Saints and the Latter Days

[Sine Saw Square]

The Church as institution and culture seems to greet changes (social, technological, fashion, music, fads, ethics, etc) as negative phenomena. Sometimes it seems the Church makes peace with or softens to ideas over time, more often it definitively stands against change. I've been trying to come up with of an example where the Church has embraced and encouraged a modern change as good from the beginning. The only one I can think of is the societal turn against tobacco - but this really a affirmation of the Church's long held view on the substance so I don't think it is exactly what I'm trying to figure out.

I'm not interested in criticizing or mocking the Church for this trait but to understand it. Please don't use this thread as a diving board to jump into the swimming pool of ridicule.

1. Is this observation more or less accurate?

2. If accurate- why are we like this? Is it based in our pioneer cultural heritage? Are all modern changes, in fact, some way bad? I tend to have the feeling that, in as much as we accommodate modern living, we in some way dull our spiritual acuity. Not sure where this sense comes from?

3. If accurate, how do Saints navigate a world where changes in social norms, technology, aesthetic sensibilities, and public discourse are exponentially increasing?

4. If inaccurate, what are some modern societal changes that have been celebrated by the Church? 

Hope this makes sense.

[Calm]

Computers for genealogy, upgrade to internet so as to make sharing even easier, etc.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

17 minutes ago, Sine Saw Square said:

The Church as institution and culture seems to greet changes (social, technological, fashion, music, fads, ethics, etc) as negative phenomena. Sometimes it seems the Church makes peace with or softens to ideas over time, more often it definitively stands against change. I've been trying to come up with of an example where the Church has embraced and encouraged a modern change as good from the beginning. The only one I can think of is the societal turn against tobacco - but this really a affirmation of the Church's long held view on the substance so I don't think it is exactly what I'm trying to figure out.

I'm not interested in criticizing or mocking the Church for this trait but to understand it. Please don't use this thread as a diving board to jump into the swimming pool of ridicule.

1. Is this observation more or less accurate?

2. If accurate- why are we like this? Is it based in our pioneer cultural heritage? Are all modern changes, in fact, some way bad? I tend to have the feeling that, in as much as we accommodate modern living, we in some way dull our spiritual acuity. Not sure where this sense comes from?

3. If accurate, how do Saints navigate a world where changes in social norms, technology, aesthetic sensibilities, and public discourse are exponentially increasing?

4. If inaccurate, what are some modern societal changes that have been celebrated by the Church? 

Hope this makes sense.

I think you're probably right that the Church has seldom been at the forefront of big change; however, as you noted in the case of the Word of Wisdom, there are some examples.  Women's suffrage might be another example.

[Bobbieaware]

28 minutes ago, Sine Saw Square said:

The Church as institution and culture seems to greet changes (social, technological, fashion, music, fads, ethics, etc) as negative phenomena. Sometimes it seems the Church makes peace with or softens to ideas over time, more often it definitively stands against change. I've been trying to come up with of an example where the Church has embraced and encouraged a modern change as good from the beginning. The only one I can think of is the societal turn against tobacco - but this really a affirmation of the Church's long held view on the substance so I don't think it is exactly what I'm trying to figure out.

I'm not interested in criticizing or mocking the Church for this trait but to understand it. Please don't use this thread as a diving board to jump into the swimming pool of ridicule.

1. Is this observation more or less accurate?

2. If accurate- why are we like this? Is it based in our pioneer cultural heritage? Are all modern changes, in fact, some way bad? I tend to have the feeling that, in as much as we accommodate modern living, we in some way dull our spiritual acuity. Not sure where this sense comes from?

3. If accurate, how do Saints navigate a world where changes in social norms, technology, aesthetic sensibilities, and public discourse are exponentially increasing?

4. If inaccurate, what are some modern societal changes that have been celebrated by the Church? 

Hope this makes sense.

The easiest way to do this would be for you list one or two specific changes at a time and then, using the scriptures and the words of the Church leaders to guide us, we can reasonably come to the conclusion as to why the Church either approves or disapproves of the changes. So for starters, list a couple of the kinds of changes of which you speak

Edited July 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Duncan]

the use of Doctors or medicine, in addition to priesthood blessings ( I know some won't go to Drs.  but they wouldn't get any support from the Church)

[carbon dioxide]

35 minutes ago, Sine Saw Square said:

The Church as institution and culture seems to greet changes (social, technological, fashion, music, fads, ethics, etc) as negative phenomena.

