The 17 Threats To The True Church

[phaedrus ut]

I'm surprised that something like "doubting the historicity of our religious texts" isn't on the list.  In my years following the subject the BOM and the BOA seem to lead people out of the church as much as anything.  

Phaedrus 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

It has been my experience that when members of the church say someone is unwilling to believe, unwilling always has a negative connotation, and is used synonymously with hard-hearted...

Glad to hear your experience is different. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It has been my experience that when members of the church say someone is unwilling to believe, unwilling always has a negative connotation, and is used synonymously with hard-hearted...

Glad to hear your experience is different. 

Do you believe that if those same people said incapable instead of unwilling that they would no longer mean "hard hearted"?

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I'm surprised that something like "doubting the historicity of our religious texts" isn't on the list.  In my years following the subject the BOM and the BOA seem to lead people out of the church as much as anything.  

Phaedrus 

The absence of historicity concerns is consistent with the overall theme of the slide.  The "issues and ideas" don't really look inward at what the church can do better.  It's more an exercise in finger pointing.  People are leaving and it's the fault of...

...John Dehlin  ...Ordain Women ...False Prophets ...people disagreeing with out policies  ...people needing something more  ...not committed  ...not righteous.

And it classifies people as being far left or far right.

I really wish we knew what the discussion was when (if) this was put in front of the apostles.  Did they reject it as the ridiculous document that it is?  Did they acknowledge that there are some internal problems to address?  Did they discuss some way that the quorum can go out and minister to the members by actually working on the issues?  Or did they consider who to excommunicate next?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you believe that if those same people said incapable instead of unwilling that they would no longer mean "hard hearted"?

I personally would steer clear of both and say that they find the Church's truth claims to be unconvincing.

[Calm]

"And it classifies people as being far left or far right."

It presented a spectrum, not a dichotomy.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

"And it classifies people as being far left or far right."

It presented a spectrum, not a dichotomy.

Yep.  And in that spectrum it names some as "Far Left" and some as "Far Right".  Very politically charged terminology in this country. 

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

The absence of historicity concerns is consistent with the overall theme of the slide.  The "issues and ideas" don't really look inward at what the church can do better.  It's more an exercise in finger pointing.  People are leaving and it's the fault of...

...John Dehlin  ...Ordain Women ...False Prophets ...people disagreeing with out policies  ...people needing something more  ...not committed  ...not righteous.

And it classifies people as being far left or far right.

I really wish we knew what the discussion was when (if) this was put in front of the apostles.  Did they reject it as the ridiculous document that it is?  Did they acknowledge that there are some internal problems to address?  Did they discuss some way that the quorum can go out and minister to the members by actually working on the issues?  Or did they consider who to excommunicate next?

I'd agree the bigger problems with the church are from within.  But to be fair a typical swot analysis of threats is listing outside sources of problems.  If it was a swot analysis of weaknesses then that'd be pretty awesome to see, and we'd likely see all the problems from within that the Church must address.  Curious if the Church does that. 

[HappyJackWagon]

57 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd agree the bigger problems with the church are from within.  But to be fair a typical swot analysis of threats is listing outside sources of problems.  If it was a swot analysis of weaknesses then that'd be pretty awesome to see, and we'd likely see all the problems from within that the Church must address.  Curious if the Church does that. 

Seeing a SWOT analysis from the church would be amazing.

Strengths

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Threats

This one slide represents the "threats" but in a SWOT not all threats are external (or at least don't need to be)

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Seeing a SWOT analysis from the church would be amazing.

Strengths

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Threats

This one slide represents the "threats" but in a SWOT not all threats are external (or at least don't need to be)

Yes thanks.  My memory failed me a bit.  This seems to be an affinity diagram of threats, which is really just part of a SWOT analysis. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” - Joseph Smith.

Now if we're going to add the restoration, priesthood authority, and the preexistence to the gospel, then maybe the Bible bashing anti-Mormons have a point. Maybe we're preaching the "other gospel" that Paul warned about. 

