Top three issues

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

This "no man between me and God" philosophy becomes ever more popular in our current self centered society.  Knowing your own truth, personal power etc, etc.

I may be alone in my views, but I consider this at the least problematic, at worst a direct contradiction to gospel principles revealed by God.  Through all eternity there will always be someone above us and someone below us.

Protestants have believed they don't need an intermediary for hundreds of years. A priesthood of all believers is a core tenant and one of the reasons they rejected the Pope's authority.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think there's truth to all of those reasons but I think there are underlying issues that dig deeper into the "why" these things bother people.

Someone mentioned earlier that it comes down to a lack of trust in church leaders and I think at the most basic level that is the core issue behind most of these things.

This indicates that trust in Church leaders must have a more fundamental cause than simply not being bothered by these things (which I suggested was politics, materialism and instant gratification). I would suggest that these are the opposite dynamics: seeking the welfare of all, spirituality and sacrifice/consecration... none of which are possible without grace.

Edited July 9, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Perhaps a new thread?

Good idea, though sometimes looking at the causes for people staying / converting sheds light on the converse causes and results, which is the topic of this thread.

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

This "no man between me and God" philosophy becomes ever more popular in our current self centered society.  Knowing your own truth, personal power etc, etc.

I may be alone in my views, but I consider this at the least problematic, at worst a direct contradiction to gospel principles revealed by God.  Through all eternity there will always be someone above us and someone below us.

Could you please explain to me how Joseph Smith going directly to God, bypassing the established religion and clergy of his day, is good, yet when others do it, it is bad?

Or was Joseph's approach problematic as well?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Could you please explain to me how Joseph Smith going directly to God, bypassing the established religion and clergy of his day, is good, yet when others do it, it is bad?

Or was Joseph's approach problematic as well?

Simple answer:  Authority 

The clergy in Joseph Smith's day had no authority.  Joseph Smith was given that authority, and the prophets and apostles that came after him have that authority.

But even aside from that, we are all expected to go directly to God for our own confirmation of all these things.   We just can't receive direction for areas beyond our stewardships.

Edited July 9, 2021 by InCognitus

[Calm]

7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think this is spot on, but also applies to those who stay. The reasons they give to stay / convert do not necessarily equal the causes. 

Most definitely. For some reason I can’t remember now I was sharing the basics of my post with my husband and added with him “just like can happen when sharing testimonies” to make it clear what I was talking about.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, 2BizE said:

This includes a link to a Faith Crisis Report and presentation presented to church leaders.

Was this actually presented in an official meeting or just sent to leaders or given to them in another context (gathering for a different purpose)?  I can’t remember if I ever found this out. I do remember looking because the claim by some at the time it was requested by leaders when it wasn’t. 
 

Quote

Please note that this project was pro-bono work (conducted without pay and without being commissioned by Church leadership). These are NOT official LDS reports, internal or otherwise.

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/2013-faith-crisis-study/

I am wondering if there was an actual face to face meeting where this was presented fully as opposed to just handing/mailing the information to a group of people or maybe even one leader with the assumption it would be shared with others in an official context (church business meeting) or some other variation. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Shouldn't this be obvious?  Everyone has different experiences.  I wanted to hear what people had told him.

I shared what people have told me.  But some people just won't talk.  So you can't get real answers from everyone.

Three reasons:

1) Whatever you hear from one person about another person is always filtered through the person telling you.

2) There is an abundance of spaces where people give their reasons intended for a general audience, some anonymous, some not.

3) What someone is willing or able to say to person A is not necessarily the same as what they will say anonymously or publicly.

Come to think of it, maybe that's one of the major forces of the internet impacting church membership: beyond a place to find information, it's also a place where people can express their own experiences and therefore process them in ways that are not always possible in person.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

This indicates that trust in Church leaders must have a more fundamental cause than simply not being bothered by these things (which I suggested was politics, materialism and instant gratification). I would suggest that these are the opposite dynamics: seeking the welfare of all, spirituality and sacrifice/consecration... none of which are possible without grace.

