The Most American Religion

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Two hundred years into the first Christian era, ca. 233CE, the Christian religion had made significant inroads with the people of the Roman Empire.  Less than one hundred years after that, in 325CE, Christianity dominated the Empire that once persecuted it, and became the "official" religion of the Empire. 

And how much was changed inappropriately while that was happening?

Missionary work (not the best kind, but bringing in of traditions and ideas that shouldn’t have been brought in, replacing doctrine and practices that should have been kept) was going both ways according to LDS belief, something we prefer not to happen this time around. 
 

Not saying that is why we have small numbers, just saying comparing us to that time period is not useful since it is possible the spread was a result as much as apostasy as it was truth being taught.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I won't answer your question, which I take as largely rhetorical.  But something needs to be done with the missionary program.  It's missing something.

Two hundred years into the first Christian era, ca. 233CE, the Christian religion had made significant inroads with the people of the Roman Empire.  Less than one hundred years after that, in 325CE, Christianity dominated the Empire that once persecuted it, and became the "official" religion of the Empire.  This preaching to a nation that was pagan!  After 325, the Christian movement kept expanding into Northern Europe, Africa, and even as far as China.  By 1000CE it was a significant political force in Europe, Asia and Northern Africa as well as religious.

After two hundred years of the Restoration, it's hard to see anything like this happening in the US, much less worldwide.  The Church membership is statistically insignificant, and apparently growth is slowing.

 

There were a few minor niggling downsides to that approach as I recall.

Edit: Beaten

Edited December 22, 2020 by The Nehor

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And how much was changed inappropriately while that was happening?

Missionary work (not the best kind, but bringing in of traditions and ideas that shouldn’t have been brought in, replacing doctrine and practices that should have been kept) was going both ways according to LDS belief, something we prefer not to happen this time around. 
 

Not saying that is why we have small numbers, just saying comparing us to that time period is not useful since it is possible the spread was a result as much as apostasy as it was truth being taught.

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There were a few minor niggling downsides to that approach as I recall.

Edit: Beaten

Ya'll's just jealous of how effective our missionaries were  

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Ya'll's just jealous of how effective our missionaries were  

Aren’t we that, lol. I was debating whether I should throw in “of course others see it differently”, but I figure most on here take that as given by now and I am distracted and lazy today, at least in my writing. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Ya'll's just jealous of how effective our missionaries were  

When I was writing that post I was smiling as I eagerly awaited your reply.  

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

And how much was changed inappropriately while that was happening?

Missionary work (not the best kind, but bringing in of traditions and ideas that shouldn’t have been brought in, replacing doctrine and practices that should have been kept) was going both ways according to LDS belief, something we prefer not to happen this time around. 
 

Not saying that is why we have small numbers, just saying comparing us to that time period is not useful since it is possible the spread was a result as much as apostasy as it was truth being taught.

I'm not a Catholic, but I think you would find more in common with Catholic doctrine than not.  The basics are the same.  Christ is our Savior, one must be baptized and confirmed to enter into heaven, and what we refer to as the Sacrament is observed regularly  (Eucharist) to provide a vehicle for repentance.

Of course details such as the nature of the Godhood, infant baptism, celibacy etc. are areas of disagreement.  But overall it's very similar.  

Some of the  Catholic church fathers (google St Gregory) gave great examples of what to do in promoting the religion.

IMHO the Catholic Church's missionary program involves education programs for everyone, access is always available to a Catholic church for prayer and meditation, as a service to members and others there is the YMCA, Catholic charities and hospitals.  In other words, a lot of services.  This goes back to ancient times.

 

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

When I was writing that post I was smiling as I eagerly awaited your reply.  

And I was expecting you to reply along the lines of: "conversion is easy when the missionaries are accompanied by conquistadors" 😁

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I'm not a Catholic, but I think you would find more in common with Catholic doctrine than not.  The basics are the same.  Christ is our Savior, one must be baptized and confirmed to enter into heaven, and what we refer to as the Sacrament is observed regularly  (Eucharist) to provide a vehicle for repentance.

Of course details such as the nature of the Godhood, infant baptism, celibacy etc. are areas of disagreement.  But overall it's very similar.  

Some of the  Catholic church fathers (google St Gregory) gave great examples of what to do in promoting the religion.

IMHO the Catholic Church's missionary program involves education programs for everyone, access is always available to a Catholic church for prayer and meditation, as a service to members and others there is the YMCA, Catholic charities and hospitals.  In other words, a lot of services.  This goes back to ancient times.

 

Your argument is that Christian faiths are all pretty much the same? Now I think you have offended everyone. Good job. This is the kind of forward thinking that will lead to mass conversions.

