“Doubt Not, but Be Believing” Elder and Sister Renlund CES Training June 2018

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You have been talking to a lot of us for years and years so it is not just the talking that matters.  If you want something to change, think about what is missing in this interaction that you need and go out and make it work for you....if you want it to work.

It is not like you can't do it.  Look at your success with the CBD oil.  You had concerns, you researched possible solutions for them.  Found the one (CBD oil) that sounded the most workable for you in spite of others criticizing the choice and went for it.  You experimented on the word (the research) and it bore good fruit for you...you are taking less thyroid medication.

And now you are a passionate missionary for your belief.

Why not repeat with another of your concerns?

Well tonight I helped clean the church with only 3 others. Some didn't show up, so I'm trying to get to know people in the ward. Sunday morning I'm meeting the RS president/presidency to go over our ministering progress, which has been zero. My partner is probably really busy with her Mormon Tabernacle Choir calling, she hasn't reached out. But just barely found out I even had a partner or route. I haven't been visited by anyone yet. Baby steps I guess. What more should I do? I'm also going to find out what my RP wants me to do as far as my calling in compassionate service. So far they've had me do zip. I do have gifts to give out called sunshine gifts. But I've no idea who needs them. But really, I believe the calling is for someone that is consistent in coming to church/relief society each week which I haven't been the best at. So we'll see what she says. I guess I need to get better at going or else how am I to visit these sisters if they don't know who I am. I know I hate opening the door to strangers.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

What more should I do? ... I know I hate opening the door to strangers.

I was just about to suggest that you figure out what scares you and do it. It sounds like you already know.

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I was just about to suggest that you figure out what scares you and do it. It sounds like you already know.

What I meant by that is that I need to get to know the sisters because if I were them I wouldn't want to open the door to a stranger, but if they knew me beforehand it would be easier to do that. Does that make sense? I'm a poor writer.

[Hamba Tuhan]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What I meant by that is that I need to get to know the sisters because if I were them I wouldn't want to open the door to a stranger, but if they knew me beforehand it would be easier to do that. Does that make sense?

Oh, well then I go back to my original advice. What scares you about choosing faith? Do that!

Edited July 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem is that if this was true we'd see people flocking to the very theologically liberal sects. But they're not. So there's more going on. So I think there's something deeper going on. Yes a significant number of the Nones were, for a time, those loosely tied to religion who mainly made a change in name rather than a change in behavior. But I think especially the last 10 years there's more going on that that. It's not that religion has lost its trust. It's the religion has lost its saliency. 

In saying that I don't deny there are those who fit what you describe. I'm just very skeptical they make up a significant fraction in aggregate.

I guess I wasn't very clear in what I was writing.  I didn't say conservative religions were failing, I meant all religions failing.  Here is a question to seriously ponder.  What does religion actually have to offer?  Can people go to find eternal truths that can be trusted when the see so much in religion that they can't trust?  For many it is a belief system lived that came from a time when knowledge about so much of this stuff was unknown.  Now it is known, and it doesn't fit the stories.  A world wide flood?  Adam and Eve story?  Age of the earth?  No death until the last 6000 years?  What I am saying is, if you can't trust the message or those leading churches, then what does religion have to offer?  

 

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd also not say it's video games distracting them. Rather it's that video games, television, and so forth offer them more on their terms. Now I'd say that ultimately this isn't fulfilling at all. I think the big leap in suicide and depression the past five or six years probably is tied to the breakdown of people being involved in these organizations. There are some political organizations that have, for some, taken their place. But in general people have turned inwards rather than socially outwards and the effects have not been good socially. If anything I hope quasi-religious organizations come to take the place of religion. However the statistics show that those who leave religion become more unaffiliated with all organizations ranging from sports teams, charity groups, and so forth. Even ignoring religious claims (and I recognize you think them "easy to fact check and turn out to probably not be true") people who leave religion tend to disproportionately leave social groups nearly entirely. (Again we're talking aggregates - not all of the Nones are like that obviously) 

Put in your terms, perhaps people who leave religion do want something in life they feel passionate about. However clearly they're not finding it.

