"Backlash against an obituary of its late prophet Thomas S. Monson reveals the existential doubts gnawing at the modern church."

[Jane_Doe]

14 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

In 50 years when interested students of Mormonism look back on the Thomas Monson years--they are without doubt going to see a period of retrenchment and retreat.  

Standing in the same spot = retreating?

Sorry, we LDS aren't the ones that changed.  We still hold to the same scriptures and the same beliefs.  It's rest of the country (including many Protestants) that's changed their minds on things like "hey not you decide if you're a boy or a girl" or "it doesn't matter who you have sex with" or so many other things.  If you want to call still standing in the same place with the Lord "retreating", you can.  I'm happily standing still. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Standing in the same spot = retreating?

I think the leaders stood their ground regarding some of the past beliefs or teachings, but they've altered others (not the core doctrine regarding the behavior being a sin).  The new policy put in place may be interpreted by some as at least "retrenchment".

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

 It's rest of the country (including many Protestants) that's changed their minds on things...

True.  But it's also many members of the church who have changed their minds regarding SSM, etc. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

True.  But it's also many members of the church who have changed their minds regarding SSM, etc. 

Succumbing to social pressure is not a new or particularly remarkable thing, even for professed Mormons. "Even the very elect will be deceived."

[Scott Lloyd]

So I keep seeing the phrase "existential doubts" in the title of this thread. I think I have pinpointed why it bugs me so.

The online Miriam-Webster dictionary defines existential in this way:

 

Quote

 

of, relating to, or affirming existence

• existential propositions

2 a : grounded in existence or the experience of existence : empirical

b : having being in time and space

 

 

So the author of the piece appears to be applying the term as a synonym for existing, that is to say, existing doubts. Which is a redundant application of the term. If there are doubts, they are, of course, existing doubts.

This seems to be a case of a writer plucking from his lexicon an expensive, highly academic sounding but unnecessary term, apparently in a misguided effort to give a brainy veneer to what really is nothing better than a manifestation of confirmation bias.

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the leaders stood their ground regarding some of the past beliefs or teachings, but they've altered others (not the core doctrine regarding the behavior being a sin).  The new policy put in place may be interpreted by some as at least "retrenchment".

 

From what is the new policy retrenching?

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Succumbing to social pressure is not a new or particularly remarkable thing, even for professed Mormons. "Even the very elect will be deceived."

I don't agree that it is "succumbing to social pressure".  Maybe for a few this is true (and most especially for the younger generation, so I agree there...although many now have friends who are gay who they love and want them to be happy in relationships).

I've seen most shift their feelings and beliefs as they've gotten to know and become friends with someone who is gay or who has a family member who is gay.  Members are also educating themselves more on this topic and this has caused many of them to change their beliefs and feelings.  

Edited January 18, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From what is the new policy retrenching?

I said that some may see it as such (it definitely caused members to leave and cut down the number of those along with some going inactive).  For me, it was just a huge step backwards as far as the leaders trying to reach out and be inclusive to their members who are gay (and their families).

[Gray]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Succumbing to social pressure is not a new or particularly remarkable thing, even for professed Mormons. "Even the very elect will be deceived."

This has happened many times. Social pressure to ostracize gay members of the church is  very strong. "The very elect" are deceived into ungodly treatment of their brothers and sisters.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I said that some may see it as such (it definitely caused members to leave and cut down the number of those along with some going inactive).  For me, it was just a huge step backwards as far as the leaders trying to reach out and be inclusive to their members who are gay (and their families).

If, as you say, "the leaders stood their ground regarding some of the past beliefs or teachings, but they've altered others (not the core doctrine regarding the behavior being a sin)," then the policy is not a step backward. Whatever the perceived efforts to reach out and be inclusive, they have never included approval or tolerance of homosexual behavior, nor have they included acquiescence to or legitimizing of homosexual "marriage". Ergo, an entry by a Church member into such an arrangement must logically be regarded as an act of apostasy.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

This has happened many times. Social pressure to ostracize gay members of the church is  very strong. "The very elect" are deceived into ungodly treatment of their brothers and sisters.

To the extent that people, including Church members, succumb to pressure to treat others unkindly, that, of course warrants condemnation. Holding fast to behavioral standards of worthiness for Church membership and participation, however, is not unkind.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If, as you say, the leaders stood their ground regarding some of the past beliefs or teachings, but they've altered others (not the core doctrine regarding the behavior being a sin)," then the policy is not a step backward. 

