Is it just me?

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Islander said:

The true heroes of the faith ARE in the pages of scripture. We are mere fallen, mortal humans. 

Scriptures contain the thoughts and opinions of mere fallen, mortal humans in addition to the occasional words from the mouth of God.

As Brigham taught "I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are;"

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

In another generation or two, there will be few who have ever even held a paper "book", any more than there are people today demanding papyrus scrolls to read scripture.

They really do cut down trees to make paper books, you know!

It's a dying and outmoded technology 

Never going to happen.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Scriptures contain the thoughts and opinions of mere fallen, mortal humans in addition to the occasional words from the mouth of God.

As Brigham taught "I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are;"

Wow, I tend to agree! 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Wow, I tend to agree! 

You agree with me...or with Brigham Young? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's a dying and outmoded technology 

In many cases completely skipped over. I have lived places where printed books were prohibitively expensive and therefore rare, as were landlines. Now everyone has a mobile in his pocket. Technology is transforming the Third World far more rapidly than it is the First World.

My West Africa-born housemate is able to stay in contact with his cousins in their small, remote village because they all have mobile phones and access to solar-powered charging stations. I love listening to the omnipresent crowing of the roosters as they talk!

Edited January 14, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

You agree with me...or with Brigham Young? 

Agree with both of you! Yours and especially this portion: 

As Brigham taught "I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men"

Weren't you saying basically the same thing?

[teddyaware]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, I tend to agree! 

Don’t get too carried away by conflating all the categories of people listed in the quote. All President Young is saying is that aside from containing the inspired Word of God (the vast majority of the Bible’s content) the Bible also contains the words of good men like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea; the words of bad men like Pharaoh and Caiaphus; the words of good angels like Gabriel and John’s heavenly guide in the Book of Revelation, and the words of bad angels such as the devil and the evil spirits whose words are recorded in the New Testament. By so saying, President Young isn’t suggesting that the true prophets of God are even remotely likely to preach the doctrines of devils. 

[kimpearson]

I worked for some of the largest corporations in the world one level down from the C-suite.  I sat in executive meetings and board meetings.  The Church has become like a corporation.  It has large monetary resources.  It has a large bureaucracy with plenty of internal politics.  It has locations all over the world.  It has real power that influences social values, political views and distribution of needed resources.  It has a board of directors that have one main goal.  Protect the Church (corporation) over all else.  Instead of granting large sums of money to executives, the Church puts so much money in reserves it never has to worry about money again (protect the church).  If there is abuse of members in the system, who deals with it, lawyers, not counselors, not mental health professionals, lawyers (to protect the Church).   How much time do executives (general authorities) spend ministering to members in a week versus administering programs and staff?  It is a diversified organization that includes religion, broadcasting and newspapers, real estate, agriculture and education.  The Church is so powerful, large and diverse that the leaders from the very top, in my opinion, have become incredibly risk adverse.

How do you limit risk in an organization that is first a religion?  You decide who your core supporters are and build everything around those supporters.  Who are the core supporters?  Middle aged white North American males.  These males are predominately upper middle class and provide a huge majority of the donations.  These males are politically conservative and socially conservative.  These males more often than not grew up in a very traditional family and tried to create the same traditional family for themselves.  Many of these men have wives who are also conservative and view motherhood as the true measure of a woman.  These men and women typically have more than 2 children.  These men and women are black and white thinkers with a religious view that considers religious doctrine as black and white.  These couples also tend to view the world with mistrust, especially those they call "intellectuals".  The term intellectuals is general given to anyone who asks questions about inconsistencies, mistakes of the past, hidden history, social justice, fuller explanations for Church policies and practices or expresses doubt about  any beliefs of the Church.  The religion then makes sure that its mission statement, core values, policies and procedures fully support the religious views of these core supporters.