So I live in San Francisco.  The city is filled with millenniums.  It is a very young aged city.  And this is what I see.  You are right.  They don't seem to be involved in any organizations.  But I think that is also not surprising.  People used to join organizations to meet others and to connect.  Now, that is really not necessary.  You can stay. connected with a much broader group electronically.  What I do see is the restaurants packed every night.  And as I look across the room, customers are almost all in their 20's and 30's.  I have a downstairs neighbor who fits this age group.  He goes surfing almost every morning with a bunch of his friends, rushes home and then works long hours.  He and his friends also travel, all the time.  My. kids are the same.  They run marathons and course challenge events regularly.  They travel and go out to eat with their friends, a lot.  If I want to know the latest hot place to eat, I ask them.  What they are doing is changing sitting in meetings listening to someone else tell them how to live their lives for actually living their lives.

Of course there is a wide spectrum in what I have described.  Some just simply never leave the house.  And there are still some who are very connected with religion.  They ignore the problems and enjoy the uplifting experience.  When the meetings get boring, they just pull out their iPad.

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

So I live in San Francisco.  The city is filled with millenniums.  It is a very young aged city.  And this is what I see.  You are right.  They don't seem to be involved in any organizations.  But I think that is also not surprising.  People used to join organizations to meet others and to connect.  Now, that is really not necessary.  You can stay. connected with a much broader group electronically.  What I do see is the restaurants packed every night.  And as I look across the room, customers are almost all in their 20's and 30's.  I have a downstairs neighbor who fits this age group.  He goes surfing almost every morning with a bunch of his friends, rushes home and then works long hours.  He and his friends also travel, all the time.  My. kids are the same.  They run marathons and course challenge events regularly.  They travel and go out to eat with their friends, a lot.  If I want to know the latest hot place to eat, I ask them.  What they are doing is changing sitting in meetings listening to someone else tell them how to live their lives for actually living their lives.

Of course there is a wide spectrum in what I have described.  Some just simply never leave the house.  And there are still some who are very connected with religion.  They ignore the problems and enjoy the uplifting experience.  When the meetings get boring, they just pull out their iPad.

I think we are still in the early stages of the Internet age. It makes sense to me that the ability to "connect" with others has ironically caused isolation and alienation from groups and activities that formerly bound people together. My guess is that the pendulum will swing back the other way, as more and more people decide they need something more than a keyboard and monitor in their lives and seek out organizations and activities that connect them with real, living human people, not just text and voice on a computer. That may mean a resurgence of religious activity, though I am speaking more generally about finding a sense of belonging and purpose. Maybe I'm wrong to be hopeful, but I do not see our current situation (at least in the developed world) as permanent.

[SteveO]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess I wasn't very clear in what I was writing.  I didn't say conservative religions were failing, I meant all religions failing.  Here is a question to seriously ponder.  What does religion actually have to offer?  Can people go to find eternal truths that can be trusted when the see so much in religion that they can't trust?  For many it is a belief system lived that came from a time when knowledge about so much of this stuff was unknown.  Now it is known, and it doesn't fit the stories.  A world wide flood?  Adam and Eve story?  Age of the earth?  No death until the last 6000 years?  What I am saying is, if you can't trust the message or those leading churches, then what does religion have to offer?  

You ever seen "The Mask of Zorro"?  There's a scene where Anthony Hopkins is training Antonio Banderas.  He draws three circles in the dirt and tells him to jump from circle 1 to circle 3 without touching circle 2.  It's an impossible feat, and it illustrated that training in anything requires prerequisites leading up to it.  I see the gospel in much the same way.  There are things you absolutely, without question, must know in the church (circle 1).  Then there are things you should know (circle 2).  And then there are things that are nice to know, and incredibly cool to know, but really aren't necessary for you to know (circle 3).  That whole "line upon line" and "milk before meat" that the church always uses isn't something that we say and don't really follow through on.  It's vital to one's understanding of the gospel.  You know this.  You know that the church's answer to that list of questions isn't "it's in the bible, just have faith".  All you have to do is read Parley P Pratt's "Key to the Science of Theology" from the late 19th century to know that the church had/has a far greater understanding of those things than what you're suggesting.  But those aren't things we say over the pulpit on Sunday.  We don't go into primary and teach how evolution and the gospel can be reconciled, or give a lesson on how metaphors and parables are just tools that are supposed to teach the layman complex eternal truths.  People are at different stages spiritually, and at different stages with education and understanding.  Most people, like my brother, just don't care and are fine with staying in circle 1.  You start with anything more than that, and his eyes glaze over and he just tunes out.  Absolutely no interest in things like that.  So the difficulty is trying to please everyone.  An army can only move as fast as its slowest man...so the default speed of the church--at least at the macro level imo--is going to be circle 1 territory.  Which is why its up tot the members to take charge of their own learning and understanding.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

