The different personalities found inside Mormonism

[MiserereNobis]

48 minutes ago, rchorse said:

My point was not about specific activities, but that things are often much more complex than people realize.

Most of what you are suggesting has been tried either church wide or in different wards around the world, with varying degrees of success. The one clear trend that I've seen, personally, is that people brought in by free food, sports, or free labor tend not to make very good converts. There are of course exceptions, but most of the people I've observed that came from such activities didn't stay active for long.

There's also a big difference between service and offering the missionaries as free day laborers. To claim based on my one comment that the church is saying "we can't do service because someone might take advantage of us." is ridiculous, given the church's long track record of service. But it seems more and more like you just want to find fault with how the church does things, so I'll leave you to it.

I'm not finding fault with your church. I'm criticizing your reasons. If there was an official statement that such things couldn't take place because of the reasons you listed, then I suppose I would be criticizing your church. But there's not (right?), so you gave some speculation, and I criticized your speculation. That's far different than criticizing your church.

You should take it personally -- I'm criticizing you, not your church  

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen a set of missionaries bring in a person who's interested in the gospel and because that person has been living a totally different lifestyle for most of their life, members have a hard time truly accepting that person. Now, that's not a mormon thing, that's human nature for the most part because we're more comfortable around people who think like us, or should I say, most are more comfortable around people who think like us. But some get baptized, leave, and come back in a few years. Our main goal should be making them feel welcome no matter what.

I agree that we should try to help them to feel welcome, or at least not do anything to make them feel unwelcome, but their decision to stay or leave is totally up to them and they should realize that all members of the Church have their own personal problems.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen a set of missionaries bring in a person who's interested in the gospel and because that person has been living a totally different lifestyle for most of their life, members have a hard time truly accepting that person.

I think you and I live in parallel universes that intersect only in this forum.

[AtlanticMike]

56 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you and I live in parallel universes that intersect only in this forum.

Haha🤣 well, you made me laugh so that's a positive in my book. But I have to ask, what do you mean? I even said that not accepting someone totally at first isn't a mormon thing, it's human nature. There's articles on our offical website on how to be more inclusive because it's a problem,  it's not like a pulled this idea out of thin air. It does happen, in all churches. Check out the screen shots. 

    Also, I've been in ward meetings where the bishop talks about being more welcoming to investigators, am I the only one on here who has seen this?

Edited February 23, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It seems weird to hide behind the law, insurance, and regulations when other churches and organizations do these things all the time.

I don’t think the Church is hiding behind the law, but rather making choices on what costs yield the most benefits.  Members might be if they are unaware of where money goes and how much and that concerns them.  

Added:  I also think the leadership try to be as consistent and simplified as possible with their rules and regulations given it is a volunteer leadership organization with not much training for lower levels and honestly in my experience as a ward librarian who passed time on slow nights reading the handbooks for about 30 years off and on, a lot of members who never bothered to check the rules when it came to their callings or didn’t care.  Handbooks have gotten simpler from what I have seen.  Some have been completely eliminated.   Given the moving from ward to ward, state/province/whatever to s/p/w, country to country, I have seen many members just assume the same rules apply where they just moved to (this caused some problems in my view for Americans moving to Canada dealing with Scouts Canada and Americans and other nonRussians  in Moscow even when the government wasn’t intentionally looking for trouble with the Church back when we visited in 92 or 93 and lived there in 95).  This could result in some major fines ( https://www.brotherhoodmutual.com/legalassist/legal-q-a/ministry-activities-and-operations/q-does-our-ministry-need-to-obtain-a-special-permit-before-serving-or-selling-food/ ) or even getting kicked out of buildings rented for chapels, etc. So I think it likely (speculation warning) that some of the rules are to save members time when they already do too many meetings and need time to study lessons and scriptures rather than rules, some of the rules are to be consistent with the tightest government requirements even if elsewhere requirements are lighter, some of the rules are to keep accidents down so the Church saves money in one area and frees it up for others.  
 

Since laws are changing all the time, the Church would probably have to establish a hotline at least in the states and Canada for event planning to ensure proper permits and safety concerns were all met.  I am less familiar with what laws are like elsewhere.  I do remember a Russian law student back in 93 who was so frustrated because their laws were changing so much at that time their textbooks were always out of date (at the time few had laptops or computers to do research on).

———

I believe the Church self insures though I may be wrong. It chooses to build safe, quality chapels and beautiful temples for members whether their community can afford them or not where in the past they used to have to foot most of the bill iirc including maintaining after buildings once built; fund a massive missionary program; provides most manuals and church supplies free for wards; has a massive education program; has a massive humanitarian program including disaster preparedness. 
 