Edited December 23, 2020 by The Nehor

[Islander]

10 hours ago, rchorse said:

While I agree the strength of the church is migrating outside the US, I think this assessment of US wards is a little too negative. The wards I've been a part of in the US don't have a lot of baptisms, but it's not due to any insularity or "holier than thou" attitudes. Most members I've seen have tried very hard to be welcoming and have worked hard to share the gospel. There's just not much interest in what's being offered.

I know there are bad wards out there. I just don't believe it's the majority, or even a large minority, even in the US.

I have no idea as to how many wards exhibit such conditions. I was referring to the ones I have been a part of in the last 8-9 years or so. As far as interest, I disagree. I have friends that attend other (non-LDS) churches and congregations that although they may not have all the truth but the Spirit is moving among them in a very palpable way. 

I am an immigrant to the US. I worked and lived in Mexico 4 days our of 7 for nearly two decades while we lived in So. Cal. And just about all my callings in the Church have been on the missionary sphere. I served on a bishopric for 3 years but even then I was primarily involved in missionary work. It would be unthinkable to say that the field is no longer white and ready to harvest. Are you saying that the harvest is over? Has the stone cut out of the mountain without hands stopped rolling? My assessment is that people have drawn inward. The longer people are members of the church across generations, the less they interact with others outside of their little circle. They relate less and less to those around them and pretty soon they have absolutely nothing to do with them. We just moved to CO in August and know practically nobody. In 4 months I have seen nobody from my ward until the week after Thanksgiving. 

Somebody said that "seeds in a basket are in the wrong place. But scatter them over the field and you will have waving wheat in a month or two". 

[Islander]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So how could the ward have not even one baptism for five years with you out spreading the good news all the time?

They threw away my friends. "Too much cognitive dissonance" said someone in the EC. They were not Lilly-white and squeaky clean like them. They forgot that Alma and his buddies were criminals before they came to God. But it is easily to idolize dead prophets from long ago from the pages of scripture.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Islander said:

They threw away my friends. "Too much cognitive dissonance" said someone in the EC. They were not Lilly-white and squeaky clean like them. They forgot that Alma and his buddies were criminals before they came to God. But it is easily to idolize dead prophets from long ago from the pages of scripture.

"Too much cognitive dissonance"?

lol

[mfbukowski]

fergitabout it.

I'll save that one.

Edited December 23, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/16/2020 at 12:39 PM, smac97 said:

I dunno.  As long as we have an open canon, living prophets and apostles, exclusivistic truth claims, temples, a robust missionary program, etc., we'll never be fully "assimilated."

Is the Church giving up on any of these things, or hinting that it might do so in the future?  Nope.  Not by a long shot.

By way of example, consider the "inspired fiction" and "pious fraud" explanations for the Book of Mormon.  Are these making any inroads into the leadership of the Church?  I think not.

Is there any indication that we are waffling on the Book of Mormon, as the Community of Christ did back in 2007?  Again, I think not.

I agree.  But I think the Restored Gospel and the Church are too "high demand" to get sideways from its mandate.  Individual Latter-day Saints may have this "longing for mainstream approval," and may take it "too far."  But if they do, they'll end up leaving or drifting away.  That's very troubling to me, and I'll do all I can to persuade against choosing or drifting into mere "cultural" religiosity.  But in the end, the individual has to choose for himself.

The Book of Mormon, the temples, the missionaries, etc. are front and center, and yet I think the Church and its members have attained significant measures of "respectability" without abandoning the central tenets of the Restored Gospel.

That's a fair question.

Consider the last 50+ years of the Sexual Revolution, and the last 20 or so years vis-à-vis homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  The Church has modified and, IMO, improved how it handles matters pertaining to the Law of Chastity, but has it actually altered it?  Nope.  Adultery is still a sin.  Fornication is still a sin.  Same-sex behavior is still a sin.  If the Church were sliding down a slope toward "assimilation," one of the necessary things to happen would be to essentially gut or almost entirely disregard the Law of Chastity.  So we could fit in.  So we could not be stodgy and prudish.  Has than happened?  Nope.  Have the Brethren given any indication that it might happen in the future?  Nope.  To the contrary, the biggest hits to the Church's standing in society in recent memory has been because it has not bent to the prevailing winds re: sexuality.

What about the Book of Mormon?  Are we using it less?  Emphasizing it less?  Stepping back from Joseph Smith's explanation for its origins?  Nope, times four.

What about living prophets and apostles?  Exclusive priesthood authority?  We're still going strong on these.

What about missionary work?  Temples and family history?  Still going strong.  

So has the Church traded its proverbial birthright for a proverbial mess of pottage?  Honestly, I think not.  And I am really happy about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

If the Church were to waffle on any of the scriptures, I should think it would be the Book of Abraham, what with all the complaining and apostatizing over it in recent years. But I don’t see any institutional waffling there either. The leadership and the rank-and-file seem committed - as I am - to the conviction that it is authentic ancient scripture translated by the gift and power of God — as was the Book of Mormon. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/16/2020 at 4:16 PM, 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. 