o I live in San Francisco.  The city is filled with millenniums.  It is a very young aged city.  And this is what I see.  You are right.  They don't seem to be involved in any organizations.  But I think that is also not surprising.  People used to join organizations to meet others and to connect.  Now, that is really not necessary.  You can stay. connected with a much broader group electronically.  What I do see is the restaurants packed every night.  And as I look across the room, customers are almost all in their 20's and 30's.  I have a downstairs neighbor who fits this age group.  He goes surfing almost every morning with a bunch of his friends, rushes home and then works long hours.  He and his friends also travel, all the time.  My. kids are the same.  They run marathons and course challenge events regularly.  They travel and go out to eat with their friends, a lot.  If I want to know the latest hot place to eat, I ask them.  What they are doing is changing sitting in meetings listening to someone else tell them how to live their lives for actually living their lives.

Of course there is a wide spectrum in what I have described.  Some just simply never leave the house.  And there are still some who are very connected with religion.  They ignore the problems and enjoy the uplifting experience.  When the meetings get boring, they just pull out their iPad.

I agree to a point, but I dislike the whole, "who wants to sit in meetings and listen to someone tell them how to live their lives"?  I think most people know what their weaknesses and shortcomings are.  They don't really need people to point it out.  And even if they don't know where specifically they are failing, they know enough to know that there is something in their lives that needs fixing or bettering.  Church is like a "spiritual hospital", or at least it should be.  One area I think we aren't doing so well in is providing people with the medicine they are craving or needing. We had a guy this past Sunday get up and literally ramble for 25 minutes in sacrament meeting.  No notes, no papers, clearly no preparation.  Just incoherent rambling with personal stories that I guess were designed to make him look good.  And the worst of it, is that the guy clearly thought he was a talented and gifted speaker, which just means going forward, he has no intention of preparing and fixing the issue.  There's a lot of that it seems,in every ward I go to. It doesn't help anyone, nobody is the better for it, and it just feels like a waste of time sitting there and listening to it.  The problem isn't with the religion, its how its being presented.  I think the church has tried to remedy that with the changes to the curriculum and with teacher training, but until some members get a little humility in their abilities, its not going to do much in making the meetings spiritually refreshing. 

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I would say that if you haven't fallen into complete and total existential crisis and despair then you haven't allowed your self to truly address the next stage of challenging questions of nihilism.  You have only stepped to the ledge, but you are not willing to jump off (just like Jensen).  I think you two have more in common then you think.  You are just standing at different ledges saying, "it is not worth it".   We all have ledges that we are not willing to jump off.  Why?  Because we know deep down that it would lead to complete catastrophe.  

You might be right.  I'm not sure exactly what complete existential crisis and despair looks like.  I haven't ever been a suicidal person either, so I can't say that I fully understand what those people are going through.  Its not for a lack of willingness to explore the possibilities and implications of a meaningless universe with no God.  I've been there and I'm still there to some degree, those ideas continue to inform my world view.  

I'm not sure what you mean by lead to complete catastrophe though, because I'm not sure anyone nihilist or religionist make that kind of pronouncement.  One person's catastrophe is another person's beautiful art.  

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I think the allegiance that Jensen is speaking of is not to man, but to the authority of God. Allegiance to this authority leads one into all good, such as serving others, family, and all those other things you mentioned.  It is total submission to God.  That IS the most important thing we can do in this life.  I think that is what he was talking about. 

Allegiance to authority is just as problematic from my perspective.  If God is a being that desires allegiance then God is a shallow warlord not a deity worthy of worship and of descriptions like all-powerful and all-knowing.  This kind of a God is the kind of petty God envisioned by tribes pitting their Gods against each other.  

Now, the principles of submission and obedience have some value, I'm not saying they are worthless ideas.  They just can't be the #1 most important things to learn and align with in this life.  That would be absurd.  