For the most part that is true and for good reason.  The world that we live in does change a lot.  What is the world but modern day Babylon and Satan stands at the tip of the spear moving society in the direction he wants it.  The Church and the members can't get sucked into it.  This will continue for a while but eventually it will all come crashing down.  A day will come when people will have but two choices.  Flee to Zion or take up the sword and kill each other. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

the use of Doctors or medicine, in addition to priesthood blessings ( I know some won't go to Drs.  but they wouldn't get any support from the Church)

https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10524/406/1/JL31007.pdf   In this circumstance the leaders thought it best to not go to doctors for the vaccine for smallpox, but instead rely on a PH blessing to get healed. This is such a sad story. 

c/p below:

On Maui Francis Hammond wrote, "The saints wished to know if they should not go and get vaxinated as all the people were doing so. I told them if their faith was weak and [they] do not trust the Lord to go but as for myself I should not go, and if I died all was well."47 "We have been preaching that the hour of God's judgments were at hand," Tanner wrote "and the small pox has borne a faithful testimony to the fact."48 "Our Brethren thay say it is a judgment from the Lord," another wrote, and thay feal to trust in him. . . . [The] judge . . . impresed a fine on all that did not git vaxenated of $5 . Thay then was oblige to go & be vaxinated for thay had not the $5 to pay. I have sean them after thay ware vaxenated pick thare arm & then suck it with thare mouth to git the mater out.49 But the elders would be subject to heavy fines if convicted of interfering with vaccination, so Lewis directed all the elders and members to comply with the law.50 Still, they resisted. One of the native elders, probably Kauwahi, circulated a petition among the Saints. "The[y] wanted no Medical men near Them," Thomas Karren wrote. "All the [y] wanted was the Elders Of the Church of Jesus Christ to Administer to them and to pray With them ... 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Sine Saw Square said:

The Church as institution and culture seems to greet changes (social, technological, fashion, music, fads, ethics, etc) as negative phenomena. Sometimes it seems the Church makes peace with or softens to ideas over time, more often it definitively stands against change. I've been trying to come up with of an example where the Church has embraced and encouraged a modern change as good from the beginning. The only one I can think of is the societal turn against tobacco - but this really a affirmation of the Church's long held view on the substance so I don't think it is exactly what I'm trying to figure out.

I'm not interested in criticizing or mocking the Church for this trait but to understand it. Please don't use this thread as a diving board to jump into the swimming pool of ridicule.

1. Is this observation more or less accurate?

2. If accurate- why are we like this? Is it based in our pioneer cultural heritage? Are all modern changes, in fact, some way bad? I tend to have the feeling that, in as much as we accommodate modern living, we in some way dull our spiritual acuity. Not sure where this sense comes from?

3. If accurate, how do Saints navigate a world where changes in social norms, technology, aesthetic sensibilities, and public discourse are exponentially increasing?

4. If inaccurate, what are some modern societal changes that have been celebrated by the Church? 

Hope this makes sense.

1. Not accurate in general.

2. People fear change.

3. As we always have.

4. Brigham Young embraced (and helped) the coming of the railroad to the west when his detractors said it would end the faith. We have not feared education when it blossomed in the western world.

The church often includes warnings with changes which can give the impression of opposition. Warning about the use of porn and the deadening effects of living ones social life on social media is not an indictment of electronics or social media but can seem that way as many positive changes can have dangers that come with them. Warning about the dangers of vanity can seem like an indictment of a fashion.

The Church also rarely takes a stand on fads, music, and art.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

For the most part that is true and for good reason.  The world that we live in does change a lot.  What is the world but modern day Babylon and Satan stands at the tip of the spear moving society in the direction he wants it.  The Church and the members can't get sucked into it.  This will continue for a while but eventually it will all come crashing down.  A day will come when people will have but two choices.  Flee to Zion or take up the sword and kill each other. 