That doesn't negate all those other doctrines, but IMO it's a mistake to call those things "the gospel". The message isn't about the messengers, right? But we've kind of turned the focus inward instead of upward. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Gray

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” - Joseph Smith.

Now if we're going to add the restoration, priesthood authority, and the preexistence to the gospel, then maybe the Bible bashing anti-Mormons have a point. Maybe we're preaching the "other gospel" that Paul warned about. 

That doesn't negate all those other doctrines, but IMO it's a mistake to call those things "the gospel". The message isn't about the messengers, right? But we've kind of turned the focus inward instead of upward. 

JS doesn't define what the gospel is at all in that quote though.  He defines what the fundamental principles of our religion are but says nothing about the gospel.  

The gospel could easily incorporate both the fundamental principles as well as the appendages.  Regardless, I don't see how that quote by JS is relevant to a discussion on how to define 'the gospel'.

The online dictionary defines 'the gospel' as "the teachings and revelations of Christ."  That seems like as good a definition as any.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

JS doesn't define what the gospel is at all in that quote though.  He defines what the fundamental principles of our religion are but says nothing about the gospel.  

He doesn't say the word gospel, but that's what gospel means.

 

Quote

The gospel could easily incorporate both the fundamental principles as well as the appendages.  Regardless, I don't see how that quote by JS is relevant to a discussion on how to define 'the gospel'.

The online dictionary defines 'the gospel' as "the teachings and revelations of Christ."  That seems like as good a definition as any.

The word has everything to do with the traditional belief that God has raised and vindicated Jesus. It was never meant to be a catch all for all doctrines. There's a reason that the four gospels are called gospels, but other books of scripture are not. 

To repeat myself, the message isn't about the messengers, right? Should the focus be inward or upward? I feel as a church we're too often like the secret decoder ring from A Christmas Story. The message becomes, "we're the only true church and we have unique authority", which isn't much of a message. That's a premise that should lead to a more weighty message that isn't inward focused. We tell investigators to come listen to general conference, because we have living prophets. And they come and the message from the prophet is, "follow the prophet." It's like, "Drink more Ovaltine." The gospel in our church seems to focus on the church itself. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Gray

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I feel as a church we're too often like the secret decoder ring from a Christmas story. The message becomes, "we're the only true church and we have unique authority", which isn't much of a message. That's a premise that should lead to a more weighty message that isn't inward focused.

But even then, the fullness of the gospel is only available through the Restoration. I don't think you can actually separate the two. 

Take the Resurrection. I don't know of any Christians who believe that people will have glorified, resurrected (tangible) bodies in the hereafter. For those who believe that we will be resurrected (some do, but they get bogged down on whether just good people will, or all people), they get uncomfortable when pinned down as to *heaven.* It's like a vestige of gnosticism, where spirit = good and body = bad. And does Christ have a physical, resurrected body *now?* I don't know any churches that believe or teach that. That's one of the "Mormons aren't Christian because _______" talking points. The True God of the Bible has to remain bodiless in creedal Christianity.

The Resurrection is a key part of the good news of the gospel. But it can only be properly understood with the Restoration. You can't separate the two; hence our phrase "the restored gospel."

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

He doesn't say the word gospel, but that's what gospel means.

 

The word has everything to do with the traditional belief that God has raised and vindicated Jesus. It was never meant to be a catch all for all doctrines. There's a reason that the four gospels are called gospels, but other books of scripture are not. 

To repeat myself, the message isn't about the messengers, right? Should the focus be inward or upward? I feel as a church we're too often like the secret decoder ring from a Christmas story. The message becomes, "we're the only true church and we have unique authority", which isn't much of a message. That's a premise that should lead to a more weighty message that isn't inward focused. We tell investigators to come listen to general conference, because we have living prophets. And they come and the message from the prophet is, "follow the prophet." It's like, "Drink more Ovaltine." The gospel in our church seems to focus on the church itself. 