In the case of long active members suddenly being confronted with a faith crisis, I wonder why the trust of leaders is lacking at times, especially in cases where they said they trusted completely before discovering the trigger issue. This includes the immediate gut response that some describe as ‘I thought it was true and then I learned this was a lie and now I doubt everything’ more or less. Why is it one alleged lie leads to ‘prove to me this _____ is not also a lie’ general approach rather than assuming trust in general and approaching it from the standpoint of ‘there may be other lies or errors I didn’t know about, but I am assuming something is true until shown it is a lie because I trust my leaders are good people who may make mistakes’.

[InCognitus]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Three reasons:

1) Whatever you hear from one person about another person is always filtered through the person telling you.

The filter is even applied by the person who hears it first hand from another person. 

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

2) There is an abundance of spaces where people give their reasons intended for a general audience, some anonymous, some not.

Again, all filtered or arranged according to the intended audience and whether the person is trying to avoid shame or score points from the intended audience.   

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

3) What someone is willing or able to say to person A is not necessarily the same as what they will say anonymously or publicly.

And this is exactly why I asked the question of Bernard Gui, which prompted your response to me.  So again, what's the point?  

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Come to think of it, maybe that's one of the major forces of the internet impacting church membership: beyond a place to find information, it's also a place where people can express their own experiences and therefore process them in ways that are not always possible in person.

The internet is also a place where people can find others who support their views and find acceptance in their company, with both good and bad consequences. 

[Meadowchik]

26 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

And this is exactly why I asked the question of Bernard Gui, which prompted your response to me.  So again, what's the point?  

Because people tend to be most frank in anonymous settings.

[InCognitus]

18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Because people tend to be most frank in anonymous settings.

Most frank, or are they more bold in trying to score points with those that show acceptance or against those that they reject, because of some other undisclosed feelings?

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.  

Edited July 10, 2021 by InCognitus

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Most frank, or are they more bold in trying to score points with those that show acceptance or against those that they reject, because of some other undisclosed feelings?

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.  

I think people tend to be more honest when giving anonymous answers to questions. The potential for acceptance or rejection is greater and more serious when non-anonymous. But either way, a direct response is going to be more accurate than a second-hand response in general.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Could you please explain to me how Joseph Smith going directly to God, bypassing the established religion and clergy of his day, is good, yet when others do it, it is bad?

Or was Joseph's approach problematic as well?

There's a big difference between going directly to God in prayer and going back to God without a legal administrator.

The whole of Christianity recognizes nobody gets directly to God except through Christ.  Too bad for all the non Christians.  They can pray to God as Joseph did but they can't get to God without Christ.

And at least in Mormonism there is a law of introduction.  Anyone claiming to go straight to Christ without an administrator (..cough..Snuffer) also rejects the restored gospel.

Christ said the Apostles would judge Israel, so nobody gets to him without their approval.  Brigham and Orson taught for our dispensation Joseph will be a judge.  Paul taught the Saints would judge the world (non Christians?)

There are no end runs in the gospel.

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think people tend to be more honest when giving anonymous answers to questions. The potential for acceptance or rejection is greater and more serious when non-anonymous. But either way, a direct response is going to be more accurate than a second-hand response in general.

People are at least theoretically more willing to commit crimes when they know they won’t be caught, so while there is a less pressure to appear nice factor to more likely being honest, there is also a less pressure to appear nice factor to trying to get away with immoral behaviour. 
 

Psychology tests include questions to test honesty even on anonymous tests. 
 

I wonder if there are studies showing when someone is more honest, anonymous online or when identity is public.

I am guessing it depends on what is being asked and context. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

In the case of long active members suddenly being confronted with a faith crisis, I wonder why the trust of leaders is lacking at times, especially in cases where they said they trusted completely before discovering the trigger issue. This includes the immediate gut response that some describe as ‘I thought it was true and then I learned this was a lie and now I doubt everything’ more or less. Why is it one alleged lie leads to ‘prove to me this _____ is not also a lie’ general approach rather than assuming trust in general and approaching it from the standpoint of ‘there may be other lies or errors I didn’t know about, but I am assuming something is true until shown it is a lie because I trust my leaders are good people who may make mistakes’.