I don't agree at all with your and Sine's claim here.  The LDS Church is incredibly dynamic, quickly adopting change where appropriate in a host of areas.  Unlike the Amish and Ultra Orthodox Jews, Mormons adopt the latest fashions, electronics, film, etc., as an adjunct to their efforts to preach the Gospel worldwide.  Motab has been on radio longer than any other program, the Church  readily uses the latest broadcast technology worldwide (esp at BYU), and is using massive online educational systems worldwide.  The LDS welfare ops are second to none in the world.  We also have the best and most complete genealogical system in the world.

[Sine Saw Square]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Computers for genealogy, upgrade to internet so as to make sharing even easier, etc.

I agree that the Church leaders have commended the use of computers and the internet for those things- but my sense is that as a whole, computers and the internet and their massive societal changes are viewed with caution at best. For example the idea of spending "too much" time on the internet or using computers is seen as a negative.

 

I hope I'm not coming across as saying this position is a failing of the Church. It's just something that occurred to me recently and wanted to see if this notion had any legs.  Could it be that nearly all modern changes are qualitatively worsening lives?

[Sine Saw Square]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't agree at all with your and Sine's claim here.  The LDS Church is incredibly dynamic, quickly adopting change where appropriate in a host of areas.  Unlike the Amish and Ultra Orthodox Jews, Mormons adopt the latest fashions, electronics, film, etc., as an adjunct to their efforts to preach the Gospel worldwide.  Motab has been on radio longer than any other program, the Church  readily uses the latest broadcast technology worldwide (esp at BYU), and is using massive online educational systems worldwide.  The LDS welfare ops are second to none in the world.  We also have the best and most complete genealogical system in the world.

Thank you Robert! I agree that we aren't Amish.   Again, I'm not asserting a claim really but rather asking for feedback in regards to a sense that I've had about my own religious tradition which you've responded to with valid points.  The education systems is an especially insightful one.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, Sine Saw Square said:

....................................  Could it be that nearly all modern changes are qualitatively worsening lives?

Quite the opposite:  I recall my amazement when a member of the bishopric back in 2005 already had all the Scriptures and Hymns on his Blackberry.  Now it is normal.

[Okrahomer]

It seems the Church was also ahead of its time when it came to the adoption of modern farming techniques.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10524/406/1/JL31007.pdf   In this circumstance the leaders thought it best to not go to doctors for the vaccine for smallpox, but instead rely on a PH blessing to get healed. This is such a sad story. 

c/p below:

On Maui Francis Hammond wrote, "The saints wished to know if they should not go and get vaxinated as all the people were doing so. I told them if their faith was weak and [they] do not trust the Lord to go but as for myself I should not go, and if I died all was well."47 "We have been preaching that the hour of God's judgments were at hand," Tanner wrote "and the small pox has borne a faithful testimony to the fact."48 "Our Brethren thay say it is a judgment from the Lord," another wrote, and thay feal to trust in him. . . . [The] judge . . . impresed a fine on all that did not git vaxenated of $5 . Thay then was oblige to go & be vaxinated for thay had not the $5 to pay. I have sean them after thay ware vaxenated pick thare arm & then suck it with thare mouth to git the mater out.49 But the elders would be subject to heavy fines if convicted of interfering with vaccination, so Lewis directed all the elders and members to comply with the law.50 Still, they resisted. One of the native elders, probably Kauwahi, circulated a petition among the Saints. "The[y] wanted no Medical men near Them," Thomas Karren wrote. "All the [y] wanted was the Elders Of the Church of Jesus Christ to Administer to them and to pray With them ... 

huh, maybe they didn't trust the Drs.! 

[Garden Girl]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quite the opposite:  I recall my amazement when a member of the bishopric back in 2005 already had all the Scriptures and Hymns on his Blackberry.  Now it is normal.

This is true , Robert... Even in my case... I love the paper scriptures.  But I finally succumbed and got an inexpensive handheld device... Amazon Fire HD8... that holds all my scriptures and Church-related materials, as well as other capabilities such as email, etc.  It is 8 1/2 x 5" and fits in my purse.  I appreciate the convenience.