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Taking your report of Elder Jensen’s remarks to be accurate, he says: have faith in the Gospel (Jesus overcoming sin and death), that God is in charge, and that His servants have the keys of authority. He summed up the practice of this faith as “allegiance to Church authority” which is from 3 Nephi 12:1, which verse is the culmination of what Jesus taught in the previous chapter and which sets the stage for the rest of the Lord’s personal mission to the Nephites (the rest of chapter 12 through chapter 28).

Thus understanding “allegiance to [i.e. “heed” per 3 Nephi)] church authority” to mean “trust the men leading the Church” is neither a full nor correct interpretation. But given that limited perception and understanding, I totally get the rejection of authority, an inclination I too possess if not for incorporating the other redeeming elements he mentioned. If developing a more integrated perspective is a function of my being more willing to face the challenges of discipleship, I agree with Elder Jenkins that that is fundamentally, when all is said and done, only a function of faith.

Naturally, faith and doubt cannot co-exist, hence the unwillingness to “go there,” respectively, by one without faith and one with faith, and the commitment to work and sacrifice in the direction each has chosen.

It would be interesting to see the doubter’s version of the Renlund story, rescuing those with faith!  

Trusting people has some value in a civilized society.  Blind trust and loyalty probably also have some application as well, but there are definite risks involved in those kinds of allegiances.  The problem is when someone thinks these qualities are the #1 most important thing in your religious system.  Thats not an inspirational religion and thats not a religion worthy of devotion.  

Its also not the core idea of Christianity or the Mormon tradition.  

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Trusting people has some value in a civilized society.  Blind trust and loyalty probably also have some application as well, but there are definite risks involved in those kinds of allegiances.  The problem is when someone thinks these qualities are the #1 most important thing in your religious system.  Thats not an inspirational religion and thats not a religion worthy of devotion.  

Its also not the core idea of Christianity or the Mormon tradition.   

I don’t think Elder Jensen’s remarks, once explained, suggest any of these negatives.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess I wasn't very clear in what I was writing.  I didn't say conservative religions were failing, I meant all religions failing.

Right but I was more pointing to the why. If we say it's politics-social issues related then we have to explain the total collapse of liberal protestantism.

6 hours ago, california boy said:

What does religion actually have to offer?  Can people go to find eternal truths that can be trusted when the see so much in religion that they can't trust?  For many it is a belief system lived that came from a time when knowledge about so much of this stuff was unknown.  Now it is known, and it doesn't fit the stories.  A world wide flood?  Adam and Eve story?  Age of the earth?  No death until the last 6000 years?  What I am saying is, if you can't trust the message or those leading churches, then what does religion have to offer?  

Well again though you're still bringing up what applies to only a limited number of faiths and then extending it to all religion. If the issue is literalism particularly of Genesis then that's a problem for conservative protestantism but liberal protestantism has never embraced literalism. So why aren't people fleeing conservative baptist or evangelical movements for episcopalianism? Instead they're becoming Nones. So you're making this leap from "this particular faith-tradition is untrustworthy" to "all faith is untrustworthy." Now perhaps the Nones are simply making this same mistake - equating conservative literalistic Protestantism to religion in general. In aggregate the Nones aren't terribly informed theologically and historically. So perhaps many simply don't realize most Christians aren't protestants of a literalistic bent.

6 hours ago, california boy said:

They don't seem to be involved in any organizations.  But I think that is also not surprising.  People used to join organizations to meet others and to connect.  Now, that is really not necessary.  You can stay. connected with a much broader group electronically.

Not quite the same thing. And again I'd be very, very careful extrapolating from an unusual group (fairly well off 20 somethings living/working in San Francisco) to the whole country. San Francisco at the best of times is pretty unusual - if anything I think they're a group who have set up quasi-religious movements to replace religion. Second they tend to be disproportionately educated and wealthy. (Just to be able to afford rent in that area is extremely difficult) But even beyond that you can't extrapolate from a self-selected group (those being publicly social) to say much about the ratio behaving like that.

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I think we are still in the early stages of the Internet age. It makes sense to me that the ability to "connect" with others has ironically caused isolation and alienation from groups and activities that formerly bound people together. My guess is that the pendulum will swing back the other way, as more and more people decide they need something more than a keyboard and monitor in their lives and seek out organizations and activities that connect them with real, living human people, not just text and voice on a computer. That may mean a resurgence of religious activity, though I am speaking more generally about finding a sense of belonging and purpose. Maybe I'm wrong to be hopeful, but I do not see our current situation (at least in the developed world) as permanent.