One of the way it provides service while keeping costs down is to help fund other organizations and churches’ charities. I think that is pretty cool that we are okay with someone else getting more credit than we are in exchange for being able to help more people with our investment. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

But I have to ask, what do you mean?

I mean that what you described is completely alien to me. It certainly doesn't happen in my ward here. Of course, most of us were once the investigator with the 'totally different lifestyle' at some point. When I take non-member friends to church, I actually warn them about the tsunami of genuine friendliness they are about to experience, including handshakes and hugs (well, pre-COVID) and invitations to meals in people's homes.

We have a member of our ward who was so strung out on drugs on his first few visits that I wondered if he might cause an incident in sacrament meeting. (I even sent a warning text to our bishop, who replied that he wasn't worried.) One week he was so agitated on the drive home that I half-thought he might kill me and steal my car. He didn't. (But that would have made a great story for people to tell, hey?!) Instead, he was warmly welcomed, basically adopted by our emeritus stake patriarch and his wife, and eventually baptised. He still struggles in various ways, and we still love him as one of us -- including regularly visiting him in the mental health unit when necessary. Until recently, he was was coordinating our chapel maintenance for us.

When I served my mission in America, it was exactly the same. In my first ward, another set of Elders invited a woman to come to church one week. She decided to show up just to embarrass them, and she dressed in a way she thought would accomplish that: mini-skirt, tube top, high heels. Instead, she was so warmly welcomed that she became an actual investigator and then member.

My experiences working in other parts of America as well as in Indonesia and the West Indies have been the same.

I actually think it's easier to unintentionally overlook people who look like they 'fit in' -- as per the screenshot you shared.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

You have got to be kidding me! Did you actually just say that?? Who are you to judge who's a "very good" convert. Maybe they leave because certain people make them feel like  they're not very good Converts, ever think about that? Tell me what do you consider a "good" convert?

There was a local program of the mission in southwest England back in the 1950s and 60s sometime when young men from the community came to LDS chapels to participate in basketball. Participation required hearing the missionary discussions and baptism. Almost none of these "converts" (and there was a large number of them) were converted in any sense of the word. All they had was a baptismal date. Once this was discovered by higher authorities they went back to these "converts" to see if any of them were attending at all, and if not, what did they know about the Church. Virtually none of them remembered anything significant about the Church from the activity that resulted in their baptism, let alone continued to attend, except that they remembered having fun playing the game. Virtually none of them even knew the name of the Church they had supposedly joined. The names of these men were quietly struck from membership rolls. After checking to make sure they weren't interested in learning more about the Church, of course.

A semi-similar thing happened in parts of Europe after WW2, but this was due to the Church's efforts to help feed the people in these war-torn countries of western Europe. There were many "converts" who joined the Church in order to receive welfare food and other assistance. As soon as conditions improved these "converts" quickly dropped all church activity and never came back. I don't know if the Church tried to identify and withdraw membership from these folks, but I remember hearing ward leaders in Germany in 1972 complaining about the large numbers of members on their rolls who were Welfare Mormons and nothing more.

In China these kinds of "converts" were referred to as "Rice Christians". Catholic and Protestant, not LDS, in this case.

A "good convert" is someone who was actually converted, not someone who joined for other reasons -- although of course there will always be those who join the Church for one reason, and who later become actually converted. I've seen a few of these, myself.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Stargazer

[JustAnAustralian]

I see a similar thing in Chinese students that get baptised into the church in Australia. They become friends with the missionaries (who speak their language), get baptised and then the missionaries leave. The Chinese members, who have only been members for a few weeks, might not even have a fundamental understanding of the basics of Christianity (or even religion), and so never actually understood the background of what the missionaries were teaching them. So then they are in an English speaking ward, not only not understanding the teaching, but also struggling to understand the language.

Once the missionaries get transferred or go home, the new Chinese might stick around for a while if there are new Chinese speaking missionaries, but may instead start attending a non-denominational Christian church that has a Chinese specific service with their non-LDS Chinese friends. (As they don't know the difference between different Christian churches). Even the ones that stick around, come exam time, will stop attending, then go home to China for the holidays, and if they come back, might start attending again, but not always.

Now don't get me wrong, there are many great Chinese converts over here, but there is a definite link between understanding (language and/or gospel) and retention. And the ones that do stick around, seem to develop great testimonies.

[Islander]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

It is possible to lose testimony of one principle of the gospel while holding on to another.  The problem is once you start tugging on a thread the entire tapestry may unravel.

But Tacenda is right to a point.  You can lose a testimony of the Church and keep a testimony of the atonement.  I'm sure we could identify other elements we could lose testimony of while maintaining the rest.  There are believing members with no testimony of D&C 132, or the garment, or tithing, or the word of wisdom.

