so much more!!!

It's the non-acceptance of the 'so much more' part that makes people Catholic, Baptist, Adventist, Evangelical, Russian Orthodox, Witnesses, etc. instead of LDS.

The "so much more" part isn't really the gospel, though, is it? Are you talking about the plan of salvation? The restoration? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

The "so much more" part isn't really the gospel, though, is it? Are you talking about the plan of salvation? The restoration? 

All of the above. If you've spent much time hanging out with Latter-day Saints, you may even have heard the term 'Restored Gospel'. We aren't really into limiting how much 'good news' God gets to send us.

[CV75]

Since individuals’ names are coming up, I think it well to consider the title of the slide, “Issues and Ideas Leading People Away from the Gospel.” John, Denver and Robert – there’s wordplay in there somewhere about John Denver and Bob Denver – represent evidently widespread ideas and issues that have been identified, if adopted, as leading people away from the Gospel. It is interesting that “Ordain Women” wasn’t represented by Kate Kelly, unless it refers to the organization, which it probably does. So I think it good to look at the anti-Gospel implications of the issues and ideas rather than the virtuous or vile intentions of the individuals.

I made a remark earlier about the connection between language and culture. The slide shows it as a red bubble all its own, of slightly above-average size,I presume indicating overall significance or concern. Some of these bubbles are more interconnected than others, but language and culture would be a common thread for the promulgation of each. I can see where those issues and ideas that co-opt language and culture would be seen as particularly destructive to a person's understanding of and faith in the Gospel. In that regard, think hyper- and hypo- labeling affect one's internal distinction between good and evil.

...and Bob Dehlin...

Edited March 2, 2017 by CV75