It's possible. We just don't know right now. And of course we're in a particular period of huge social upheaval. Not quite as dramatic as the late 60's but I fear we may get there.

Edited July 13, 2018 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

2 hours ago, SteveO said:

You ever seen "The Mask of Zorro"?  There's a scene where Anthony Hopkins is training Antonio Banderas.  He draws three circles in the dirt and tells him to jump from circle 1 to circle 3 without touching circle 2.  It's an impossible feat, and it illustrated that training in anything requires prerequisites leading up to it.  I see the gospel in much the same way.  There are things you absolutely, without question, must know in the church (circle 1).  Then there are things you should know (circle 2).  And then there are things that are nice to know, and incredibly cool to know, but really aren't necessary for you to know (circle 3).  That whole "line upon line" and "milk before meat" that the church always uses isn't something that we say and don't really follow through on.  It's vital to one's understanding of the gospel.  You know this.  You know that the church's answer to that list of questions isn't "it's in the bible, just have faith".  All you have to do is read Parley P Pratt's "Key to the Science of Theology" from the late 19th century to know that the church had/has a far greater understanding of those things than what you're suggesting.  But those aren't things we say over the pulpit on Sunday.  We don't go into primary and teach how evolution and the gospel can be reconciled, or give a lesson on how metaphors and parables are just tools that are supposed to teach the layman complex eternal truths.  People are at different stages spiritually, and at different stages with education and understanding.  Most people, like my brother, just don't care and are fine with staying in circle 1.  You start with anything more than that, and his eyes glaze over and he just tunes out.  Absolutely no interest in things like that.  So the difficulty is trying to please everyone.  An army can only move as fast as its slowest man...so the default speed of the church--at least at the macro level imo--is going to be circle 1 territory.  Which is why its up tot the members to take charge of their own learning and understanding.

I agree to a point, but I dislike the whole, "who wants to sit in meetings and listen to someone tell them how to live their lives"?  I think most people know what their weaknesses and shortcomings are.  They don't really need people to point it out.  And even if they don't know where specifically they are failing, they know enough to know that there is something in their lives that needs fixing or bettering.  Church is like a "spiritual hospital", or at least it should be.  One area I think we aren't doing so well in is providing people with the medicine they are craving or needing. We had a guy this past Sunday get up and literally ramble for 25 minutes in sacrament meeting.  No notes, no papers, clearly no preparation.  Just incoherent rambling with personal stories that I guess were designed to make him look good.  And the worst of it, is that the guy clearly thought he was a talented and gifted speaker, which just means going forward, he has no intention of preparing and fixing the issue.  There's a lot of that it seems,in every ward I go to. It doesn't help anyone, nobody is the better for it, and it just feels like a waste of time sitting there and listening to it.  The problem isn't with the religion, its how its being presented.  I think the church has tried to remedy that with the changes to the curriculum and with teacher training, but until some members get a little humility in their abilities, its not going to do much in making the meetings spiritually refreshing. 

I would say. by your answer, religion and specifically the Mormon Church works for you.  You trust the church leaders and believe in the message.  Good for you.  I think there will always be a certain percentage that seek organized religion and find value in it.

But what we are seeing, and the polls are showing,  is an increase in those who don't trust religious leaders, their claims of knowing the will of God and don't believe in the stories that religion has relied on.  The scriptures are just not looking like something an all knowing God would inspire men to write.  

This isn't just a Mormon problem, this is a religion problem.  If you don't believe in these fundamental principles, then what does religion have to offer those kind of people?  Not sure there is an easy answer. To get back to the OP, people are not seeing a reason to hop into a boat to take them somewhere just because it seems safer.  When they evaluate the "peeling paint and dents in the boat", where the boat is headed may no longer be important.

 

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Trusting people has some value in a civilized society.  Blind trust and loyalty probably also have some application as well, but there are definite risks involved in those kinds of allegiances.  The problem is when someone thinks these qualities are the #1 most important thing in your religious system.  Thats not an inspirational religion and thats not a religion worthy of devotion.  

Its also not the core idea of Christianity or the Mormon tradition.   

