The gospel a generation away from extinction?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I hate seeing these criteria used as any measurement of spirituality or righteousness. I know is a a part of mormon dogma but I struggle to believe these play any role when God determines who is living a good life and who isn't.  

Me as well! But as you well know, if you aren't living the WoW, no probability of receiving a TR, and then onto living to exaltation. Many parents really want their famiies to be together don't they? So you can see my friend's angst over it.

[Ahab]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Me as well! But as you well know, if you aren't living the WoW, no probability of receiving a TR, and then onto living to exaltation. Many parents really want their famiies to be together don't they? So you can see my friend's angst over it.

Such a simple sacrifice on my part, as I look at it.  I really enjoyed drinking beer and wine and even stronger drinks like margaritas and Jack with coke, and coffee and iced tea and cappuccinos and espressos.  Really tasty to me and it was a real sacrifice for me to give it all up.

But I have been more than compensated for that sacrifice, and other sacrifices I have made.  

Who knows, maybe we'll be able to drink them all again after we have been resurrected.  I think we'll still have our taste buds and nothing will be able to kill us then!

[Vedrfolnyr]

I happen to think that in 50 years the church will be a speck of what it is. I do not have actual numbers but have you noticed that they rarely report growth numbers at conference anymore.  Of the boys in my ward, there were 12 who graduated high school, two went on missions. When I was younger only one didn't go. The church will carry on as all church's do. However, it won't be in the United States. It will carry on in third world nation's. God will always have a chosen people. He may in fact change who those chosen people are based upon their worthiness. No longer will it be a Utah based, primarily Euro church. 

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, Vedrfolnyr said:

I happen to think that in 50 years the church will be a speck of what it is. I do not have actual numbers but have you noticed that they rarely report growth numbers at conference anymore.  Of the boys in my ward, there were 12 who graduated high school, two went on missions. When I was younger only one didn't go. The church will carry on as all church's do. However, it won't be in the United States. It will carry on in third world nation's. God will always have a chosen people. He may in fact change who those chosen people are based upon their worthiness. No longer will it be a Utah based, primarily Euro church. 

50 years...an assumption.

Sometimes I think we forget we are a millennialist church and these are the last days.

I  happen to think in 50 years the world will be completely different and so will the Church role.

Edited September 28, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Lemuel]

On 9/25/2019 at 6:41 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

But there is no prophecy that a general apostasy —such as that which occurred after the deaths of the apostles — will occur again. 

While there are alternative interpretations, one could take 3 Nephi 16:10 as evidence of a latter-day apostasy:

Quote

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.

All depends on who BoM authors see as gentiles.  Joseph identified us as such, even if we can be numbered among Israel:

Quote

D&C 109:60 Now these words, O Lord, we have spoken before thee, concerning the revelations and commandments which thou hast given unto us, who are identified with the Gentiles.

 

[Tacenda]

I like that the church is about the truth and see that many leaders were unaware of many things, it appears the reason is that President Joseph Fielding Smith was the church historian from 1921 to 1970. That's a lot of history being squelched. Sorry about the meme, I thought it explained the differences well. I hope it isn't offensive.  I wish President Smith at the time had been inspired to not do what he did, because IMO it contributed to a lot of members losing their testimonies when finding they'd been told a different narrative than the true one. 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/26/2019 at 9:43 AM, JLHPROF said:

 

Further light would be wonderful.  Contradictory light is not helpful (or probably even genuine).

I vote for parallel compatible light in which we can see things literally and symbolically at the same time.  One obvious example is Adam and Eve - some take them as real people and others see them as representatives of the human condition.

But they could be both- both views are compatible and parallel but appeal to different people.

I think every aspect of our theology can be seen this way, but we are too immersed in the old to see the new.  Nothing has to change except the perspective on the meaning of the words and how you take them.  Another is my way of seeing "The Word" as organizing all things.  One perspective on that is that Jesus as the Messenger is the Word who created all things under Heavenly Father's direction.

Another way to see it is a more philosophical approach, that all reality AS WE KNOW IT can be expressed literally in Words and so words are the organizing force in everything we see as "existing"- so in a very real sense Words organize reality as we know it.