I guess if you believe the Church is like a buffet (take what you like and ignore the rest) that may work.

The real issue here is that if God has spoken and laid down a principle and you can't believe that principle that means that your faith is lacking and you are holding on to the social structure of the Church but you are not truly converted. The explanation is simple. Either the WHOLE doctrine is true and brought to us by God through His appointed prophet or is not. At times, you will not understand or be convinced of a principle until you faithfully live it. But the revelation of God in regards to every principle He asks the saints to live by is available to ALL. So, it is not possible, in the long run, to have a testimony of some principle and not of others. That is not a position you can defend doctrinally. The dychotomy is clear; either the Church, the revelation and the doctrine are ALL true or they are not.

Here in the Midwest, Omaha, is full of the descendants of those that made the trip in the handcart company from the Missouri valley but stopped at Winter Quarters and did not go on to the Salt Lake Valley. The Parable of the Sower is a good illustration in Matthew 13. Their faith was shallow and in the face of adversity it all but vanished.

So, indeed, some people hang out at Church for purely social reasons and do the bare minimum to maintain membership but, they are a parasitic vine. There is no fruit, and it shows. But, that is not my concern. 

Social norms and trend have infected the people of the Church in a way that we bring into the chapels the cultural mores and values of the environment. To the point; we bend backwards to be courteous and polite to the extreme that we no longer confront error and mediocrity in our midst. But, I am just the least of my brethren....

At the end, what we do about the word of God, the revelation of God and the doctrines of the kingdom is the clear evidence of our faith.

[AtlanticMike]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

A semi-similar thing happened in parts of Europe after WW2, but this was due to the Church's efforts to help feed the people in these war-torn countries of western Europe. There were many "converts" who joined the Church in order to receive welfare food and other assistance. As soon as conditions improved these "converts" quickly dropped all church activity and never came back. I don't know if the Church tried to identify and withdraw membership from these folks, but I remember hearing ward leaders in Germany in 1972 complaining about the large numbers of members on their rolls who were Welfare Mormons and nothing more.

You're putting Converts in quotation marks in the above paragraph. If these people were truly baptized by water and received the gift of the holy ghost, wouldn't they be real honest to goodness members no matter how they felt or why they joined at first? I understand what your saying about them joining so they could receive welfare food, but they still had to be interviewed by a judge of Israel just like you and me, and if that bishop felt like they were joining for the correct reason, then why question their worthiness? I believe God chooses to help his children any many ways, many we will never understand while still mere mortals.

Edited February 24, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Islander said:

I guess if you believe the Church is like a buffet (take what you like and ignore the rest) that may work.

The real issue here is that if God has spoken and laid down a principle and you can't believe that principle that means that your faith is lacking and you are holding on to the social structure of the Church but you are not truly converted. The explanation is simple. Either the WHOLE doctrine is true and brought to us by God through His appointed prophet or is not. At times, you will not understand or be convinced of a principle until you faithfully live it. But the revelation of God in regards to every principle He asks the saints to live by is available to ALL. So, it is not possible, in the long run, to have a testimony of some principle and not of others. That is not a position you can defend doctrinally. The dychotomy is clear; either the Church, the revelation and the doctrine are ALL true or they are not.

Here in the Midwest, Omaha, is full of the descendants of those that made the trip in the handcart company from the Missouri valley but stopped at Winter Quarters and did not go on to the Salt Lake Valley. The Parable of the Sower is a good illustration in Matthew 13. Their faith was shallow and in the face of adversity it all but vanished.

So, indeed, some people hang out at Church for purely social reasons and do the bare minimum to maintain membership but, they are a parasitic vine. There is no fruit, and it shows. But, that is not my concern. 

Social norms and trend have infected the people of the Church in a way that we bring into the chapels the cultural mores and values of the environment. To the point; we bend backwards to be courteous and polite to the extreme that we no longer confront error and mediocrity in our midst. But, I am just the least of my brethren....

At the end, what we do about the word of God, the revelation of God and the doctrines of the kingdom is the clear evidence of our faith.

What about Jesus? He seemed to be more on the fringe, same with Joseph Smith. Sometimes it's those that are on the fringe that see what needs changing in the organizations. So if what you say is correct, we'd have to hold on to so many doctrines that are now not in existence such as polygamy and denying the blacks the priesthood. What are you going to say if the church changes it's polices with the LGBTQ crowd? What about the extreme changes in the temple ceremonies that are more equal for women? What if the church allowed gay marriage one day? Some or one I believe has said they wouldn't agree with this, what then? So a person like me that no longer believes everything in the church, but still holds faith in God is a bad vine and should be ripped out? Would God rather members like me lose their belief in Him? Or hope that people like me stay in belief and contribute any good I can?

