Study links decline of church attendance to rise of Christian Right

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Prosperity Gospel will prosper?  Isn't that a tautology?

Considering how many dirt poor follower it has? No.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I once had a member of my ward who was on the high council who was adamant in wanting me and the stake president to publicly and forcefully command ward/stake members not to read Twilight. His wife was an all-around wonderful lady, but she ended up throwing her set of Twilight away after relentless browbeating. He wasn't pleased with my answer that, as dippy as the books are, they do not rise to the level of verbal pornography he was so worked up about. And neither of us was about to micromanage the reading of Twilight in the ward/stake. 

I know of a bishop who was told by a single sister that he was not doing enough to find her a husband and a parent who brings her kids to the bishop to be told to behave.

Nothing surprises me from members anymore.

[rongo]

Just now, Gray said:

Sounds like some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder maybe?

For sure. What a hell on earth to never feel like you measure up. And to constantly worry that all of these priesthood leaders over the years might be wrong, and you might be going to hell. 

Usually, our system of confession and judgment offers comfort and confidence because of trust in a third-party key-holder, but not in his case. I think that's the biggest strength of our confession and judgment system. If you put everything on the table in confession, then even if the priesthood leader "botches it," you did your part, and all you can do (other than continuing to repent on your own). 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Considering how many dirt poor follower it has? No.

I know of a bishop who was told by a single sister that he was not doing enough to find her a husband and a parent who brings her kids to the bishop to be told to behave.

Nothing surprises me from members anymore.

I had a sister who wrote to the SP wanting me released because I wouldn't let the RS charge activity fees for enrichment (I was encouraging socialism in the ward).  She said that if they couldn't afford it, they didn't need to come. 

People (men and women) wanting sex advice from the bishop is always a good one (I've had both). The only answer to that is "you've got to figure that out yourselves, together." 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If I am not allowed to look down on sinful chaff then who will I look down on condescendingly?

Goats I suppose...

 

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think there's a threshold that's crossed from merely believing that your opinion is right to attributing some kind of divine judgment in your favor on the matter (and against those who disagree with you). That's a lending a lot of cosmic weight to your opinion being right and the people who disagree with you being wrong. I think I would repeat (with slightly clearer language) what I said earlier - it becomes prideful when we decide the results of God's judgment and sifting in our own favor.

This kind of thinking appeals so much to the ego that it ought to be treated like a dangerous snake - to be kept at arm's length for fear of it consuming you. Even if it were actually true, I think believing it about yourself and your own opinions carries enormous spiritual peril.  (Using the word "you" generally, not referring to you personally)

So, are you saying that while it may be true that the righteous and the wicked are sifted, it's spiritually dangerous to believe it applies to actual people?

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So, are you saying that while it may be true that the righteous and the wicked are sifted, it's spiritually dangerous to believe it applies to actual people?

It's spiritually dangerous to believe it applies to yourself, I think.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

So, are you saying that while it may be true that the righteous and the wicked are sifted, it's spiritually dangerous to believe it applies to actual people?

Think of it this way Bluebell.  Do you think the pharisees thought of themselves as wheat or chaff?  In their own minds, were they the ones that were perfectly living the law of God?  And did they look down on Jesus because he did such scandalous things as picking corn on the sabbath.

 

[california boy]

If the goal of religion now is to do all it can to tick people off to the point that they quit going to church, then I would say churches are accomplishing their mission. These once members of the congregation now find  their relationship with God outside of organized religion and their political stances.  Calling former members chaff as they leave is nothing more than saying good riddance.  You obvious are not wheat like those that remain are.  

There is a world of difference between preaching the gospel and becoming a political action committee putting up millions of dollars to pass what you believe to become the law of the land.  And your response is. well they are just chaff. The waste that lay in the fields after the political battles are over.

[kllindley]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If I am not allowed to look down on sinful chaff then who will I look down on condescendingly? I am not sure if you have thought this through.

It seems the politically correct answer is to look down condescendingly on anyone foolish enough to believe all this religion nonsense. 

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I think there's a threshold that's crossed from merely believing that your opinion is right to attributing some kind of divine judgment in your favor on the matter (and against those who disagree with you). That's a lending a lot of cosmic weight to your opinion being right and the people who disagree with you being wrong. I think I would repeat (with slightly clearer language) what I said earlier - it becomes prideful when we decide the results of God's judgment and sifting in our own favor.