GG

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Sine Saw Square said:

The Church as institution and culture seems to greet changes (social, technological, fashion, music, fads, ethics, etc) as negative phenomena. Sometimes it seems the Church makes peace with or softens to ideas over time, more often it definitively stands against change. I've been trying to come up with of an example where the Church has embraced and encouraged a modern change as good from the beginning. The only one I can think of is the societal turn against tobacco - but this really a affirmation of the Church's long held view on the substance so I don't think it is exactly what I'm trying to figure out.

I'm not interested in criticizing or mocking the Church for this trait but to understand it. Please don't use this thread as a diving board to jump into the swimming pool of ridicule.

1. Is this observation more or less accurate?

2. If accurate- why are we like this? Is it based in our pioneer cultural heritage? Are all modern changes, in fact, some way bad? I tend to have the feeling that, in as much as we accommodate modern living, we in some way dull our spiritual acuity. Not sure where this sense comes from?

3. If accurate, how do Saints navigate a world where changes in social norms, technology, aesthetic sensibilities, and public discourse are exponentially increasing?

4. If inaccurate, what are some modern societal changes that have been celebrated by the Church? 

Hope this makes sense.

1.  yes.  I think so.

2.  I think traditionally big orgs have had a difficulty implementing change.  One little change makes changes for everyone down the line and it's hard to get them through.  I think that's one reason.  Another is the Church wants to be led by the top.  Change has to be implemented from the top.  Although most change if it's worth change should be inspired from anywhere and anyone, no matter how low.  The church tries, I think, though.  It just so happens that any change that lesser people feel inspired to do, has to get others to buy in and then ultimately has to get the top 15 to accept it.  It's not easy to do.  Having had worked for the Church, change is tough to get done.

3.  I'm trying.  Not sure there's a way to describe how we navigate it.  Just individually, as best we can.

4.  uh....recently I read in the paper how the Church is loosening it's hold on what employees wear.  Women can wear pants if their nice enough.  Men can shed the suit coat, if it's hot enough.  And a new change, women will be offered leave for having a baby, up to 12 weeks or something.  Men will be offered a week.  I mean all of that feels a little antiquated in terms of change.  But hey, it happened. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by stemelbow

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Garden Girl said:

This is true , Robert... Even in my case... I love the paper scriptures.  But I finally succumbed and got an inexpensive handheld device... Amazon Fire HD8... that holds all my scriptures and Church-related materials, as well as other capabilities such as email, etc.  It is 8 1/2 x 5" and fits in my purse.  I appreciate the convenience.

GG

Yes, and even the Brethren have apparently gotten on board -- speaking of the new devices from the pulpit at General Conference.

[Jane_Doe]

13 hours ago, Sine Saw Square said:

The Church as institution and culture seems to greet changes (social, technological, fashion, music, fads, ethics, etc) as negative phenomena. Sometimes it seems the Church makes peace with or softens to ideas over time, more often it definitively stands against change. I've been trying to come up with of an example where the Church has embraced and encouraged a modern change as good from the beginning. The only one I can think of is the societal turn against tobacco - but this really a affirmation of the Church's long held view on the substance so I don't think it is exactly what I'm trying to figure out.

I'm not interested in criticizing or mocking the Church for this trait but to understand it. Please don't use this thread as a diving board to jump into the swimming pool of ridicule.

1. Is this observation more or less accurate?

2. If accurate- why are we like this? Is it based in our pioneer cultural heritage? Are all modern changes, in fact, some way bad? I tend to have the feeling that, in as much as we accommodate modern living, we in some way dull our spiritual acuity. Not sure where this sense comes from?

3. If accurate, how do Saints navigate a world where changes in social norms, technology, aesthetic sensibilities, and public discourse are exponentially increasing?

4. If inaccurate, what are some modern societal changes that have been celebrated by the Church? 

Hope this makes sense.

Example of huge embrace: computers, the web, etc.  The anti-smoking campaign, many other health things.  

1.  No.  

2.  Well many fads are stupid.  They are fads...

3.  A person just keep following the Lord.  

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quite the opposite:  I recall my amazement when a member of the bishopric back in 2005 already had all the Scriptures and Hymns on his Blackberry.  Now it is normal.

Yet I regularly hear local authorities express their preference for printed materials and encouraging others to put away the screens.