What is the next thing a corporation/the Church does to reduce risk?  You look at all the areas that have created controversy and caused your core supporters to question the leaders.  You then get your PR department to address all those controversies by producing your own story line of what really happened and why there really wasn't any controversies.   You also get your PR department to create a very basic story line that everyone sticks to no matter what the occasion.  Corporate leaders are instructed to only tell the story line when they speak to the public.  The employee handbook is carefully crafted to keep to the story line and make sure employees do not deviate from it.  If the Corporation produces any media events, it makes sure such events are carefully scripted ahead of time.  The media event makes use of all the latest technology to make the event pleasing to the eye and to keep everything on script.  Real questions are never allowed to be asked of the corporate leaders and in employee meetings.  Only carefully screened prepared questions are allowed.  If by chance a real question sneaks through, leaders are taught to answer the question as if it were a question from the script.  At the end of the media event, carefully screened employees are given the opportunity to summarize what they heard, the carefully scripted story line.

I know this is just my opinion and many will disagree but I would invite them to read the many books I was forced to read as a corporate leader about how to be a corporate leader.  The favorite ones of the senior executives were always about protecting and making the corporation strong by reducing conflict and risk.

Think back to the Church of my childhood in the 60's.  The 1st Presidency, the Quorum of the 12 and a handful of assistants to the 12.  No church office building.  No worldwide broadcasts of conference.  You had to live close to Salt Lake to watch on TV.  Very few foreign members.  No internet.  Very little criticism of the Church that members were aware of.  Correlation was just getting started and most of the adults at the time were used to Church where religious discussion could be all over the board depending on where you lived.

Now is it any surprise that the message of the Church has become very simple, very bland and very correlated.  It's to avoid controversy and risk.  The most important goal is to protect the Church.  The goal isn't to determine what members are struggling with and address that.  That would be risky.  It's less risky to say pray, trust God and follow the prophet and that will solve all your problems.  It's less risk to close the doors on expenditures, investments, activity rates and any other information that might cause members to ask questions.  Studying the gospel at home and basically squashing any real discussion at church is less risky because you limit exposure to those with different ideas.  It's less risky to have talks and lessons centered on conference talks because those talks discuss ideas in a way that is safe.

Many active members love this style of religion.  It's safe and tells them what to do.  It gives the promise of God being there for you every time.  The doctrine is clear and you don't really have to think about it to hard.  As long as life generally goes your way and the challenges you face have clear doctrinal answers such members feel a great safety and protection from the world.  They also feel sure they are on the path to exaltation because so many of the things they are taught to do are performance based.  Pray, study your scriptures, go to church, go on a mission, get married in the temple and return to the temple over and over and have children.  These members take as evidence that this is the true path, the lives of those fellow members they see in their wards and stakes that look happy and seem to have everything together.  All church leaders are following this path and that is further evidence of its correctness.  Anyone who found some bump in the road along the way that led them to question, feel pain that wasn't resolved by the basic doctrine or experience something in life they had no control over but put their personal lives at odds with the Church, is considered either a sinner or lacking in faith.  Fortunately most of these type of members go away so they aren't seen on Sundays.  The remaining members are counseled to love such members and pray for them but don't go visit them and listen to why they have left.  That would be risky.  Also since there is a constant flow of these members leaving the Church, the Church protects itself by sending tens of thousand of missionaries out to bring new members in.  Of course we don't talk much anymore about how many of those new members soon walk out the door also because that puts the Church at risk of looking like something isn't working.

Yes in a very real way, this Church has changed from the Church of 40 or 50 years ago.  The core doctrines have remained but any kind of real discussion about those doctrines that doesn't follow the Corporate line are discouraged and are disappearing.  What you are hearing is good basic gospel truths.  What you are not hearing is personal ideas on how do you truly use those gospel truths to relieve the suffering of others, to address the personal issues and questions individuals have.  I hear very little humble revelation of the inner souls and thoughts of our general authorities that truly come from the heart.  The only hearts that are touched are the hearts looking for confirmation of everything they already believe.  There is no discussion and self reflection on what members and leaders might be doing or not doing that causes so many to not participate or leave.  You are not hearing any discussions about possible alternate solutions to problems facing the Church related to it's current interpretation of doctrine.  So for me conference has become like sitting in my Sunday school class when I was 12 over and over and over.  I go back and read the talks several times but nothing more comes from it.  It is part of why I am on this board.  I would rather be discussing and questioning with some that think I am an idiot than not discussing and questioning at all.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

47 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Who are the core supporters?  Middle aged white North American males.