I think that the word gospel has more than one meaning and that each can be valid depending on the context.  I think, for example, that it would be valid to say that Christ taught the gospel when teaching the Sermon on the Mount even though He didn't teach about the Atonement.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that the word gospel has more than one meaning and that each can be valid depending on the context.  I think, for example, that it would be valid to say that Christ taught the gospel when teaching the Sermon on the Mount even though He didn't teach about the Atonement.

No, I don't think he was teaching the gospel. The gospel is different from wisdom teachings. I think the Christian gospel probably came about after the resurrection, anyway. 

I recognize that the word often has a colloquial usage in church settings that seems to cover anything and everything, but I think it starts to become meaningless when you try to use it that way. 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

But even then, the fullness of the gospel is only available through the Restoration. I don't think you can actually separate the two. 

Take the Resurrection. I don't know of any Christians who believe that people will have glorified, resurrected (tangible) bodies in the hereafter. For those who believe that we will be resurrected (some do, but they get bogged down on whether just good people will, or all people), they get uncomfortable when pinned down as to *heaven.* It's like a vestige of gnosticism, where spirit = good and body = bad. And does Christ have a physical, resurrected body *now?* I don't know any churches that believe or teach that. That's one of the "Mormons aren't Christian because _______" talking points. The True God of the Bible has to remain bodiless in creedal Christianity.

The Resurrection is a key part of the good news of the gospel. But it can only be properly understood with the Restoration. You can't separate the two; hence our phrase "the restored gospel."

Good points, Rongo. Thanks. 

I'm not sure what Christians believe in general about the status of Jesus' body now. I see differing views on it online.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, I don't think he was teaching the gospel. The gospel is different from wisdom teachings. I think the Christian gospel probably came about after the resurrection, anyway. 

I recognize that the word often has a colloquial usage in church settings that seems to cover anything and everything, but I think it starts to become meaningless when you try to use it that way. 

 

 

So the only parts of the four gospels in the NT that are actually gospel are those parts dealing specifically with the Atonement?  Is that what you are saying?

It's not just the LDS church though where the word gospel has many different usages.  I actually googled how other Christians defined the term gospel and there were many different ideas on the subject, including some which taught that the sermon on the mount is part of the gospel of Christ.  One person went so far as to claim that the sermon on the mount IS the gospel of Christ and not just a part of it.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Good points, Rongo. Thanks. 

I'm not sure what Christians believe in general about the status of Jesus' body now. I see differing views on it online.

I have yet to find one who is comfortable admitting that Jesus has a body *now*. They seem to think that would disqualify him from being God.

I was with a greenie in Quedlinburg (a historic and beautiful town in East Germany; was very crumbling and dilapidated, like most of East Germany not long after the Wall came down).

A Catholic priest and two nuns were walking towards us, and we towards them, on the sidewalk, and I said to him, "Your turn to talk to them" (I was kidding). The priest actually talked to us, and said, "Ah, yes, the Mormon missionaries. Every time I try to talk to them, they get nervous." We (I, mostly) made some pleasantries, and he said, "You know what I just can't believe? That you think God has a physical body." 

I asked him whether Jesus has a body, and he said, "Of course not." When I asked him what Jesus did with the body he had after his Resurrection, he said that Jesus didn't have a body after the Resurrection. I answered that he had the apostles feel his hands and feet to prove that he wasn't a ghost, and he ate fish and honeycomb, and he said that's not in the Bible anywhere. One of the nuns muttered softly, "Yes it is." I took out my Bible, the Einheitsübersetzung, which is what the Catholic Church uses, and showed him in Luke 24. He smiled, and said, "His apostles missed him. And they remembered what it was like when he was with them. And to them, it was like they were feeling his hands and feet. And it was like, in their mind's eye, he was eating food with them." We didn't press the point, and the conversation was over from their perspective, and we both went our separate ways. But I have to admit, that was a new way of explaining away the testimony of the Gospel of Luke. And I don't think this priest was representative of Catholics or non-Mormons in general --- I think he was an outlier in his explanation on the spot when called on it.