This kind of thinking appeals so much to the ego that it ought to be treated like a dangerous snake - to be kept at arm's length for fear of it consuming you. Even if it were actually true, I think believing it about yourself and your own opinions carries enormous spiritual peril.  (Using the word "you" generally, not referring to you personally)

Are you equally comfortable condemning people who view more liberal positions as being on the "right side of history," or in harmony with "the arc of the moral universe?"

Are those views not equally appealing to the ego, lending cosmic weight to a personal opinion?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Think of it this way Bluebell.  Do you think the pharisees thought of themselves as wheat or chaff?  In their own minds, were they the ones that were perfectly living the law of God?  And did they look down on Jesus because he did such scandalous things as picking corn on the sabbath.

 

I get what you are saying, but the fact that a belief can be corrupted does not mean the belief itself is corrupt. 

I don’t think there is anything good or true in the world that can’t also be used to promote evil or cause pain. Even love can be twisted. That doesn’t make love an inherently dangerous ideal or principle to believe in though.  That the idea of wheat and chaff can be twisted doesn’t make it inherently dangerous to believe in either. 

[Thinking]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Political polarization and the war against marriage for gay people seems to have been a net negative for religion.

Yep. Luke 20:21-26 is often quoted to justify the paying of tithing, but I think it also speaks to religion staying out of politics.

Quote

21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:

22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or no?

23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?

24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Cæsar’s.

25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.

26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Thinking

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Looking at it from the point of view of a person of faith who believes the scriptures to be the word of God, do you find those two responses reasonable?

They are reasonable responses.

Also, as people of faith, I think we have to look to scripture and see parallels when churches may start behaving too much like the Saducees and Pharisees.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I get what you are saying, but the fact that a belief can be corrupted does not mean the belief itself is corrupt. 

I don’t think there is anything good or true in the world that can’t also be used to promote evil or cause pain. Even love can be twisted. That doesn’t make love an inherently dangerous ideal or principle to believe in though.  That the idea of wheat and chaff can be twisted doesn’t make it inherently dangerous to believe in either. 

Of course you are right.  But I think it is important to acknowledge that the pharisees considered Christ as someone who just couldn't live the law of the gospel the way they did.  So He must be less worthy than they were to the point that they no longer wanted Him in the church, which ultimately lead to His death.

I think many that have left organized religion view things very similar.  They think that religion has indeed gotten corrupt.  That becoming political activists and forcing people by government law was never the intent of the gospel that Christ taught.  It is the heart that must change, not the force of law forcing someone.  Can you see how some view that politics has put religion in a position of being more like the pharisees were acting, rather than just standing up for good and preaching repentance and salvation?  They are just as sure that they are right and the church is what has been corrupted as you are that they have fallen away and are no longer faithful followers of Christ.  

I actually am curious how religion justifies becoming political activists.  Of course religion should stand up for what is right and what they believe in.  But you don't need to pour millions into political campaigns to clearly declare your beliefs.  So my question is, "Do you really see Christ raising millions and pouring that money into campaigns to force people under government law to do His will?"  How did that become a part of the Gospel?

Edited May 16, 2018 by california boy

[rchorse]

Quote

Gray: Sounds like some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder maybe?

10 hours ago, rongo said:

For sure. What a hell on earth to never feel like you measure up. And to constantly worry that all of these priesthood leaders over the years might be wrong, and you might be going to hell. 

Usually, our system of confession and judgment offers comfort and confidence because of trust in a third-party key-holder, but not in his case. I think that's the biggest strength of our confession and judgment system. If you put everything on the table in confession, then even if the priesthood leader "botches it," you did your part, and all you can do (other than continuing to repent on your own). 

It is actually a documented form of OCD called scrupulosity. It's something I have had issues with. Feeling like I'm going to hell over minor mistakes. I know logically it doesn't make any sense, but getting myself to actually believe and feel that is another story. I have made progress, but it's a real mental illness. 

Having said that, I disagree with those who claim the doctrines and standards of the church contribute to depression and scrupulosity. Our system of confession and judgment, as you say, has been key in allowing me to push away the obsessive thoughts knowing that I've done everything possible. I feel like I've come to have a much deeper understanding of and appreciation for the Savior and the Atonement precisely because the doctrines of the church have led me to seek peace through the Savior. I really feel like the gospel is what keeps my scrupulosity and depression in check rather than causing them.

