Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Most American Religion


Recommended Posts

I think things are heading that way (but aren't there yet). 

The two big changes in our history (polygamy, and the priesthood ban) didn't involve major changes of doctrine. Polygamy/D&C 132 is still accommodated in the hereafter (sealings; people sealed to multiple spouses living and dead --- cf. President Nelson and President Oaks). The priesthood ban always had behind it statements from Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, etc. that priesthood and temple blessings would some day be available to all (President Kimball referred to these in OD2). 

I think when Kathleen Flake's analogy of strip poker comes into play is when a cataclysmic change happens, and doctrinal change is unavoidable. I would class women ordination, "de-criminalization" of homosexuality/gay marriage, and certain temple changes in this group. People always insist that changes are "non-essential" and don't affect doctrine, only deal with presentation, etc., but I think we're getting close to the limit on these. I could conceive of elimination of garments or only wearing them at certain times but not almost always happening, and I would have a very hard time with that. 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think things are heading that way (but aren't there yet). 

The two big changes in our history (polygamy, and the priesthood ban) didn't involve major changes of doctrine. Polygamy/D&C 132 is still accommodated in the hereafter (sealings; people sealed to multiple spouses living and dead --- cf. President Nelson and President Oaks). The priesthood ban always had behind it statements from Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, etc. that priesthood and temple blessings would some day be available to all (President Kimball referred to these in OD2). 

I think when Kathleen Flake's analogy of strip poker comes into play is when a cataclysmic change happens, and doctrinal change is unavoidable. I would class women ordination, "de-criminalization" of homosexuality/gay marriage, and certain temple changes in this group. People always insist that changes are "non-essential" and don't affect doctrine, only deal with presentation, etc., but I think we're getting close to the limit on these. I could conceive of elimination of garments or only wearing them at certain times but not almost always happening, and I would have a very hard time with that. 

I think this tension has been in the church for more than a century. For example, a lot of members thought capitulating on polygamy was diluting the church too far. But the church survived.

Link to comment

Things are certainly headed in the wrong direction, particularly in the US where the leadership feels a need to address US political problems, albeit obliquely, in  General Conference.  Most of the speeches in this world wide forum are simply Pablum for the membership.

A general dumbing down of the overall time commitment asked of church members is also indicative.  Something needs to replace this.

The Church should be more proactive in education below the college level.  The missionary program is flatlining and needs to be seriously looked at.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think this tension has been in the church for more than a century. For example, a lot of members thought capitulating on polygamy was diluting the church too far. But the church survived.

Yes, this tension has always existed. I think there are different dynamics now, though, that would not allow the Church to weather things like that. Our youth and young adults are not as tightly bound to the Church or its doctrines, and they have their own issues with "adulting" in addition to everything else. With respect to polygamy, that was itself a change in the 1830s-1890s, so reverting back to monogamy wasn't that drastic. Especially when <10% of the Church actually practiced it. That's not to say that it wasn't a huge trial for many --- and not just those who split off into fundamentalist branches. I think the priesthood ban lifting in 1978 was a lot easier to accept without lasting negative effects. A small section of the Church wants the Church to fully and explicitly condemn the ban, not just accept its lifting, but I don't think this is a very influential section. Yet. 

Link to comment
Just now, mrmarklin said:

The missionary program is flatlining and needs to be seriously looked at.

It isn't flatlining, its purpose has changed. The primary purpose is keeping young people occupied and hopefully help them remain active when they get home (with mixed results). Not finding, teaching, and baptizing. Those are all icing on the cake now, not the cake itself. 

The focus on Facebook and Instagram missionary work worldwide is partially due to Covid, but it pre-dates it as well. I can't imagine spending all that time making missionary videos. Did you see the one that is garnering praise for its production values? 

https://www.facebook.com/100009574879155/videos/2781956295466839/

I tried to figure out how much time and man-hours was put into planning, screenwriting, directing, rehearsing, making props, etc. for what looks like an entire zone re-enacting the final scene from Rogue One. Months in the making. While fun to make, and well done, I don't think it even yields bang for the buck in terms of interesting investigators. We are occupying missionaries with devices, for the most part. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think things are heading that way (but aren't there yet). 