I'm fascinated that the corporeality of God is one of the main things that leads creedal Christianity to exclude Mormons from Christianity. To them, God having a body is a damnable heresy, even in spite of what the Bible says about resurrection. That is definitely a crucial doctrine that Joseph Smith and the Restoration have to their credit. 

[cinepro]

One other thought about the "Sabbath."

One of the biggest foundational claims of the Church is that the truth of its claims is self-evident.  If you do the gospel, then the results will show that it is right and "true."  It's Alma 32 and the idea that we need to plant the seed, nourish it, let it grow, and then see what kind of plant we get.

If members of the Church are being otherwise faithful except when it comes to keeping the Sabbath Day holy, and are doing those things that were traditionally shunned for Sundays (recreation, sports, shopping, eating out, going to missionary farewell open houses etc.), then it's possible that there are members of the Church that are finding that the Church's version of the "Sabbath Day" isn't spiritually good for them.  They are just as happy (or happier) doing those things than staying at home and writing in their journals and watching overpriced Living Scriptures DVDs. 

If that is the case, then the problem isn't the "Sabbath."  The problem is that we have Church members who are spiritually dead to the promptings of the spirit telling them not to do these things on Sunday, or the Church's view of proper Sabbath observance isn't spiritually necessary and could be rooted in the Protestant tradition from whence Mormonism sprang.

Either way, the problem isn't simply "Sabbath" observance, but instead the problem is that Church members apparently don't have a problem breaking the Sabbath.  Those are two different things.

Edited March 2, 2017 by cinepro

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have yet to find one who is comfortable admitting that Jesus has a body *now*. They seem to think that would disqualify him from being God.

I was with a greenie in Quedlinburg (a historic and beautiful town in East Germany; was very crumbling and dilapidated, like most of East Germany not long after the Wall came down).

A Catholic priest and two nuns were walking towards us, and we towards them, on the sidewalk, and I said to him, "Your turn to talk to them" (I was kidding). The priest actually talked to us, and said, "Ah, yes, the Mormon missionaries. Every time I try to talk to them, they get nervous." We (I, mostly) made some pleasantries, and he said, "You know what I just can't believe? That you think God has a physical body." 

I asked him whether Jesus has a body, and he said, "Of course not." When I asked him what Jesus did with the body he had after his Resurrection, he said that Jesus didn't have a body after the Resurrection. I answered that he had the apostles feel his hands and feet to prove that he wasn't a ghost, and he ate fish and honeycomb, and he said that's not in the Bible anywhere. One of the nuns muttered softly, "Yes it is." I took out my Bible, the Einheitsübersetzung, which is what the Catholic Church uses, and showed him in Luke 24. He smiled, and said, "His apostles missed him. And they remembered what it was like when he was with them. And to them, it was like they were feeling his hands and feet. And it was like, in their mind's eye, he was eating food with them." We didn't press the point, and the conversation was over from their perspective, and we both went our separate ways. But I have to admit, that was a new way of explaining away the testimony of the Gospel of Luke. And I don't think this priest was representative of Catholics or non-Mormons in general --- I think he was an outlier in his explanation on the spot when called on it.

 

I'm fascinated that the corporeality of God is one of the main things that leads creedal Christianity to exclude Mormons from Christianity. To them, God having a body is a damnable heresy, even in spite of what the Bible says about resurrection. That is definitely a crucial doctrine that Joseph Smith and the Restoration have to their credit. 

Fascinating... I didn't realize they believed/thought that way.  (And a rep point for such a great story + pic!)

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So the only parts of the four gospels in the NT that are actually gospel are those parts dealing specifically with the Atonement?  Is that what you are saying?