Edited to add: Medication helps quite a bit, too. 

Edited May 16, 2018 by rchorse

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

They no longer wanted Him in the church, which ultimately lead to His death.

Jesus had zero desire to be in the Pharisees' 'church', so the respect was mutual. This is, however, not what led to His death. The Pharisees actually sought to shut Jesus up, and when that didn't work, they sought to kill him. There is a world of difference between preaching and even agitating for what one believes and actually seeking to silence the expression of opposing points of view. Where I live, it's the secular progressives who most resemble the Pharisees in this respect.

Quote

I actually am curious how religion justifies becoming political activists.

The division between religion and politics repeatedly posited in this thread (and others) by you and Gray is an artificial one that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. All people in free societies cooperate to advance their ideas of what's best. To seek to deny that right to the religious is a blatant act of bigotry. (And Gray's OP is nothing more than fear-mongering/emotional blackmail: shut up on certain issues, or you'll be punished by losing numbers.)

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Jesus had zero desire to be in the Pharisees' 'church', so the respect was mutual. This is, however, not what led to His death. The Pharisees actually sought to shut Jesus up, and when that didn't work, they sought to kill him. There is a world of difference between preaching and even agitating for what one believes and actually seeking to silence the expression of opposing points of view. Where I live, it's the secular progressives who most resemble the Pharisees in this respect.

I hate it when people cut part of what I wrote and then respond to something that wasn't even the subject of my post.  How could you possible read my post and think that the intent of the post and possible think that I wanted to start a discussion on what brought about Jesus's death.  

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The division between religion and politics repeatedly posited in this thread (and others) by you and Gray is an artificial one that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. All people in free societies cooperate to advance their ideas of what's best. To seek to deny that right to the religious is a blatant act of bigotry. (And Gray's OP is nothing more than fear-mongering/emotional blackmail: shut up on certain issues, or you'll be punished by losing numbers.)

Did I or have I EVER state that religion does not have a RIGHT to participate in politics?  Reread my comment.  I was talking about the. religious consequences of religion pouring millions into ballot measures to force their religious views into government law and how some people view that involvement.  You are arguing a point I never made.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I was talking about the. religious consequences of religion pouring millions into ballot measures to force their religious views into government law and how some people view that involvement.  You are arguing a point I never made.  

All kinds of people pour millions into ballot measures to 'force' their views into 'government law'. Your side certainly has done so. To pretend that this is somehow untoward when the religious do it is -- and I repeat myself -- a blatant act of bigotry.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, kllindley said:

Are you equally comfortable condemning people who view more liberal positions as being on the "right side of history," or in harmony with "the arc of the moral universe?" 

Are those views not equally appealing to the ego, lending cosmic weight to a personal opinion?

That formulation appeals to the ego as well - even if true in some sense. Maybe not quite as extreme as claiming God has weighed in on your opinions and you've come out the winner, but it does sound a bit conceited, doesn't it? I suppose it depends on how you formulate it. I don't see anything particularly arrogant about either of the following statements:

"I believe God has revealed that only certain kinds of marriage are acceptable."

"I believe that the the fight for equal rights is will ultimately win out because it's the right thing to do, the most just position, etc"

These ones sound much more arrogant:

"God has designated the people who disagree with me as the chaff to be burnt at his coming."

"People who disagree with me are destined for the dustbin of history."

Edited May 16, 2018 by Gray

[Calm]

What about this variation?

"God has designated the people who disagree with him as the chaff to be burnt at his coming."

Edited May 16, 2018 by Calm

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

All kinds of people pour millions into ballot measures to 'force' their views into 'government law'. Your side certainly has done so. To pretend that this is somehow untoward when the religious do it is -- and I repeat myself -- a blatant act of bigotry.

I think it's bad for the health of religion, the question of whether it should be legal or not aside.

[Gray]

Just now, Calm said:

What about this variation?

"God has designated the people who disagree with him as the chaff to be burnt at his coming."

I suppose that's okay, although a little too Cimmerian for my tastes. But it becomes arrogant if you then try to suggest that there's a 1:1 relationship with God's views and your own. In which case God becomes a kind of sock puppet one can use to win arguments.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The division between religion and politics repeatedly posited in this thread (and others) by you and Gray is an artificial one that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. All people in free societies cooperate to advance their ideas of what's best. To seek to deny that right to the religious is a blatant act of bigotry. (And Gray's OP is nothing more than fear-mongering/emotional blackmail: shut up on certain issues, or you'll be punished by losing numbers.)