Flawed though you think it is, it is inseparable from the doctrinal structure. Scriptural and prophetic teachings through the ages are replete with the concept of renouncing the wickedness of the world and sanctifying oneself (the very meaning of “saint”), of going out from Babylon (symbolizing worldly wickedness) and standing in holy places. 
 

If society at large were to suddenly and inexplicably embrace the values promulgated in the Church of Jesus Christ, there would no Babylon to escape from. But no one I know thinks that is likely to happen. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[mrmarklin]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Your argument is that Christian faiths are all pretty much the same? Now I think you have offended everyone. Good job. This is the kind of forward thinking that will lead to mass conversions.

In keeping with the tenor of this thread, I would argue that while all Christians have common belief in the Savior, etc Joseph Smith blew them all out of the water, so to speak with the revelations about family and how the sealing ordinances work. Knowledge of which the current churches are ignorant. Our concept of heaven and hell as understood by the normal churches is radical. 
The couplet 

“As man is, God once was. 
As God is, man may become.”

is radical. 
Yet I have seen interviews with general authorities where this has been diluted.  If the church wants to be mainstream, the downplay of our core doctrine is the way to do it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

In keeping with the tenor of this thread, I would argue that while all Christians have common belief in the Savior, etc Joseph Smith blew them all out of the water, so to speak with the revelations about family and how the sealing ordinances work. Knowledge of which the current churches are ignorant. Our concept of heaven and hell as understood by the normal churches is radical. 
The couplet 

“As man is, God once was. 
As God is, man may become.”

is radical. 
Yet I have seen interviews with general authorities where this has been diluted.  If the church wants to be mainstream, the downplay of our core doctrine is the way to do it. 

If there has been any dilution, it has been with regard to the first half of that couplet — and with good reason. Beyond that assertion, there has been precious little revealed about the state of God before He became God. Certainly not enough to make it comprehensible, especially to outsiders. 
 

The second half we know quite a bit about. And there has been no dilution of that to speak of. None that I’ve seen, anyway. 
 

If the Church wants to stand out from the mainstream, theorizing or dogmatizing on matters on which the Lord has said little to nothing is fraught with hazards. We learned that from the priesthood ban. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

I listened to a podcast this morning. Something the interviewee said reminded me of this thread. He mentions that the nonLDS Christian God is a sadistic hateful being. And the LDS church, which to him was the brainchild of Joseph Smith, is the answer to God not being that hateful sadistic God, but a more loving God.

Kind of made me want to run back to the church and that it's too bad if the church is hiding any of those early teachings, if they are that is. I believe that's what make people join our church, usually has been. Just the thought that people won't go to hell, I guess. I miss the small church and the church that wasn't correlated but understand with how large the church has become that it needed to be that way. 

So hopefully, the leaders don't feel they need to go more mainstream to fit in. 

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

 If the church wants to be mainstream, the downplay of our core doctrine is the way to do it. 

I am absolutely convinced that we can use our core doctrine to convert the world, odd as that may seem today!

The trick with that I think is that it needs to be presented in a less shocking and more "logical" way- the first step is seeing God AS man- which Christianity recognizes in the person of Jesus but yet does not follow through on that idea.  If we see Jehovah as God and Jesus as Jehovah- and many do in fact believe that- then the humanity of God is a far easier doctrine to teach than speaking of the creedal God who creates the universe ex nihilo and transcends all logic in doing so.

Once one believes that Jesus is God and Jesus was human, then of course the logic that "God is human" - yet all of this of course is meant to imply human a gazillion times above our groveling level of humanity- then I think the next step becomes easier.

It is common for people to seek out their "fulfillment" and want to become "all that they can be".   The Army even uses "Be all you can be" as a recruiting slogan!

Maybe that idea is one we could use as well!

If we see God as the Perfect Human ideal Being who stands as a model for all of us to "be all we can be"  we nudge it even closer to the couplet

So if we emulate Jesus we will be on the road to becoming perfect beings and being as He and His father were.   And we have all eternity to get there.

"Be ye therefore perfect" can be seen as a goal for all humanity to become as the Perfect Human who taught the doctrine, for us to become as He is!  And because of eternal progression we have all eternity to get there!  Sure we mess up here a bit, but that does not not eliminate the possibility of progressing even after death......  but of course we need to receive the ordinances,/knowledge to progress...... and part of that is helping our ancestors down the path as well since they did not have the opportunity here....

Anyway, I think that is a lot easier to "sell" than the couplet in today's world- AND YET it does not change the meaning of the couplet.