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

You're putting Converts in quotation marks in the above paragraph. If these people were truly baptized by water and received the gift of the holy ghost, wouldn't they be real honest to goodness members no matter how they felt or why they joined at first?

They were real honest to goodness members, sure. But only on paper. I said earlier that a condition of playing on the team was being taught and baptism, but I am actually unsure they were actually taught anything. If their membership was cancelled without any administrative or ecclesiastical procedure, which is what happened, I think it's quite telling as to whether or not they were converts, or "converts".  Nothing against them, of course. It was the missionaries who did wrong.

8 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I understand what your saying about them joining so they could receive welfare food, but they still had to be interviewed by a judge of Israel just like you and me, and if that bishop felt like they were joining for the correct reason, then why question their worthiness? I believe God chooses to help his children any many ways, many we will never understand while still mere mortals.

Bishops do not control whom the missionaries baptize. Converts, as opposed to children of record, are baptized if the missionaries are satisfied of their true conversion, and the bishop or branch president has no authority to say Yea or Nay. The missionaries who are given "quotas" to fulfill, or who are striving after numbers, can and do make mistakes.

I've seen converts get baptized and then fail to remain active. I would not put quotation marks around "convert" in such cases. But those who join the church unknowingly, or under false pretenses deserve quotation marks. Sorry!

All that being said, nothing stops a "convert" from becoming a convert.  I recall a man I knew in England back in the late 60s and early 70s. He had joined the church years before with his wife and three daughters, but he did so only for the sake of family solidarity. He was not a believer, and he continued to smoke cigarettes and drink coffee and tea. After attending church once of twice after his baptism, he never darkened the door of the meetinghouse ever again, though he drove his wife and children to church every Sunday and picked them up afterwards. He took his responsibility as head of household seriously, however, and when his wife told him about the Family Home Evening program he made sure to hold it every Monday evening. Over the years, as he learned more and more about the gospel through these home evenings and the manual provided for it, he finally and quietly acquired a testimony of the Gospel. Then occurred the oddest thing: he was called to be a Seminary teacher! He still smoked, he hadn't attended a meeting in years, but still they made him a Seminary teacher. By this time I had moved away from the area, but I was still in contact with his middle daughter. I remember her joyful letter when she reported that he had driven them all to church one Sunday, but instead of driving away he stayed for the meeting. Eventually, he received the priesthood and took his wife and daughters to the temple where they were all sealed together as a family. Stories such as this make one have hope for all those who seem to resist the gospel, sometimes for decades. 

[AtlanticMike]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Bishops do not control whom the missionaries baptize. Converts, as opposed to children of record, are baptized if the missionaries are satisfied of their true conversion, and the bishop or branch president has no authority to say Yea or Nay.

Well, you taught me something new today. I always thought the bishop, through the baptismal interview had the final say.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Well, you taught me something new today. I always thought the bishop, through the baptismal interview had the final say.

We all learn something new every day; or at least, we ought to!  

From "Preach My Gospel" Chapter 12:

Who conducts the interview for baptism?

Normally the district leader interviews baptismal candidates taught by missionaries in his district, including candidates taught by his zone leaders. The zone leader interviews candidates taught by the district leader. The mission president or one of his counselors must interview people involved in serious sins.

This actually makes sense from the point of view of "who has the authority?" question. Before the person is a member, the bishop does not have ecclesiastical authority over the person. The Mission President has ecclesiastical authority over all non-members living within his mission boundaries.

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Stargazer

[JustAnAustralian]

I believe the Mission President will also be involved with the interview if a Muslim is converting due to the risk to them and their family if they are in risky areas.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I believe the Mission President will also be involved with the interview if a Muslim is converting due to the risk to them and their family if they are in risky areas.

Iirc, we had one case in Calgary where the First Presidency got involved. She had to change her name and life to be baptized as her family would have sent someone to kill her.  She was a student at that time. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Just an FYI:

https://universe.byu.edu/2021/02/26/church-magazines-focus-on-inclusion-in-new-series/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=church-magazines-focus-on-inclusion-in-new-series

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/01/including-everyone?lang=eng

Not sure if part of series, but found interesting:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/02/compassion-for-those-affected-by-crime-and-incarceration?lang=eng

In the Digital only section:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/02/when-you-dont-know-what-to-say?lang=eng

I didn’t see a specific inclusion article for March, but there was this brief article on Easter traditions in other faiths (more to encourage study IMO than to inform in detail).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/03/digital-only/learning-about-christian-traditions-made-easter-more-meaningful-to-me?lang=eng

Edited February 28, 2021 by Calm