When Elder Bednar was here to conduct a regional priesthood leadership training meeting seven or eight years ago, he told us that the Lord was guiding the Church to be truly global in its reach by stripping away all non-essential culture and leaving only the doctrines. Americans, he told us, would be the ones most troubled by these improvements. Then he gave us a measure: if something doesn't work in Zimbabwe, the Church is no longer going to do it. Simply put, you're off the mark here.

Quote

The remaining members are counseled to love such members and pray for them but don't go visit them and listen to why they have left.

CFR the bolded.

Quote

The only hearts that are touched are the hearts looking for confirmation of everything they already believe.

I feel called to repent each General Conference.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Anyone who found some bump in the road along the way that led them to question, feel pain that wasn't resolved by the basic doctrine or experience something in life they had no control over but put their personal lives at odds with the Church, is considered either a sinner or lacking in faith.  Fortunately most of these type of members go away so they aren't seen on Sundays.  The remaining members are counseled to love such members and pray for them but don't go visit them and listen to why they have left.  That would be risky. 

My experience has been just the opposite of your supposed narrative above.  And I second the request for a CFR to the bolded part. 

I know of two families that left the church in the last two years, and in both cases I begged them to allow me to come and listen to their reasons for leaving in a non-judgmental way, or to have them talk to me over the phone or send an email to explain why they left.  I sincerely and honestly want to understand their feelings about why they left, and I explained that I wouldn't try to change their mind or argue with them.  I just wanted to listen.  I'm a very non-judgmental person (they would know that - I worked with the husbands of the two families in various situations), and I wasn't in a leadership position in the ward at the time I asked to hear their reasons.  But in both cases I was turned down, and one of the families specifically wrote to ward members to tell them to not ask them why they left.  I'd like to know what is the "risk" to them for not wanting to explain their reasons for leaving?  (It must be a corporation thing).  It just doesn't work like the way you explained it above, at least not in the real world.

Edited January 14, 2022 by InCognitus

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Never going to happen.

I would have agreed with MF except my son who works for a book publisher says they are selling tons of books. 

[Islander]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Scriptures contain the thoughts and opinions of mere fallen, mortal humans in addition to the occasional words from the mouth of God.

As Brigham taught "I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are;"

Well, the problem with BY is that nobody knows when he was just talking or when uttering the word of God. Overall, that is a very low view of scripture. Because then there is absolutely no certainty about who is actually talking, thus one can never be certain of anything when it comes to the scriptures, from that perspective. There are many things said in those early days of the church that today most would not repeat.

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

When Elder Bednar was here to conduct a regional priesthood leadership training meeting seven or eight years ago, he told us that the Lord was guiding the Church to be truly global in its reach by stripping away all non-essential culture and leaving only the doctrines. Americans, he told us, would be the ones most troubled by these improvements. Then he gave us a measure: if something doesn't work in Zimbabwe, the Church is no longer going to do it. Simply put, you're off the mark here.

CFR the bolded.

I feel called to repent each General Conference.

You know it's hard not to be snarky when I told you I was expressing my opinion but I do have a couple of questions?

Who is Elder Bednar?  A white North American male of upper middle class back ground or something else?  What about the other 14?  All the same except one happened to be born in Germany but live the same privileged lifestyle his whole adult life.  Elder Soares had the same privileged lifestyle and has lived in the United States so long that he practically is North American.  Presidents of the quorum of the seventy, the same story.  Also I wasn't talking about culture.  Just where the money comes from and upbringing of the vast majority of leaders from Bishop on up.

You are a perfect example of who conference appeals too.  That is not criticism but rather a simple statement.