Edited December 23, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

d. He mentions that the nonLDS Christian God is a sadistic hateful being.

Was he a Saint or another type of Christian or a nonChristian. 
 

I do think there are theologies that only make sense to me with God having a significant streak of sadism in him, but I don’t see it as a given for all nonLDS faiths or even for all Calvinism...the doctrine that appears most sadistic to me unless God plans on saving all mankind...which may be a possibility if I understand correctly, but not a probability in the faith as to see God’s full sovereignty some need to be damned in believers’ view...but I may be quite wrong as I think I have only engaged with a true Calvinist once and he not only came across as a wonderful person himself, but it seemed to me he was able to conceive of God even under the Calvinist interpretation as a truly, perfect loving individual and it was only our limited human understanding that made God appear sadistic for intentionally creating those who would be damned.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was he a Saint or another type of Christian or a nonChristian. 
 

I do think there are theologies that only make sense to me with God having a significant streak of sadism in him, but I don’t see it as a given for all nonLDS faiths or even for all Calvinism...the doctrine that appears most sadistic to me unless God plans on saving all mankind...which may be a possibility if I understand correctly, but not a probability in the faith as to see God’s full sovereignty some need to be damned in believers’ view...but I may be quite wrong as I think I have only engaged with a true Calvinist once and he not only came across as a wonderful person himself, but it seemed to me he was able to conceive of God even under the Calvinist interpretation as a truly, perfect loving individual and it was only our limited human understanding that made God appear sadistic for intentionally creating those who would be damned.

I didn't listen to all of it. He is LDS, or was LDS.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2020/12/radio-free-mormon-209-christians-v-pharisees/

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

In keeping with the tenor of this thread, I would argue that while all Christians have common belief in the Savior, etc Joseph Smith blew them all out of the water, so to speak with the revelations about family and how the sealing ordinances work. Knowledge of which the current churches are ignorant. Our concept of heaven and hell as understood by the normal churches is radical. 
The couplet 

“As man is, God once was. 
As God is, man may become.”

is radical. 
Yet I have seen interviews with general authorities where this has been diluted.  If the church wants to be mainstream, the downplay of our core doctrine is the way to do it. 

I assume you are referring to the President Hinckley 60 Minutes interview. I think that was wisdom. President Hinckley admitted our knowledge about this was limited and a discussion on that point would have gone badly as anyone with any curiosity would have a lot of questions that the President could not or would not answer definitively. I know I couldn’t answer most of them without giving my private interpretation. Much of that is left until later in this dispensation but it had been promised that all will eventually be revealed.

[mrmarklin]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I assume you are referring to the President Hinckley 60 Minutes interview. I think that was wisdom. President Hinckley admitted our knowledge about this was limited and a discussion on that point would have gone badly as anyone with any curiosity would have a lot of questions that the President could not or would not answer definitively. I know I couldn’t answer most of them without giving my private interpretation. Much of that is left until later in this dispensation but it had been promised that all will eventually be revealed.

I am referring to that interview.  I agree that any explanation in the time given would have gone badly, given the profane understanding of God.

Nevertheless, the dodging of the question in the manner it was done was off-putting.  He should have anticipated the question and had a reasonable sounding answer ready.   His advisors did not prepare him well.

But I will further opine that the true message of the Church, that we are gods in embryo, is powerful.  And when combined with the sealing power that enables us to be families gives the Church a message that no one else has or even understands.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I am referring to that interview.  I agree that any explanation in the time given would have gone badly, given the profane understanding of God.

Nevertheless, the dodging of the question in the manner it was done was off-putting.  He should have anticipated the question and had a reasonable sounding answer ready.   His advisors did not prepare him well.

But I will further opine that the true message of the Church, that we are gods in embryo, is powerful.  And when combined with the sealing power that enables us to be families gives the Church a message that no one else has or even understands.

What answer would have served and not led to further questions? I also laugh at the idea that his advisors should have prepared him for it. He probably no idea the couplet was coming and shot it down. The interview was not for the benefit of the saints. If there was a clarification in doctrine the prophet is not going to announce it in response to a tossed off question on TV. The prophet also chose not to discuss garments (another interviewee was not so wise) but I do not see members insisting this means that we are downplaying them.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I didn't listen to all of it. He is LDS, or was LDS.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2020/12/radio-free-mormon-209-christians-v-pharisees/

Unless he has widely investigated other Christian religions, I don’t think his opinion is worth much as Saints often have a superficial understanding of others’ conceptions of God in my experience. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

But I will further opine that the true message of the Church, that we are gods in embryo, is powerful.  And when combined with the sealing power that enables us to be families gives the Church a message that no one else has or even understands.

Sometimes I wonder how much the average member of the Church actually believes that these days.  I see so many devout members arguing against the doctrines surrounding this message.