The two big changes in our history (polygamy, and the priesthood ban) didn't involve major changes of doctrine. Polygamy/D&C 132 is still accommodated inthe hereafter (sealings; people sealed to multiple spouses living and dead --- cf. President Nelson and President Oaks). The priesthood ban always had behind it statements from Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, etc. that priesthood and temple blessings would some day be available to all (President Kimball referred to these in OD2).

Polygamy is still a doctrine.  We've never renounced it.  We discontinued the practice pursuant to revelatory instruction.

The priesthood ban appears to have lacked a revelatory provenance, but was sufficiently entrenched that it required a revelation to dislodge it.  What a wonderful correction.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 I think when Kathleen Flake's analogy of strip poker comes into play is when a cataclysmic change happens, and doctrinal change is unavoidable.

I dunno.  I don't see this happening.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I would class women ordination, "de-criminalization" of homosexuality/gay marriage, and certain temple changes in this group.

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting "women ordination" is "unavoidable?"  How did you arrive at that?

The Church has a pretty viable position on homosexual behavior and gay marriage.  No need for us to capitulate on our doctrines pertaining to such things.

I'm not sure what you mean by "certain temple changes."  These are entirely within the province of the Church.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

People always insist that changes are "non-essential" and don't affect doctrine, only deal with presentation, etc., but I think we're getting close to the limit on these.

And yet when push comes to shove, what happens?  When Kate Kelly pushed for female ordination, what happened?  When SCOTUS legalized same-sex marriage, what happened?

The Church has been able to deal with social/legal changes and proceed with its mandate.  I'm not sure I see an "unavoidable" need to alter doctrine in the future.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I could conceive of elimination of garments or only wearing them at certain times but not almost always happening, and I would have a very hard time with that. 

I doubt it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting "women ordination" is "unavoidable?"  How did you arrive at that?

The Church has a pretty viable position on homosexual behavior and gay marriage.  No need for us to capitulate on our doctrines pertaining to such things.

I'm not sure what you mean by "certain temple changes."  These are entirely within the province of the Church.

And yet when push comes to shove, what happens?  When Kate Kelly pushed for female ordination, what happened?  When SCOTUS legalized same-sex marriage, what happened?

The Church has been able to deal with social/legal changes and proceed with its mandate.  I'm not sure I see an "unavoidable" need to alter doctrine in the future.

No, I'm saying I could see this happening in the next 50-100 years. I don't think it's unavoidable, and I think it would be wrong.

I agree that there is absolutely no need for the Church to change its position on homosexuality and gay marriage, but it's not inconceivable to me that it could happen. I'm saying I would be very upset and troubled if it did.

Certainly, the Church can change or even scrap the temple ordinances altogether, but I don't think it would be right. 

Kate Kelly's push was so 2015. :) There has been a lot of societal and church changes since then. I don't think we're on the cusp of it, but it's also not beyond all possibility, especially given how rabbit-eared the Church is about PR and criticism. 

What I'm saying is that each of these changes would require changes in doctrine, which many think is inconceivable. It's not inconceivable to me, and that's what worries me. 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think this tension has been in the church for more than a century. For example, a lot of members thought capitulating on polygamy was diluting the church too far. But the church survived.

Yes.  Schisms and disaffections happened, but the Church survived.  I think we're seeing the same thing now, though schisms seem to be fewer and farther between (Denver Snuffer is the only recent schismatic I can think of).

I haven't heard much of his movement in the last few years.  Hardly anything, actually.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, I'm saying I could see this happening in the next 50-100 years. I don't think it's unavoidable, and I think it would be wrong.

Okay.

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree that there is absolutely no need for the Church to change its position on homosexuality and gay marriage, but it's not inconceivable to me that it could happen. I'm saying I would be very upset and troubled if it did.

I am open to the possibility, but only in a de minimis sort of way.  I'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

Kate Kelly's push was so 2015. :) There has been a lot of societal and church changes since then. I don't think we're on the cusp of it, but it's also not beyond all possibility, especially given how rabbit-eared the Church is about PR and criticism. 

"It" being female ordination?  I'm open to it.  I'm not philosophically opposed to it (as I would be to a theoretical paradigm shift on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage).  I just don't think it will happen.

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

What I'm saying is that each of these changes would require changes in doctrine, which many think is inconceivable. It's not inconceivable to me, and that's what worries me. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:


Great article in The Atlantic by McKay Coppins about LDS assimilation into American culture.