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

My experience has been just the opposite of your supposed narrative above.  And I second the request for a CFR to the bolded part. 

I know of two families that left the church in the last two years, and in both cases I begged them to allow me to come and listen to their reasons for leaving in a non-judgmental way, or to have them talk to me over the phone or send an email to explain why they left.  I sincerely and honestly want to understand their feelings about why they left, and I explained that I wouldn't try to change their mind or argue with them.  I just wanted to listen.  I'm a very non-judgmental person (they would know that - I worked with the husbands of the two families in various situations), and I wasn't in a leadership position in the ward at the time I asked to hear their reasons.  But in both cases I was turned down, and one of the families specifically wrote to ward members to tell them to not ask them why they left.  I'd like to know what is the "risk" to them for not wanting to explain their reasons for leaving?  (It must be a corporation thing).  It just doesn't work like the way you explained it above, at least not in the real world.

I state quite clearly this is my opinion.  My current Elder's quorum president flat out told me this one month ago.  Our stake president in our recent stake conference told active members to not get caught up is discussions with family members about why they left.  Rather they should focus on expressing their love.  I have also talked to thousands of inactive and former members who have told be that when they left no one made any effort to find out why.  I have listened to hundreds of sons and daughter tear up when they tell me that their parents refuse to listen to them explain why they left the Church.  So that has been my experience in many cases but your right not everyone.  Unlike you are telling me that your experience is the only one that really happens in the "real world" I am saying that it really does happen.

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Presidents of the quorum of the seventy, the same story.

I'm pretty sure the Brit, Kiwi, Brazilian, and Portuguese presidents (i.e. the majority) of the presidents of seventy would be quite put off by you saying they're practically north american.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

except one happened to be born in Germany but live the same privileged lifestyle his whole adult life. 

Because a trauma filled childhood is so easily forgotten and put aside.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, kimpearson said:

You are a perfect example of who conference appeals too.

Does General Conference appeal to me? Yes!

Am I one of your imagined 'core supporters'? Nope. I don't even live in the Northern Hemisphere, let alone North America. But don't let that stop you making up more stories that fit your narrative. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Mike Drop]

10 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

Why does it matter?

It matters a lot! Two times a year the prophet stands at the podium and addresses the entire world. We believe this man speaks for God. We believe this man has been given the keys to the priesthood, more than any other man on earth. We believe he can prophesy, see what’s going to happen in the future and then reveal what he’s seen. He, more than anyone else on earth stands next to Jesus Christ and has regular contact with super natural beings. As Mormons, this is what we believe!  I’m sorry, but In my opinion the prophet, the one man on earth that has been blessed with abilities and gifts no other man or woman possesses should be the one man that can stand at a podium and give a talk without reading off a teleprompter. 

Also, talks by all the speakers in General Conference are becoming more bland over time. It’s as if our mormon leaders have decided to move us into “survival mode” and strip everything that’s controversial to the rest of the world from our doctrine, our lifestyle. 
 

in the past 50 years there’s been over 3000 General Conference talks and everyone of them has been read from a teleprompter. I’m sorry, but we believe the Holy Ghost directs us what to say and what to do. We rely on his guidance, don’t we? Again, is the guidance we receive from the Holy Ghost so weak a prophet can’t give a talk without writing it down first? Instead of running to the Christian’s tent to seek shelter, shouldn’t we be doing the opposite? Shouldn’t General Conference talks be getting bolder and explaining why we’re different? 

     

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

Follow him, then.  He is trying hard to teach you how to get your own revelation.

You didn't understand my gist, "way".

We've been told we still have revelation through current prophets. Now you're telling me to get my own, which is fine, so why the emphasis on having a living prophet. I merely mentioned that there wasn't much said on the pandemic and it seems like a pressing situation and I wondered why we weren't getting some salve on the wounds. 