It's not just the LDS church though where the word gospel has many different usages.  I actually googled how other Christians defined the term gospel and there were many different ideas on the subject, including some which taught that the sermon on the mount is part of the gospel of Christ.  One person went so far as to claim that the sermon on the mount IS the gospel of Christ and not just a part of it.

Maybe? I don't know, does the gospel encompass everything Jesus did? Maybe? The teachings of Jesus are in the gospels, after all. But, I think the word itself (good news) seems to imply that it's about the resurrection. As in, Jesus suffered humiliation and death, but good news, God has awoken Jesus and vindicated him, placing him at the right hand of God. I think that's what was meant by gospel when early Christians used the word. And of course atonement became a part of that too. To me that's what the gospel is, but that's me. If we believe in a "restored gospel" doesn't that mean there is some importance in what was originally meant by these terms? Otherwise what can "restored" mean?

Edited March 2, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have yet to find one who is comfortable admitting that Jesus has a body *now*. They seem to think that would disqualify him from being God.

I was with a greenie in Quedlinburg (a historic and beautiful town in East Germany; was very crumbling and dilapidated, like most of East Germany not long after the Wall came down).

A Catholic priest and two nuns were walking towards us, and we towards them, on the sidewalk, and I said to him, "Your turn to talk to them" (I was kidding). The priest actually talked to us, and said, "Ah, yes, the Mormon missionaries. Every time I try to talk to them, they get nervous." We (I, mostly) made some pleasantries, and he said, "You know what I just can't believe? That you think God has a physical body." 

I asked him whether Jesus has a body, and he said, "Of course not." When I asked him what Jesus did with the body he had after his Resurrection, he said that Jesus didn't have a body after the Resurrection. I answered that he had the apostles feel his hands and feet to prove that he wasn't a ghost, and he ate fish and honeycomb, and he said that's not in the Bible anywhere. One of the nuns muttered softly, "Yes it is." I took out my Bible, the Einheitsübersetzung, which is what the Catholic Church uses, and showed him in Luke 24. He smiled, and said, "His apostles missed him. And they remembered what it was like when he was with them. And to them, it was like they were feeling his hands and feet. And it was like, in their mind's eye, he was eating food with them." We didn't press the point, and the conversation was over from their perspective, and we both went our separate ways. But I have to admit, that was a new way of explaining away the testimony of the Gospel of Luke. And I don't think this priest was representative of Catholics or non-Mormons in general --- I think he was an outlier in his explanation on the spot when called on it.

 

I'm fascinated that the corporeality of God is one of the main things that leads creedal Christianity to exclude Mormons from Christianity. To them, God having a body is a damnable heresy, even in spite of what the Bible says about resurrection. That is definitely a crucial doctrine that Joseph Smith and the Restoration have to their credit. 

Interesting story. It's clear to me that Luke is trying to establish a corporeal resurrected Jesus, although Paul might have believed differently. 

But don't forget, Jesus is not the Father, even for trinitarians. They are one God but not the same person. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Gray

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Interesting story. It's clear to me that Luke is trying to establish a corporeal resurrected Jesus, although Paul might have believed differently. 

But don't forget, Jesus is not the Father, even for trinitarians. They are one God but not the same person. 

But they are the same substance, right?  So is it possible, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, for God the Father to be Spirit and Jesus to have a physical body?

[rongo]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Interesting story. It's clear to me that Luke is trying to establish a corporeal resurrected Jesus, although Paul might have believed differently. 

But don't forget, Jesus is not the Father, even for trinitarians. They are one God but not the same person. 

True, but if they deny Jesus a resurrected body, they sure as heck are denying the Father one as well. In spades  And if they're wrong about Jesus . . . 

I find that pointing out the unbiblical nature of their insistence on Jesus not having a body goes far in dispelling criticism of the corporeality of God. Without needing to technically get out in the weeds of trinity vs. modalism, etc.