Thus the words, "For me,"   I also know that other members feel the same.

You disagree and that's fine (and some members agree with you).  This is an issue where members are pretty divided in their feelings and opinions.

Edited January 18, 2018 by ALarson

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To the extent that people, including Church members, succumb to pressure to treat others unkindly, that, of course warrants condemnation.

Glad you agree.

 

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Holding fast to behavioral standards of worthiness for Church membership and participation, however, is not unkind.

Standards of worthiness unequally applied, and in this case bereft of spiritual maturity and wisdom, borrowed from our fundamentalist Christian neighbors.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Glad you agree.

 

Standards of worthiness unequally applied, and in this case bereft of spiritual maturity and wisdom, borrowed from our fundamentalist Christian neighbors.

Amazing. You’ve managed to utter a sentence (or, to be precise, a sentence fragment) without a word of truth in it. 

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Amazing. You’ve managed to utter a sentence (or, to be precise, a sentence fragment) without a word of truth in it. 

Truth doesn't lie in base prejudice born of long years of ignorance and naive fundamentalism.

[Five Solas]

15 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Standing in the same spot = retreating?

Sorry, we LDS aren't the ones that changed.  We still hold to the same scriptures and the same beliefs.  It's rest of the country (including many Protestants) that's changed their minds on things like "hey not you decide if you're a boy or a girl" or "it doesn't matter who you have sex with" or so many other things.  If you want to call still standing in the same place with the Lord "retreating", you can.  I'm happily standing still. 

And yet studies over the past decade have shown young people are less sexually active, less inclined to indulge risky behavior (including the activities the LDS Church disapproves) than our generation.  See this article in the Washington Post as example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fewer-teens-having-sex-as-decline-in-risky-behaviors-continue/2018/01/04/a868bf84-f15c-11e7-97bf-bba379b809ab_story.html?utm_term=.9d1ef9a0a274

That means the LDS Church should be having a heyday, right?  Deeds > words.  What's wrong with this picture?

--Erik

______________________________________________________

Now in a game of chance the other night
Old Dame Fortune was a-doin' me right
The kings and the queens just kept on comin' round

And I got a full and I bet it high
But my bluff didn't work on a certain guy
He just kept on raisin' and layin' that money down

Now he'd raise me and I'd raise him
I sweated blood, gotta sink or swim
He finally called and then didn't raise the bet

I said "aces full pal, how 'bout you?"
He said "I'll tell you in a minute or two
But right now, I gotta have me a cigarette"

--Tex Williams, 1947

[Jane_Doe]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

And yet studies over the past decade have shown young people are less sexually active, less inclined to indulge risky behavior (including the activities the LDS Church disapproves) than our generation.  See this article in the Washington Post as example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fewer-teens-having-sex-as-decline-in-risky-behaviors-continue/2018/01/04/a868bf84-f15c-11e7-97bf-bba379b809ab_story.html?utm_term=.9d1ef9a0a274

That means the LDS Church should be having a heyday, right?  Deeds > words.  What's wrong with this picture?

--Erik

This doesn't actually address my post.  

[kiwi57]

On 1/16/2018 at 4:24 PM, california boy said:

I have pretty much stayed out of this whole thread because I think it is pretty emotionally charged subject.  But I agree with you.  I think Mormons are expecting an obituary to be written from their perspective.  That didn't happen.

I agree. We expect an obituary that reflects a degree of decency. I also agree with you that decency is increasingly becoming a peculiarly, if not uniquely, Mormon perspective.

On 1/16/2018 at 4:24 PM, california boy said:

 The obituary was written in the way most people outside the church view the actions that took place under President Monson's administration.  

It used to be that the world viewed Mormonism as that religion that once practiced polygamy and discriminated against blacks.  Under President Monson's time as leader of the church, Mormonism has now also become known as that religion that fights against LGBT civil rights.  After a very public Prop 8 followed by the October policy, those outside the church have now come to view Mormonism as being anti gay.

Well, not all those outside the Church view it that way. But that's not for the lack of trying, is it CB?

On 1/16/2018 at 4:24 PM, california boy said:

 While the church's stance on the LGBT community may not have changed, it certainly became very public under President Monson's stewardship. 

Was that issue given too much prominence in the obituary?  Probably.  Should it have been a part of the obituary?  I believe it should have.  The impact both within the church and outside the church is significant.

The "impact" is "significant" to a tiny minority of the population, an even tinier minority of the Church population, and a virtually nonexistent minority of the active LDS population.