Here's a talk by Pres Uchtdorf: "Why Do We Need Prophets"

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2012/03/why-do-we-need-prophets?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fliahona%2F2012%2F03%2Fwhy-do-we-need-prophets%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D3392602DC0049C49-28635F2C2AFE8F19|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1642170334

Edited January 14, 2022 by Tacenda

[rongo]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

It costs at the very least ‘landscape’ that can be used for another purpose.  It costs a couple of volunteers to keep track of who checked out what and quite a bit of effort to get them returned in a timely fashion. And if it isn’t replaced when not returned or not strictly supervised, any worthwhile books will take a walk and what will be left are a bunch of old books no one is interested in (having helped inventory two stake libraries as well as having worked in actual libraries).  Not saying it is intentional, but even stake libraries had a problem with books going missing as some forgot to return them and often moved taking books with them. I can imagine institute books with young adults involved need quite a bit more supervision to ensure they are returned by the end of the semester or before the mission, new job, marriage, etc. 

Not really (or not at all). The university institute library is a nice room with nice bookshelves, nice tables, and nice sofas, but it's not eating up any space in an opportunity cost fashion. There is already the church facilities (chapel, offices, classrooms, gym, etc.), a kitchen (where there is more cooking than would normally be allowed), a rec room (ping pong, foosball, pinball, etc.). If the library were cleared out, it would just be an empty room.

There is no supervision, and no check out and check in procedure (granted, my kids and I are probably the only ones who use it much. I have my kids get me books to borrow all the time). The institute director is nominally over it, but it requires no effort, stress, or record-keeping. It's just there. 

It isn't that it could go away, via the Church boxing up and taking the books. It's more the institute director's comment that he thinks Salt Lake doesn't want the books to be accessible (that's the sense he got from discussions with CES). In other words, he doesn't think the Church wants him to let people who want them take the books if/when it gets shut down; Salt Lake would collect them and then warehouse them (hopefully not destroy them) in Salt Lake. 

[The Nehor]

This has piqued my interest a bit and I went looking for reactions to Conference in previous generations. I am wondering if the same complaints were found then. Sadly it is harder to find opinion polls and internet posts from the 1950s to the 1970s.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

other words, he doesn't think the Church wants him to let people who want them take the books if/when it gets shut down; Salt Lake would collect them and then warehouse them (hopefully not destroy them) in Salt Lake

Your institute library had less supervision than ours did but maybe it is because no one but your family is actually using it.

It is possible he misunderstood given they don’t appear to have any problem with such books being sold at DI. 
 

I can see the possibility of someone seeing a book stamped with the info that it belongs to the institute assuming it has been vetted and recommended by the Church given we had people think the same thing of our bookstore, as if everything had been distributed by Church Distribution and there was much less connection between us and the Church and an institute library. (Harry Potter was one of our more popular products.)  That would be easily resolved by blacking out any identifying information or cutting it out like books I purchased from regular libraries have done.

Is he willing to doublecheck for you?

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Calm

[Analytics]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I'm not taking these figures as established.  

Second, the "income" I had in mind was tithes and offerings.

In terms of the CFR then, it sounds like you are conceding that while the Church doesn't disclose enough information to its donors to know for sure, the majority of its total income in all likelihood goes towards growing its portfolio of commercial assets.

Thanks.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In terms of the CFR then, it sounds like you are conceding that while the Church doesn't disclose enough information to its donors to know for sure, the majority of its total income in all likelihood goes towards growing its portfolio of commercial assets.

Thanks.

I am not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This has piqued my interest a bit and I went looking for reactions to Conference in previous generations. I am wondering if the same complaints were found then. Sadly it is harder to find opinion polls and internet posts from the 1950s to the 1970s.

 Even if such polling existed, I doubt it would be any more accurate than polling faithful members today.

It's very simple - the more zealously converted a member is the more likely they are to say Conference was amazing, a spiritual feast, pure revelation.
The less zealous member is more likely to identify any issues or areas lacking.

I do believe it's objectively evident that the content of conference talks have been watered down, but in the end how much you get out of conference still says more about the listener than the speaker.