“When I talk with my fellow Mormons about what our faith’s third century might look like, one common fear is that the Church, desperate for allies, will end up following the religious right into endless culture war. That would indeed be grim. But just as worrisome to me—and perhaps more likely—is the prospect of a fully diluted Mormonism.

Taken too far, the Latter-day Saint longing for mainstream approval could turn the Church into just another mainline sect—drained of vitality, devoid of tension, not making any real demands of its members. It’s not hard to imagine a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that is “respectable” in the way of the Rotary Club, because it’s bland, and benign, and easy to ignore. Kathleen Flake, a Mormon historian at the University of Virginia, told me many of the Church’s concessions to modernity have been healthy and necessary. “But it’s like a game of strip poker,” she said. “How far will you go?”

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/the-most-american-religion/617263/

Whether the church is mainstream or not is irrelevant to it being a good institution. It could be good and mainstream or good and esoteric. The most important thing, in my opinion, is not for the church to be distinctive or offer something unique, but that it is good. 

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Whether the church is mainstream or not is irrelevant to it being a good institution. It could be good and mainstream or good and esoteric. The most important thing, in my opinion, is not for the church to be distinctive or offer something unique, but that it is good. 

 

If the church didn't claim to be God's true church and the means (through priesthood and ordinances) for God's children to return to Him again, I would agree with you.  But it does claim that and I don't think those claims can be ignored. 

Separating the church from it's claims would be like saying that it's irrelevant whether or not Dunkin Donuts sells hot dogs instead of donuts, as long as the hot dogs are good.   If Dunkin Donuts starts to sell good hot dogs, fundamentally it wouldn't be Dunkin Donuts anymore, and that is very relevant to the brand. 

If mainstream is not what God condones, if it's not His will, then the church going mainstream would be relevant to its members, even if it was still doing good.

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the church didn't claim to be God's true church and the means (through priesthood and ordinances) for God's children to return to Him again, I would agree with you.  But it does claim that and I don't think those claims can be ignored. 

Separating the church from it's claims would be like saying that it's irrelevant whether or not Dunkin Donuts sells hot dogs instead of donuts, as long as the hot dogs are good.   If Dunkin Donuts starts to sell good hot dogs, fundamentally it wouldn't be Dunkin Donuts anymore, and that is very relevant to the brand. 

If mainstream is not what God condones, if it's not His will, then the church going mainstream would be relevant to its members, even if it was still doing good.

 

My argument still applies, I think. If God's will is your measure of good, then if going mainstream is consistent with God's will, or if being esoteric is consistent with God's will, either one could happen. The point is that the either position matters little compared to whether the church is in alignment with God's will, or as I would call it, goodness.

Remember that in LDS prophecy the church will eventually be "mainstream" when the earth is personally governed by Jesus Christ. 

IOW what is the more important question to ask ourselves? Am I unique? Do I fit in? Am I doing what's right?

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Separating the church from it's claims would be like saying that it's irrelevant whether or not Dunkin Donuts sells hot dogs instead of donuts, as long as the hot dogs are good.   If Dunkin Donuts starts to sell good hot dogs, fundamentally it wouldn't be Dunkin Donuts anymore, and that is very relevant to the brand. 

Dunkin Donuts changed its named to just Dunkin, so I suppose they could now drop the donuts if they wanted to.

Since ya'll don't want to be called Mormons anymore, does that mean you could similarly drop the Book of Mormon? ;) (just kidding, of course)

Link to comment

Uh oh @mfbukowski, President Nelson (quoted from the article), says the doctrine is more important than the action (sounds like orthodoxy wins over orthopraxy). Does this undermine your pragmatic approach?

Quote

Nelson attributes these qualities to the power of the Church’s teachings. “I don’t think you can separate the good things we do from the doctrine,” he tells me. “It’s not what we do; it’s why we do it.”

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

...it’s like a game of strip poker,” she said. “How far will you go?”

my suit jacket, and a tie, and maybe my shoes in someone else's home.  Maybe some jewelry too.  Not anymore than that, though.  Well, maybe sometimes also my eyeglasses.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

My argument still applies, I think. If God's will is your measure of good, then if going mainstream is consistent with God's will, or if being esoteric is consistent with God's will, either one could happen. The point is that the either position matters little compared to whether the church is in alignment with God's will, or as I would call it, goodness.