Both views are compatible and do not contradict each other- both could be true just as Old Testament prophecies about the end of days can be seen as discussing the destruction of Jerusalem in what- 71? AD, , and the previous destructions  by the Babylonians and the destruction prophesied before the Second Coming, or it could also be seen as a world wide apostasy and loss of belief in Theism altogether.

The way I see it , what is important is the Pragmatic EFFECT these various ways of seeing it has in our lives.   They all lead to the BELIEF that we better be hunkering down and getting ready for horribly hard times before the eventual triumph of good over evil.

As I see it that is the Doctrine being taught, regardless of how we think the story "really was"

So all those ways of taking it lead to the same belief- GET READY regardless of what we think the story "really is"

So we also have "compatible light" to add to the list of spheres of methods of creating our worlds through intelligence acting for itself through us, otherwise there is no knowledge about "existence"

DC 93

Quote

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/28/2019 at 9:18 AM, Tacenda said:

I like that the church is about the truth and see that many leaders were unaware of many things, it appears the reason is that President Joseph Fielding Smith was the church historian from 1921 to 1970. That's a lot of history being squelched. Sorry about the meme, I thought it explained the differences well. I hope it isn't offensive.  I wish President Smith at the time had been inspired to not do what he did, because IMO it contributed to a lot of members losing their testimonies when finding they'd been told a different narrative than the true one. 

THAT is a fact I never knew, which explains a lot including the influence that Elder McConkie had.   I did not realize that JFS was church historian for that entire period, essentially that for half a century, church history was locked up and inaccessible.  I have read his writings and have a very good sense of how he saw the world, which is about as different from the way I see it as is possible.  Of course I knew he was an apostle etc, but never realized his influence over the publication and tweaking of church history and research.

YES that is very revealing- thanks.   As a convert there is a lot that others know by simply living through it that we never quite get explained to us.

[JLHPROF]

On 9/28/2019 at 10:18 AM, Tacenda said:

I like that the church is about the truth and see that many leaders were unaware of many things, it appears the reason is that President Joseph Fielding Smith was the church historian from 1921 to 1970. That's a lot of history being squelched. Sorry about the meme, I thought it explained the differences well. I hope it isn't offensive.  I wish President Smith at the time had been inspired to not do what he did, because IMO it contributed to a lot of members losing their testimonies when finding they'd been told a different narrative than the  true one.

 

You do realize there is no contradiction here at all right?  Both the underlined portions are true in the context of the total statements.

[grannysue]

My husband and I are nearly 70 years old. Both of us are faithful, endowed members of the Church. In their early to mid-adulthood, so were all four of our children. At this point, only one is still active, our daughter. Two of our sons have actively left the Church, and one is just indifferent. Two of them served wonderful, full-time missions. Neither of these is bitter toward the Church, and they remember their missionary experiences as good ones. However, they have left the Church for "Gospel Topics" and/or historicity-type issues. They all remain good, upstanding citizens, but they aren't interested in attending. 

Sadly, this is true in my extended family as well. Not one of my four siblings' children remains active in the Church. Most of them had some historicity concerns but pulled out due to LGBT issues, with the non-baptizing/ordination of openly gay members' children being the last straw. (However, it had been building for a long time.) We have also watched three families in our ward (with parents in their 30s) leave the Church, and it is getting far more common (among our friends' children) to see young families with temple marriages decide they don't want to continue with their membership. I do not believe most of these parents choose to leave because they don't want to obey commandments. The ones I have spoken to have issues that are truly doctrinal, organizational or procedural, and leaving is an outgrowth of that struggle. We are losing some of our best and brightest.

I really think it is concerning, and I fear it is a growing trend. I wish it were not, and I'm hoping increased openness on the part of the Church will make a difference in the long run. Three of my children, who once saw the leaders as infallible, feel that the Church was less than honest with them. While I continue to love the Church and believe the doctrine, I have a bit of a shelf myself these days. Happily for me, my non-black-and-white brain is handling that pretty well. It does sadden me that family members and friends, who also loved it, are leaving in such numbers. We have been richly blessed by our membership and activity in the Church, and I really wish my grandchildren could have the anchor and support that my own children had. In today's world, kids need a spiritual foundation and a moral center. They also need to know that prayer is real and God loves them. Finally, they need a community of people who share values that our society is no longer upholding as it once did. Besides all that, they need to know who they are, why they are here, and where they are going. That has meant everything to me, from my earliest years. It still does, especially since I am going there in the not-that-distant future!