That the dominant voices within that minority expect that everything should be about them is not surprising, though.

 

[Five Solas]

On 1/19/2018 at 9:01 AM, Jane_Doe said:

This doesn't actually address my post.  

Perhaps not 100%.  But it is interesting you pick one thing--public attitudes on SSM--to argue LDS are holding place while the broader society drifts away. 

And yet in other important regards, the much-maligned millennials (on this forum, at least) are arguably moving closer to LDS behavioral norms, waiting longer to have sex and less inclined to other risky behaviors (including drug and alcohol usage) as repeated studies have shown (see my previous link). 

Perhaps if LDS weren't so fixated on SSM, they would see a bigger picture emerging.  Or maybe I'm wrong and they wouldn't. 

;0)

--Erik 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Perhaps not 100%.  But it is interesting you pick one thing--public attitudes on SSM--to argue LDS are holding place while the broader society drifts away. 

And yet in other important regards, the much-maligned millennials (on this forum, at least) are arguably moving closer to LDS behavioral norms, waiting longer to have sex and less inclined to other risky behaviors (including drug and alcohol usage) as repeated studies have shown (see my previous link). 

Perhaps if LDS weren't so fixated on SSM, they would see a bigger picture emerging.  Or maybe I'm wrong and they wouldn't. 

;0)

--Erik 

I do find it interesting that as millennials move away from organized religion, they are now waiting longer to have sex and less inclined to other risky behaviors (including drug and alcohol usage) as repeated studies have shown.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I do find it interesting that as millennials move away from organized religion, they are now waiting longer to have sex and less inclined to other risky behaviors (including drug and alcohol usage) as repeated studies have shown.

"As" probably should read "at the same time" unless you have studies showing the millennials who are not moving away from organized religion are not waiting longer to have sex, etc.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Perhaps not 100%.  But it is interesting you pick one thing--public attitudes on SSM--to argue LDS are holding place while the broader society drifts away. 

And yet in other important regards, the much-maligned millennials (on this forum, at least) are arguably moving closer to LDS behavioral norms, waiting longer to have sex and less inclined to other risky behaviors (including drug and alcohol usage) as repeated studies have shown (see my previous link). 

Perhaps if LDS weren't so fixated on SSM, they would see a bigger picture emerging.  Or maybe I'm wrong and they wouldn't. 

You are changing the subject, Erik. Permit me to draw your attention to the conversation as it goes on:

1. 5S: "In 50 years when interested students of Mormonism look back on the Thomas Monson years--they are without doubt going to see a period of retrenchment and retreat."

2. JD: "Standing in the same spot = retreating?" Then SSM as an example.

3. 5S: "And yet studies over the past decade have shown young people are less sexually active, less inclined to indulge risky behavior," etc.

Earth to Erik: Please tell us what, if anything, that has to do with your smugly triumphalistic remark about the Church making a "retreat?"

Because I can't see it myself.

To the extent that millennials, etc. are "arguably moving closer to LDS behavioral norms," it's certainly not because the Church is "retreating" anywhere.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

"As" probably should read "at the same time" unless you have studies showing the millennials who are not moving away from organized religion are not waiting longer to have sex, etc.

You are right.  It should say at the same time.

Poll Finds Americans, Especially Millennials, Moving Away From Religion

And then the article quoted by Five Solas

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/03/454063182/poll-finds-americans-especially-millennials-moving-away-from-religion

Edited January 22, 2018 by california boy

[Jane_Doe]

22 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Perhaps not 100%.  But it is interesting you pick one thing--public attitudes on SSM--to argue LDS are holding place while the broader society drifts away. 

And yet in other important regards, the much-maligned millennials (on this forum, at least) are arguably moving closer to LDS behavioral norms, waiting longer to have sex and less inclined to other risky behaviors (including drug and alcohol usage) as repeated studies have shown (see my previous link). 

Perhaps if LDS weren't so fixated on SSM, they would see a bigger picture emerging.  Or maybe I'm wrong and they wouldn't. 

;0)

--Erik 

Actually, I picked two, and they are the two biggest "social issues" people have with the church: 1) SSM, 2) that you should only have sex with your spouse.  If you want me to add a third, I can put watching porn is bad for you and cheating, or that boys are boy and not girls (and vise versa), or so many things.

The LDS stance on these has not changed.  There is no "retreating".   

Now, the number of Protestant churches have changed on these issues (I regularly visit other churches) as have the larger scope of American society.  