I don’t think Elder Jensen’s remarks, once explained, suggest any of these negatives.

I don't see how your explanation elevates the moral value an allegiance to authority.  Its not a value worthy of calling the #1 most important way to orient in life or to establish as the foundational principle for a religion.  

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see how your explanation elevates the moral value an allegiance to authority.  Its not a value worthy of calling the #1 most important way to orient in life or to establish as the foundational principle for a religion.  

Sometimes I think people don't distinguish between Christ and the church and its leaders. Thus, allegiance to Christ is seen as the same as allegiance to the church and its leaders. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You might be right.  I'm not sure exactly what complete existential crisis and despair looks like.  I haven't ever been a suicidal person either, so I can't say that I fully understand what those people are going through.  Its not for a lack of willingness to explore the possibilities and implications of a meaningless universe with no God.  I've been there and I'm still there to some degree, those ideas continue to inform my world view.  

I don't think you are there at all.  You still have faith in goodness, in right and wrong, you have values, guiding principles, morals, you find meaning in life with family, etc.  The antidote to nihilism is faith.  You still have it, like it or not. You are still unwilling to completely step off the ledge and let go of faith, even if it is just in the idea of goodness.  You are not willing to let go because you know that it would lead to terrible consequences.  In that sense you are no different from Jensen, you simply standing on different ledges of faith.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure what you mean by lead to complete catastrophe though, because I'm not sure anyone nihilist or religionist make that kind of pronouncement.  One person's catastrophe is another person's beautiful art.  

That is where you are wrong. Nihilism and the loss of meaning cannot be "beautiful art" to anyone because truth and beauty cannot exist in nihilism.  There is no beaty in nihilism.  You completely lose the sense of good, truth, meaning, values, etc., which are required to assess beauty.  

If a complete existential crisis and total despair from absolute loss of values, meaning, truth, morals, principles, etc.is not a total catastrophe, I don't know what is!  

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Allegiance to authority is just as problematic from my perspective.  If God is a being that desires allegiance then God is a shallow warlord not a deity worthy of worship and of descriptions like all-powerful and all-knowing.  This kind of a God is the kind of petty God envisioned by tribes pitting their Gods against each other.  

Now, the principles of submission and obedience have some value, I'm not saying they are worthless ideas.  They just can't be the #1 most important things to learn and align with in this life.  That would be absurd.  

Where God = absolute goodness/the source of all that is good, total allegiance and devotion to God = the #1 most important thing to align oneself with in this life.  Anything else is "absurd".  

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Right but I was more pointing to the why. If we say it's politics-social issues related then we have to explain the total collapse of liberal protestantism.

Well again though you're still bringing up what applies to only a limited number of faiths and then extending it to all religion. If the issue is literalism particularly of Genesis then that's a problem for conservative protestantism but liberal protestantism has never embraced literalism. So why aren't people fleeing conservative baptist or evangelical movements for episcopalianism? Instead they're becoming Nones. So you're making this leap from "this particular faith-tradition is untrustworthy" to "all faith is untrustworthy." Now perhaps the Nones are simply making this same mistake - equating conservative literalistic Protestantism to religion in general. In aggregate the Nones aren't terribly informed theologically and historically. So perhaps many simply don't realize most Christians aren't protestants of a literalistic bent.

This helps clarify what you were talking about. Thanks.  But I think many have thrown out religion all together.  Like you, I don't think they are going around to each congregation trying to find something that more fits their historical views.  Like I said perviously, I don't think they see value for them in any religion.  I am curious what you would say to someone in their position that would convince them that they should look more closely into religion.

 

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not quite the same thing. And again I'd be very, very careful extrapolating from an unusual group (fairly well off 20 somethings living/working in San Francisco) to the whole country. San Francisco at the best of times is pretty unusual - if anything I think they're a group who have set up quasi-religious movements to replace religion. Second they tend to be disproportionately educated and wealthy. (Just to be able to afford rent in that area is extremely difficult) But even beyond that you can't extrapolate from a self-selected group (those being publicly social) to say much about the ratio behaving like that.

It's possible. We just don't know right now. And of course we're in a particular period of huge social upheaval. Not quite as dramatic as the late 60's but I fear we may get there.

I agree San Francisco has some unique common denominators.  I don't have a good perspective on what is going on in the rest of the country. 