[Jane_Doe]

12 hours ago, Sine Saw Square said:

I agree that the Church leaders have commended the use of computers and the internet for those things- but my sense is that as a whole, computers and the internet and their massive societal changes are viewed with caution at best. For example the idea of spending "too much" time on the internet or using computers is seen as a negative.

Totally not embracing is very different than saying "don't get obsessed".

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Sine Saw Square said:

I tend to have the feeling that, in as much as we accommodate modern living, we in some way dull our spiritual acuity.

I have performed as a musician in many non-LDS churches. Thank heaven our church has resisted the incursion of the "praise band" pop-Christian styles into our worship services, but I noticed in this week's Church News an LDS ethnic group that has formed that will have more "fun" music in their meetings. I sense that more and more members would like to enliven our meetings with upbeat energetic music styles. 

[Danzo]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10524/406/1/JL31007.pdf   In this circumstance the leaders thought it best to not go to doctors for the vaccine for smallpox, but instead rely on a PH blessing to get healed. This is such a sad story. 

c/p below:

On Maui Francis Hammond wrote, "The saints wished to know if they should not go and get vaxinated as all the people were doing so. I told them if their faith was weak and [they] do not trust the Lord to go but as for myself I should not go, and if I died all was well."47 "We have been preaching that the hour of God's judgments were at hand," Tanner wrote "and the small pox has borne a faithful testimony to the fact."48 "Our Brethren thay say it is a judgment from the Lord," another wrote, and thay feal to trust in him. . . . [The] judge . . . impresed a fine on all that did not git vaxenated of $5 . Thay then was oblige to go & be vaxinated for thay had not the $5 to pay. I have sean them after thay ware vaxenated pick thare arm & then suck it with thare mouth to git the mater out.49 But the elders would be subject to heavy fines if convicted of interfering with vaccination, so Lewis directed all the elders and members to comply with the law.50 Still, they resisted. One of the native elders, probably Kauwahi, circulated a petition among the Saints. "The[y] wanted no Medical men near Them," Thomas Karren wrote. "All the [y] wanted was the Elders Of the Church of Jesus Christ to Administer to them and to pray With them ... 

 

I really wish you would actually read the account, rather than cherry pick quotes from articles.  You might actually learn something.  Had you read the entire article, you might have found quotes like

"On top of everything, it was discovered too late that the first batch of vaccine, given to fifteen hundred people, was defective." (page 11) and

"Vaccination was an effective preventive—even Mormon elders did not dispute that"  (page 11).

Did you find this quote on your own research and forgot to read the rest of the article or did you know about the other quotes and just wanted to deceive?

Instead of trying to find the worst part of any article, speech or quote, it is much better to read the whole thing.

Even if these particular elders were against vaccination, something happening on a remote island, isolated from the church hardly represents the whole church.

[pogi]

I think the church welcomes change and progression in all areas, including science, technology, music, art, ethics, and social changes.  With the caveat that "progression" remains within the bounds of revelation and accepted doctrine.  Even changes in fashion are welcomed, for the most part, so long as they remain within the constraints of the garment, and are perceived as modest for the time period.  They definitely lag behind in some respects due to cultural effect, such as women wearing pants, but for the most part, I think they welcome progression. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Sine Saw Square said:

Is it based in our pioneer cultural heritage?

I think it is related to the fact that for most of our history we have been a rural agrarian church. How many times do we hear speakers praise being raised on a farm where they "learned to work" as if manual labor is the only legitimate kind of work.

As a violin student at BYU, I was told several times by fellow students, faculty, and church leaders that music was for women and I should consider a more "manly" career. This attitude persists today. Take a look at the stringed instrument sections of the various BYU orchestras and the Temple Square orchestra....very few men. Music, art, etc., is hard work. But is it manly work?

It's interesting to me that almost all those speakers who praise the wonders of the farm are no longer on the farm but make their money in law, medicine, or business and sending their kids to college.

So, perhaps we are slowly progressing towards a more inclusive attitude of what work is.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The world that we live in does change a lot.  What is the world but modern day Babylon and Satan stands at the tip of the spear moving society in the direction he wants it.

You seem to be saying that the future is going to be worse than the present. Is this accurate? If so, do you believe, then, that the past was better than the present?