22 hours ago, Five Solas said:

And yet in other important regards, the much-maligned millennials (on this forum, at least) are arguably moving closer to LDS behavioral norms, waiting longer to have sex and less inclined to other risky behaviors (including drug and alcohol usage) as repeated studies have shown (see my previous link). 

Get me a study that says "Millennials now more believe and preach that you should only have sex with your spouse" or something like that, and then you'll have a leg to stand on.  Not "Millennials postpone dating because they are addicted to social media and spend less time in-person with other people" (which is the result conclusion of these studies).

 

 I respect that you're not LDS and have other beliefs.  Just like I respect the beliefs of the CC people I visit and listen to the pastor literally mock the idea of not waiting to have sex  Or the Methodist church where the pastor kisses her wife mid-sermon.  Or the gender segregated Islamic mosque.  And all others- I respect that you have the right to believe what you believe.  But I do NOT appreciate your waltzing in here and falsely slandering other people's beliefs.  Such is blatantly non Christ-like behavior and only serves to convince people you do not love Him.  

[Five Solas]

On 1/21/2018 at 8:34 PM, kiwi57 said:

You are changing the subject, Erik. Permit me to draw your attention to the conversation as it goes on:

1. 5S: "In 50 years when interested students of Mormonism look back on the Thomas Monson years--they are without doubt going to see a period of retrenchment and retreat."

2. JD: "Standing in the same spot = retreating?" Then SSM as an example.

3. 5S: "And yet studies over the past decade have shown young people are less sexually active, less inclined to indulge risky behavior," etc.

Earth to Erik: Please tell us what, if anything, that has to do with your smugly triumphalistic remark about the Church making a "retreat?"

Because I can't see it myself.

To the extent that millennials, etc. are "arguably moving closer to LDS behavioral norms," it's certainly not because the Church is "retreating" anywhere.

Recall how we got to here and you'll see I haven't changed the subject at all, kiwi.  Throughout this thread a number of LDS posters have attacked the integrity of the New York Times and one or two have denounced "the news media" generally.  Back when I was still LDS, a dozen+ years ago, articles and editorials were questioned and debated - but the Times was (and is) a respected American institution.  No one ever said the sort of things now being said here.  It's an example of a big change in LDS culture and thinking, just in the past decade.  And it coincides with other big changes, withdrawals really, from American society.  The ROTC program leaving BYU.  The LDS Church leaving the BSA.  Big changes under the leadership of Thomas S. Monson.  Changes I never would have believed if someone predicted them 15 years ago. 

I think it is completely fair to characterize Monson's time as a period of retrenchment and retreat or withdrawal from significant and long-established American institutions.  I honestly don't see how you could characterize it any other way.  But Jane_Doe doesn't like this, she imagines the LDS Church as a sort of religious/cultural rock left standing after the tide went out.  She wants everyone to believe it's American society drifting away from the LDS Church and not the other way round.  She has an example to make her point, SSM.  And she had a second example (which I missed previously) - and that is her general sense of rising promiscuity. 

It is remarkable (to me at least) that she only sees society through the lens of human sexuality.  And if you believe that really is the best way to consider the state of society--try to imagine your condition in 1840's England, you poor and without an education.  It's not just about sex any more, is it?  And no less remarkable is that she doesn't seem to appreciate society has always been evolving and that as the preacher tells us, "There is no new thing under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). 

As I type I realize this merits its own thread.  Perhaps if I'm feeling surly, I'll call it "biting the hand that feeds it." 

;0)

--Erik

__________________________________________________________

And when Ruthie says come see her
In her honky-tonk lagoon
Where I can watch her waltz for free
'neath her Panamanian moon
An' I say, "Aw come on now
You know you knew about my debutante"
An' she says, "Your debutante just knows what you need
But I know what you want"

--Bob Dylan, 1966

 

[Gray]

On 1/18/2018 at 10:06 AM, Jane_Doe said:

Standing in the same spot = retreating?

Sorry, we LDS aren't the ones that changed.  We still hold to the same scriptures and the same beliefs.  It's rest of the country (including many Protestants) that's changed their minds on things like "hey not you decide if you're a boy or a girl" or "it doesn't matter who you have sex with" or so many other things.  If you want to call still standing in the same place with the Lord "retreating", you can.  I'm happily standing still. 

Everyone has changed and will continue to change, barring a few insular ultra-fundamentalist groups.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Gray