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Sometimes I think people don't distinguish between Christ and the church and its leaders. Thus, allegiance to Christ is seen as the same as allegiance to the church and its leaders. 

Yes, but even then, I would still argue that allegiance to the authority of God or Christ is not the #1 most important thing in life.  That makes for a very shallow concept of deity, and vacuous religion.  And Mormonism and Christianity don't even teach this as central to the faith.  In Mormonism we are deity in embryo.  Our goal is to become like God through learning to emulate the attributes of God, the most central of these attributes is love or charity. 

The two great commandments in the bible are love God and love your neighbor.  The love God command is essentially another way of saying love your neighbor after reading further in the scriptures about feeding the sheep of Jesus, and doing unto the least is doing unto God.  So really, Christianity and Mormonism have elevated love and service as the principle attributes of God to emulate, these can be satisfactory values to found a religion on.  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, but even then, I would still argue that allegiance to the authority of God or Christ is not the #1 most important thing in life.  That makes for a very shallow concept of deity, and vacuous religion.  And Mormonism and Christianity don't even teach this as central to the faith.  In Mormonism we are deity in embryo.  Our goal is to become like God through learning to emulate the attributes of God, the most central of these attributes is love or charity. 

The two great commandments in the bible are love God and love your neighbor.  The love God command is essentially another way of saying love your neighbor after reading further in the scriptures about feeding the sheep of Jesus, and doing unto the least is doing unto God.  So really, Christianity and Mormonism have elevated love and service as the principle attributes of God to emulate, these can be satisfactory values to found a religion on.  

We humans seem to be good at putting a lot of layers in between ourselves and God. It really is love that matters the most (I see service as a manifestation of love).

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see how your explanation elevates the moral value an allegiance to authority.  Its not a value worthy of calling the #1 most important way to orient in life or to establish as the foundational principle for a religion.   

According to your initial description, allegiance (as one expression of faith) is not what he is calling #1 most important, but faith. That may not be how you understand your description, but I did offer an explanation.

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Sometimes I think people don't distinguish between Christ and the church and its leaders. Thus, allegiance to Christ is seen as the same as allegiance to the church and its leaders.  

That is how @hope_for_things is seeing and describing it, but as I explained, this is not Brother Jensen’s complete message.

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I would say. by your answer, religion and specifically the Mormon Church works for you.  You trust the church leaders and believe in the message.  Good for you.  I think there will always be a certain percentage that seek organized religion and find value in it.

But what we are seeing, and the polls are showing,  is an increase in those who don't trust religious leaders, their claims of knowing the will of God and don't believe in the stories that religion has relied on.  The scriptures are just not looking like something an all knowing God would inspire men to write.  

This isn't just a Mormon problem, this is a religion problem.  If you don't believe in these fundamental principles, then what does religion have to offer those kind of people?  Not sure there is an easy answer. To get back to the OP, people are not seeing a reason to hop into a boat to take them somewhere just because it seems safer.  When they evaluate the "peeling paint and dents in the boat", where the boat is headed may no longer be important.

 

I would say you're right in the sense that religious dogma isn't meeting the needs of people in this modern age.  I'd even say that "pop culture" Mormonism doesn't either.  I would also say that just going off on one's own and relying on a personal relationship with whatever their idea of who and what God is, doesn't fare much better.  

I think the Father in Heaven, and the Savior of the King Follet Discourse is far more incredible and satiating to what people are looking for anymore.  And I wish that were something the church would emphasize more of. 

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, but even then, I would still argue that allegiance to the authority of God or Christ is not the #1 most important thing in life.  That makes for a very shallow concept of deity, and vacuous religion.  And Mormonism and Christianity don't even teach this as central to the faith.  In Mormonism we are deity in embryo.  Our goal is to become like God through learning to emulate the attributes of God, the most central of these attributes is love or charity. 

The two great commandments in the bible are love God and love your neighbor.  The love God command is essentially another way of saying love your neighbor after reading further in the scriptures about feeding the sheep of Jesus, and doing unto the least is doing unto God.  So really, Christianity and Mormonism have elevated love and service as the principle attributes of God to emulate, these can be satisfactory values to found a religion on.  