You're straw manning this pretty hard.

[kllindley]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

That formulation appeals to the ego as well - even if true in some sense. Maybe not quite as extreme as claiming God has weighed in on your opinions and you've come out the winner, but it does sound a bit conceited, doesn't it? I suppose it depends on how you formulate it. I don't see anything particularly arrogant about either of the following statements:

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

I appreciate that. I think you're straw manning the chaff argument a bit, but I'm sure there are some who like to see the world that way. After all it's not like any secularists have said they will be happy when religion is gone and religious people have died out. 

I do find it interesting that you still attribute so much power to the idea of God. That somehow, the belief that a Supreme Being might offer judgement is more powerful than other types of moral judgement. 

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think it's bad for the health of religion, the question of whether it should be legal or not aside.

If by health, you mean popularity, or numbers, then yeah, I totally agree. 

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

I suppose that's okay, although a little too Cimmerian for my tastes. But it becomes arrogant if you then try to suggest that there's a 1:1 relationship with God's views and your own. In which case God becomes a kind of sock puppet one can use to win arguments.

I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where this type of argument is actually used in an attempt 2 win. Most often, I see it used to justify one's position when attacked, and explain why a person may not feel that a strict loss of numbers is the ultimate tragedy in religion.

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

"I believe God has revealed that only certain kinds of marriage are acceptable."

"I believe that the the fight for equal rights is will ultimately win out because it's the right thing to do, the most just position, etc"

These ones sound much more arrogant:

"God has designated the people who disagree with me as the chaff to be burnt at his coming."

"People who disagree with me are destined for the dustbin of history."

How about: "I believe God has revealed that only certain kinds of marriage are compatible with His plan, and that He asks those who follow Him to strive to promote that vision of marriage. He does so, even knowing that this action will cause some to reject him. "

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course you are right.  But I think it is important to acknowledge that the pharisees considered Christ as someone who just couldn't live the law of the gospel the way they did.  So He must be less worthy than they were to the point that they no longer wanted Him in the church, which ultimately lead to His death.

I think many that have left organized religion view things very similar.  They think that religion has indeed gotten corrupt.  That becoming political activists and forcing people by government law was never the intent of the gospel that Christ taught.  It is the heart that must change, not the force of law forcing someone.  Can you see how some view that politics has put religion in a position of being more like the pharisees were acting, rather than just standing up for good and preaching repentance and salvation?  They are just as sure that they are right and the church is what has been corrupted as you are that they have fallen away and are no longer faithful followers of Christ.  

Just to clarify, I haven't said anything about my feelings about the Christian Right.  In politics, the Christian Right is usually evangelical so my assessment of their theology is obviously from a critical point of view.  Having said that, there are some points of view that LDS  have in common with Evangelicals, and the LDS church has become an activist on some issues, so I understand why we are also sometimes considered part of the political Christian Right.

I don't think that your point of view is unreasonable either, just like I don't think their's/mine is.

Quote

I actually am curious how religion justifies becoming political activists.  Of course religion should stand up for what is right and what they believe in.  But you don't need to pour millions into political campaigns to clearly declare your beliefs.  So my question is, "Do you really see Christ raising millions and pouring that money into campaigns to force people under government law to do His will?"  How did that become a part of the Gospel?

I think that religion justifies political activists the same way that people justify it.  It's not about declaring beliefs, it's about working to try to have the most moral laws and government that is possible.  

If someone believes that their country or government is about to implement immoral laws, most people believe they have a duty to fight against that, whether they are religious or not.  And they don't fight against it so that other people will know where they stand (to declare belief, as you called it), they fight against it because they believing that fighting against immorality or injustice is the moral thing to do. 

It's no different with church's.

Also, the bolded sentence doesn't make a lot of sense given the topic.  We live in a democratic republic.  If something is decided by a majority vote (and it's constitutional) then it doesn't make any sense to describe that as 'forcing people under government rule to do someone else's will'.  The majority of the people were the ones who decided it.  Yes, it sucks when the majority doesn't agree with us individually but that's just the way it goes sometimes.  It doesn't mean it's unjust or unfair.