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, grannysue said:

My husband and I are nearly 70 years old. Both of us are faithful, endowed members of the Church. In their early to mid-adulthood, so were all four of our children. At this point, only one is still active, our daughter. Two of our sons have actively left the Church, and one is just indifferent. Two of them served wonderful, full-time missions. Neither of these is bitter toward the Church, and they remember their missionary experiences as good ones. However, they have left the Church for "Gospel Topics" and/or historicity-type issues. They all remain good, upstanding citizens, but they aren't interested in attending. 

Sadly, this is true in my extended family as well. Not one of my four siblings' children remains active in the Church. Most of them had some historicity concerns but pulled out due to LGBT issues, with the non-baptizing/ordination of openly gay members' children being the last straw. (However, it had been building for a long time.) We have also watched three families in our ward (with parents in their 30s) leave the Church, and it is getting far more common (among our friends' children) to see young families with temple marriages decide they don't want to continue with their membership. I do not believe most of these parents choose to leave because they don't want to obey commandments. The ones I have spoken to have issues that are truly doctrinal, organizational or procedural, and leaving is an outgrowth of that struggle. We are losing some of our best and brightest.

I really think it is concerning, and I fear it is a growing trend. I wish it were not, and I'm hoping increased openness on the part of the Church will make a difference in the long run. Three of my children, who once saw the leaders as infallible, feel that the Church was less than honest with them. While I continue to love the Church and believe the doctrine, I have a bit of a shelf myself these days. Happily for me, my non-black-and-white brain is handling that pretty well. It does sadden me that family members and friends, who also loved it, are leaving in such numbers. We have been richly blessed by our membership and activity in the Church, and I really wish my grandchildren could have the anchor and support that my own children had. In today's world, kids need a spiritual foundation and a moral center. They also need to know that prayer is real and God loves them. Finally, they need a community of people who share values that our society is no longer upholding as it once did. Besides all that, they need to know who they are, why they are here, and where they are going. That has meant everything to me, from my earliest years. It still does, especially since I am going there in the not-that-distant future!

Knowing the gospel is true, and that the Church is true too, is a lot easier than living a righteous life.  Hopefully your children and grand children are still trying to live righteous lives as well as they are able and they will continue to try to do better and better.

I like the change our Church leaders made several years ago when saying we should not refer to members of the Church as inactive, as we once did.  Instead, we should simply refer to members who no longer serve or attend services as they once did as less active when comparing them to members who are more active in living the gospel and sharing it by example.  It is sad and unfortunate when members actively leave the Church by having their membership status revoked, but we can hope they will come back after they have learned how important it is to be a member of the only true and living church of Jesus Christ on this planet.  It seems that some of us just need to learn things the hard way, sometimes, and at least those who have left the Church were once familiar enough with the gospel message to have that knowledge come back to them when they realize they really do need Jesus Christ to be able to be truly happy.

All of us who are mortal are here for the same reason and hopefully we'll eventually accept what we need to accept to become as much like our Father in heaven as we can possibly be.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, grannysue said:

My husband and I are nearly 70 years old. Both of us are faithful, endowed members of the Church. In their early to mid-adulthood, so were all four of our children. At this point, only one is still active, our daughter. Two of our sons have actively left the Church, and one is just indifferent. Two of them served wonderful, full-time missions. Neither of these is bitter toward the Church, and they remember their missionary experiences as good ones. However, they have left the Church for "Gospel Topics" and/or historicity-type issues. They all remain good, upstanding citizens, but they aren't interested in attending. 

Sadly, this is true in my extended family as well. Not one of my four siblings' children remains active in the Church. Most of them had some historicity concerns but pulled out due to LGBT issues, with the non-baptizing/ordination of openly gay members' children being the last straw. (However, it had been building for a long time.) We have also watched three families in our ward (with parents in their 30s) leave the Church, and it is getting far more common (among our friends' children) to see young families with temple marriages decide they don't want to continue with their membership. I do not believe most of these parents choose to leave because they don't want to obey commandments. The ones I have spoken to have issues that are truly doctrinal, organizational or procedural, and leaving is an outgrowth of that struggle. We are losing some of our best and brightest.