For me personally, all I can say I trust about leaders is that they have the keys of the kingdom and my ordinances are valid. This is a function of spiritual testimony, not of anything good or bad I think they did. This translates into my explanation that a true prophet bears good fruit: the ordinances I have received from them have borne good fruit in me as I nourished them in concert with the companionship of the Holy Ghost and the Lord's grace. The ordinances are fundamental to the Restoration. The other things they have to offer through the keys (revealed doctrine, leadership and organization, etc.) in my opinion are ancillary to the Restoration and are designed to help us keep the ordinances (and attendant covenants).

I am often reminded that "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven..." We can have faith in the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, and eventually obtain our own testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (which is reflected in every ordinance) as the central driver of our religion. As a result, I think for Church members, the extent, quality and endurance of their participation is proportional to their testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Edited July 10, 2021 by CV75

[2BizE]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Was this actually presented in an official meeting or just sent to leaders or given to them in another context (gathering for a different purpose)?  I can’t remember if I ever found this out. I do remember looking because the claim by some at the time it was requested by leaders when it wasn’t. 
 

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/2013-faith-crisis-study/

I am wondering if there was an actual face to face meeting where this was presented fully as opposed to just handing/mailing the information to a group of people or maybe even one leader with the assumption it would be shared with others in an official context (church business meeting) or some other variation. 

Great question Calm.  I may not be 100% accurate with my response, but yes, this was presented in person to one or more church leaders by Greg Prince and Travis Stratford. I want to say the GA met with them in Baltimore or Washington, DC.  John Dehlin was asked not to attend and present as had been planned, because he had started to rustle some feathers at that point with Mormon Stories.  This was then presented to members of the 12, I believe it was Elder Ucktdorf.  Shortly after this was presented to Elder Ucktdorf and at October 2013 GC, Elder Ucktdorf gave a talk where he explained that the reasons people leave the church are not so simple and asked “if the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”.

He said,

“Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended, or lazy, or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations. Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question of whether they should separate themselves from the Church. In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly that it was restored by a young man that had questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth.”

 

Jana Riess had a nice story about it.

https://religionnews.com/2013/10/05/lds-leader-dieter-uchtdorf-addresses-leave-mormon-fold/
 

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

Would you say that these tie in to Politics (1, 3, 4), Materialism (5) and Instant Gratification (1, 2 -- see https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2012/02/29/millennials-will-benefit-and-suffer-due-to-their-hyperconnected-lives/  for the Internet connection on this, and I include instant validation of bias with instant gratification).

Yes. I would agree. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Jana Riess had a nice story about it.

Thank you….just a minor correction; h, not k:  Uchtdorf.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, 2BizE said:

want to say the GA met with them i

It was Marlin Jensen. Can’t find any more details confirming your details yet (just doublechecking in hopes of more details, not doubting).

Edited July 10, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. I would agree. 

Thank you for instantly validating my bias! 😁

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for instantly validating my bias! 😁

The bill is in the mail. Bitcoin accepted.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 7/9/2021 at 2:07 PM, CV75 said:

Good idea, though sometimes looking at the causes for people staying / converting sheds light on the converse causes and results, which is the topic of this thread.

Causes? Most stay because they are comfortable and it works for them. Most leave because they are not comfortable and it doesn't work for them. I believe Pew says that 80 percent of children raised by parents of a faith stay that faith. Beyond that, you are going to be a lot more specific in what you are asking and looking for. 

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Causes? Most stay because they are comfortable and it works for them. Most leave because they are not comfortable and it doesn't work for them. I believe Pew says that 80 percent of children raised by parents of a faith stay that faith. Beyond that, you are going to be a lot more specific in what you are asking and looking for. 

I'm being just as specific as the OP (and it's causes, not reasons), which has garnered 4 pages of discussion. Not that I'm expecting the same level of engagement at this point!