Remember that in LDS prophecy the church will eventually be "mainstream" when the earth is personally governed by Jesus Christ. 

IOW what is the more important question to ask ourselves? Am I unique? Do I fit in? Am I doing what's right?

Your argument doesn't really apply to believing members though, which as I understand it is saying that the doctrine of the church doesn't matter to God, only whether or not the church could be classified as 'doing good' by someone.

But I could definitely be misunderstanding you.

 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Your argument doesn't really apply to believing members though, which as I understand it is saying that the doctrine of the church doesn't matter to God, only whether or not the church could be classified as 'doing good' by someone.

But I could definitely be misunderstanding you.

 

I do think there's a disconnect.

Goodness is just how I translate it to something more relatable to me. What I am talking about is the idea that we can judge whether were doing what's right by how we align or don't align with the masses. We can't.

This idea that the church must stand apart from the mainstream is flawed. What if the mainstream were righteous? And when the mainstream isn't righteous, standing apart is not a guarantee of righteousness. 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I do think there's a disconnect.

Goodness is just how I translate it to something more relatable to me. What I am talking about is the idea that we can judge whether were doing what's right by how we align or don't align with the masses. We can't.

This idea that the church must stand apart from the mainstream is flawed. What if the mainstream were righteous? And when the mainstream isn't righteous, standing apart is not a guarantee of righteousness. 

I agree with the bold.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I do think there's a disconnect.

Goodness is just how I translate it to something more relatable to me. What I am talking about is the idea that we can judge whether were doing what's right by how we align or don't align with the masses. We can't.

This idea that the church must stand apart from the mainstream is flawed. What if the mainstream were righteous? And when the mainstream isn't righteous, standing apart is not a guarantee of righteousness. 

Yeah, I think the more dangerous ideology is that “I am opposed to the bad guys so therefore I am right.”

Link to comment

While it was an interesting article, I was rather disappointed that the author used 9/10ths of the 9,000 word article for his own personal musings about the direction of the church, and squandered the opportunity he had to sit down in an hour long face to face with the president and prophet of the church and report on that interview.   What was asked in the interview?  What were the replies?  What role does President Nelson play in this article at all?  Is he just there as a backdrop for the author's own opinions.  I wonder how President Nelson feels about the article/interview after reading it and finding out that the whole interview was a big waste of time and literally nothing out of the entire hour long interview, other than one LGBTQ question, was used in the piece. 

On top of that, the author almost mockingly dismissed President Nelson's request to not use the term "Mormon" as a "small inside-baseball" measure of reform and chose to use the word anyway, saying, "I chose to use the term in this story for clarity’s sake, and also because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints presented a multisyllabic writerly dilemma that my own God-given talents left me powerless to solve."  That would be very disrespectful and out of line for a non-member of the media to reject the wishes of the interviewee in avoiding the term - is it somehow less disrespectful because he is a member?  

Quote

  I aimed to cultivate a reputation that sanded off the edges of my orthodoxy—he’s Mormon, but he’s cool

It seems the author still can't escape his youthful posturing. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, pogi said:

While it was an interesting article, I was rather disappointed that the author used 9/10ths of the 9,000 word article for his own personal musings about the direction of the church, and squandered the opportunity he had to sit down in an hour long face to face with the president and prophet of the church and report on that interview.   What was asked in the interview?  What were the replies?  What role does President Nelson play in this article at all?  Is he just there as a backdrop for the author's own opinions.  I wonder how President Nelson feels about the article/interview after reading it and finding out that the whole interview was a big waste of time and literally nothing out of the entire hour long interview, other than one LGBTQ question, was used in the piece. 

On top of that, the author almost mockingly dismissed President Nelson's request to not use the term "Mormon" as a "small inside-baseball" measure of reform and chose to use the word anyway, saying, "I chose to use the term in this story for clarity’s sake, and also because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints presented a multisyllabic writerly dilemma that my own God-given talents left me powerless to solve."  That would be very disrespectful and out of line for a non-member of the media to reject the wishes of the interviewee in avoiding the term - is it somehow less disrespectful because he is a member?  

It seems the author still can't escape his youthful posturing. 

I like how he admits that he's not a good enough writer, and can't be bothered enough anyway, to pull off using the full name of the church.  It's nice when they point out the weaknesses in their articles for us.  :D  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...