I really think it is concerning, and I fear it is a growing trend. I wish it were not, and I'm hoping increased openness on the part of the Church will make a difference in the long run. Three of my children, who once saw the leaders as infallible, feel that the Church was less than honest with them. While I continue to love the Church and believe the doctrine, I have a bit of a shelf myself these days. Happily for me, my non-black-and-white brain is handling that pretty well. It does sadden me that family members and friends, who also loved it, are leaving in such numbers. We have been richly blessed by our membership and activity in the Church, and I really wish my grandchildren could have the anchor and support that my own children had. In today's world, kids need a spiritual foundation and a moral center. They also need to know that prayer is real and God loves them. Finally, they need a community of people who share values that our society is no longer upholding as it once did. Besides all that, they need to know who they are, why they are here, and where they are going. That has meant everything to me, from my earliest years. It still does, especially since I am going there in the not-that-distant future!

Welcome to the board @grannysue.

Though my kids are still young and at home, I am seeing the same trends that you are within my ward and extended family.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Welcome to the board @grannysue.

That should be welcome back (she has been a board member since 2007).  

 

[Duncan]

My 16yr old identifies as "non binary" (he isn't as passionate about it as he used to be) but he isn't baptized because his Mom doesn't want him to be but he got an onslaught of anti gay stuff in his Young men's. Apparently "the Gays" are trying to take over the Government 🙄. Now, I can't get him to attend Church. So, what I do is if he is going to stay home I give him assignments to work on to try to help him come around

Edited October 7, 2019 by Duncan

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

My 16yr old identifies as "non binary" (he isn't as passionate about it as he used to be) but he isn't baptized because his Mom doesn't want him to be but he got an onslaught of anti gay stuff in his Young men's. Now, I can't get him to attend Church. So, what i do is if he is going to stay home I give him assignments to work on to try to help him come around

That's tough.  I'm sorry.  And this kind of situation could be what President Oaks was speaking about when counseling leaders to avoid making LGBT members feel marginalized and counseling all of us to show love.

Edited October 7, 2019 by rockpond

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

That's tough.  I'm sorry.  And this kind of situation could be what President Oaks was speaking about when counseling leaders to avoid making LGBT members feel marginalized and counseling all of us to show love.

Pres. Oaks is hurting not helping the LGBTQ crowd, and doesn't seem to get it. He isn't the walk, in his talk.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Pres. Oaks is hurting not helping the LGBTQ crowd, and doesn't seem to get it. He isn't the walk, in his talk.

What they want and what he wants them to know so they can know how to be happy are 2 different things, yes, but his heart is in the right place.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Pres. Oaks is hurting not helping the LGBTQ crowd, and doesn't seem to get it. He isn't the walk, in his talk.

 

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What they want and what he wants them to know so they can know how to be happy are 2 different things, yes, but his heart is in the right place.

That's the ongoing issue isn't it.  Ahab is exactly right.

As long as our culture continues to classify a sinful behavior as a group of people we should embrace I don't see that the Church needs to do anything but offer repentance.
Offering the teachings of the atonement, forgiveness and embracing the repentant sinner shows a huge amount of love.

But that's not what is being asked of the Church.  In truth they are really being asked for something they can't ever give.

[etana]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

That's the ongoing issue isn't it.  Ahab is exactly right.

As long as our culture continues to classify a sinful behavior as a group of people we should embrace I don't see that the Church needs to do anything but offer repentance.
Offering the teachings of the atonement, forgiveness and embracing the repentant sinner shows a huge amount of love.

But that's not what is being asked of the Church.  In truth they are really being asked for something they can't ever give.

by "our culture" do you mean Mormon culture? Because that's exactly backwards. We too often classify a group of people as sinful behaviour and, therein lies the problem.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, etana said:

by "our culture" do you mean Mormon culture? Because that's exactly backwards. We too often classify a group of people as sinful behaviour and, therein lies the problem.

Let's use stealing as an example of sinful behavior.  A group of people who would be classified by that sinful behavior are what we would refer to as thieves or robbers or something like that.

LGBTQ people who behave by any one of those names they are known by.... whether L or G or B or T or Q... are people we would classify as fornicators or something like that because that kind of behavior is what we know to be sexually sinful behavior.