Mormonism and Christianity absolutely do teach that allegiance to God is the #1 most important thing.  The whole point of life is to learn to place God's will above our own - "thy will and not mine, be done".  The whole point is to learn to "be one" with God.  That oneness is not a compromise where we meet God in the middle!  Oneness can only happen through total surrender to God, to do his will.  That is how we become like him - it does not happen because He becomes more like us.  That is nonsense.

You seem to be confusing the fulfillment of the command to love one's neighbor as something separate from total allegiance to God.  To love your neighbor is a "command" of God, to love one's neighbor is to place one's allegiance with God. 

Christianity is all about total allegiance to our "master".  We are either slaves to sin or righteousness.  Who will you serve?  That is the question of Christianity.  

Edited July 13, 2018 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is how @hope_for_things is seeing and describing it, but as I explained, this is not Brother Jensen’s complete message.

I wasn't talking about Elder Jensen. Should have been clearer. Sorry.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think you are there at all.  You still have faith in goodness, in right and wrong, you have values, guiding principles, morals, you find meaning in life with family, etc.  The antidote to nihilism is faith.  You still have it, like it or not. You are still unwilling to completely step off the ledge and let go of faith, even if it is just in the idea of goodness.  You are not willing to let go because you know that it would lead to terrible consequences.  In that sense you are no different from Jensen, you simply standing on different ledges of faith.

I like to think I'm a glass half full optimist by nature.  But I have darker thoughts.  You only see what I choose to share on the message board.  I don't know why you think I'm scared to let go of something.  What terrible consequences are you referring to?  I don't really understand this.  Sounds like you're trying to psychoanalyze me here through a message board.  

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is where you are wrong. Nihilism and the loss of meaning cannot be "beautiful art" to anyone because truth and beauty cannot exist in nihilism.  There is no beaty in nihilism.  You completely lose the sense of good, truth, meaning, values, etc., which are required to assess beauty.  

If a complete existential crisis and total despair from absolute loss of values, meaning, truth, morals, principles, etc.is not a total catastrophe, I don't know what is!  

I think a person can feel like there are no values to the universe, no eternal truths, and feel surrounded by a world of meaningless suffering, and yet can still get up and operate in the world in a way that they are trying to create their own meaning.  That is what I'm trying to do now.  For others, the realization of these things could lead them to deep depression or suicide. 

Are you suggesting that to truly understand nihilism a person has to break down mentally and no longer be able to function?  

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Where God = absolute goodness/the source of all that is good, total allegiance and devotion to God = the #1 most important thing to align oneself with in this life.  Anything else is "absurd".  

If God = goodness and God wants us to become like him, then we should have goodness as our #1 goal.  Allegiance and devotion are not goodness, in this context they strike me as a form of narcissism.  

Orson Pratt talked about how we should worship God because of the attributes that God has, and those attributes are what makes God worthy of worship.  So how are we to worship attributes?  Through emulation of those attributes.  Emulating goodness is how we worship a good God.  

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

According to your initial description, allegiance (as one expression of faith) is not what he is calling #1 most important, but faith. That may not be how you understand your description, but I did offer an explanation.

 

That is how @hope_for_things is seeing and describing it, but as I explained, this is not Brother Jensen’s complete message.

The faith emphasis is a slight twist from the way I understood what Elder Jensen said,  My memory is of him saying aligning with the LDS church and trusting its leaders is the #1 most important thing a person can do. 

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Mormonism and Christianity absolutely do teach that allegiance to God is the #1 most important thing.  The whole point of life is to learn to place God's will above our own - "thy will and not mine, be done".  The whole point is to learn to "be one" with God.  That oneness is not a compromise where we meet God in the middle!  Oneness can only happen through total surrender to God, to do his will.  That is how we become like him - it does not happen because He becomes more like us.  That is nonsense.

You seem to be confusing the fulfillment of the command to love one's neighbor as something separate from total allegiance to God.  To love your neighbor is a "command" of God, to love one's neighbor is to place one's allegiance with God. 

Christianity is all about total allegiance to our "master".  We are either slaves to sin or righteousness.  Who will you serve?  That is the question of Christianity.  

No offense to you personally, but this is warped heresy from my vantage point.  Sounds much more like the plan of Satan, give me your power and glory kind of idea and I'll save everyone.  The servant is the greatest of all, not the king.  All that kingly and war leader imagery that infested Christianity is garbage.