Maybe we should avoid calling anyone LGBTQ if they only have sinful sexual urges, aka temptations, but do not act out on those temptations, but those who identify by one of those names would probably object to that too because they seem to take pride in the fact that not only do they have those temptations but they also seem to want the approval of the world when they act in those sinful ways too.  So we just judge them by their fruits and try to appeal to their better senses to help them see that they should not behaving that way.

It isn't wrong to call a spade a spade when the spade acts the way that spades do, especially when the spade wants to be a spade and wants it to be understood that they don't really have a personal problem with being a spade even when spades are behaving badly.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Ahab

[etana]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Let's use stealing as an example of sinful behavior.  A group of people who would be classified by that sinful behavior are what we would refer to as thieves or robbers or something like that.

LGBTQ people who behave by any one of those names they are known by.... whether L or G or B or T or Q... are people we would classify as fornicators or something like that because that kind of behavior is what we know to be sexually sinful behavior.

Maybe we should avoid calling anyone LGBTQ if they only have sinful sexual urges, aka temptations, but do not act out on those temptations, but those who identify by one of those names would probably object to that too because they seem to take pride in the fact that not only do they have those temptations but they also seem to want the approval of the world when they act in those sinful ways too.  So we just judge them by their fruits and try to appeal to their better senses to help them see that they should not behaving that way.

It isn't wrong to call a spade a spade when the spade acts the way that spades do, especially when the spade wants to be a spade and wants it to be understood that they don't really have a personal problem with being a spade even when spades are behaving badly.

Your metaphor doesn't work. People who break laws choose to do so, it isn't part of who they are.

Edited October 8, 2019 by etana

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, etana said:

Your metaphor doesn't work. People who break laws choose to do so, it isn't part of who they are.

Yes, they choose to break laws, but we can classify those people who choose to break those laws by the laws they are choosing to break.

Thieves.  By that name it is understood that we are talking about people who choose to break laws against stealing.

Fornicators.  By that name it is understood that we are talking about people who choose to break laws against chastity in sexual relations.

Liars.  By that name it is understood that we are talking about people who choose to break laws against always being honest in all of our actions.

etc, etc.  Note though that those names apply only when someone hasn't repented of those sinful actions, because when they repent we would more correctly refer to them as former breakers of laws of particular types, or former sinners, or saints.

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, etana said:

Your metaphor doesn't work. People who break laws choose to do so, it isn't part of who they are.

Correct!

I wish Pres. Oaks had not concentrated so much on the minority group such as the LGBTQ's in the church, but speak on the problem of immorality of the heterosexuals in the church who do extreme harm, in marriages etc. when they are having affairs right and left.

JS saying God commanded him to have many wives is another type of marriage. And I recently became aware that in section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants, it doesn't mention love once! And this is supposedly all about eternal marriage. So marriage basically need not have love in our church apparently. I guess we just need our organs to reproduce and if they aren't organs that are compatible for that, then it's wrong.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wish Pres. Oaks had not concentrated so much on the minority group such as the LGBTQ's in the church, but speak on the problem of immorality of the heterosexuals in the church who do extreme harm, in marriages etc. when they are having affairs right and left.

His talk concentrated on the subject of LGBT because couched in his admonitions to love them was his warning against supporting gay marriage.  This was an anti-gay marriage talk as much as it was a love your neighbor talk.

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Correct!

I wish Pres. Oaks had not concentrated so much on the minority group such as the LGBTQ's in the church, but speak on the problem of immorality of the heterosexuals in the church who do extreme harm, in marriages etc. when they are having affairs right and left.

It's all pretty much the same thing and he has talked about those other forms of fornication, too.  The point is to be chaste and to keep sexual relations within the bounds the Lord has set.  Anyone who doesn't do that is at least a fornicator if not an adulterer, too.

 

Quote

JS saying God commanded him to have many wives is another type of marriage. And I recently became aware that in section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants, it doesn't mention love once! And this is supposedly all about eternal marriage. So marriage basically need not have love in our church apparently. I guess we just need our organs to reproduce and if they aren't organs that are compatible for that, then it's wrong.

It doesn't mention sexual relations, either, but anyone who understands what marriage is all about usually understands that marriage involves or at least should involve love and affection and sexual relations,  rather than just being about the fact that they are what is called "married".

Marriage itself is all about 2 becoming one together, and that means in a sexual way as well as an emotional way as well as those 2 people, themselves, are a unit together rather than 2 separate units.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Ahab