Message to Christian Churches

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I thought the message to Christian churches is that they are just playing church rather than being a real church.

Watch the video if you haven't.  He says that, through enlisting in social justice warriorship rather than saving souls, too many churches have lost their way.  (I watched the video, with apologies to anyone who disagrees, I think that's a fair paraphrase.  If you feel you can improve upon it, by all means, do so.)

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/14/2022 at 10:36 PM, filovirus said:

Didn’t he come to prominence by refusing to use the pronouns that some of his students were asking him to use? Accused the Canadian government that it was a type of compelled speech if they made him do so.

 

On 7/14/2022 at 11:42 PM, The Nehor said:

He did but it is usually on the periphery of those issues. He was also banned from Twitter for “deadnaming” a transgender person. Yeah, my comment was probably overly simplistic. More accurate probably to say that lgbt issues aren’t central to his agenda. They are more like an attention button he presses when he wants articles written about him.

 

11 hours ago, Rivers said:

Yes. He came into prominence by being a sane person.

 

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

He appears to have lost that attribute somewhere along the way.

Surely, if anyone here would know that one has lost his mind, you would!  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

 

Surely, if anyone here would know that one has lost his mind, you would!  

As evidence of my insanity hypothesis:

Gee, I wonder.

[Kenngo1969]

As I said:

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Surely, if anyone here would know that one has lost his mind, you would!  

 

[MrShorty]

I'm not particularly fond of Jordan Peterson or male (or female) stereotyping and that. Peterson is not the first person I've seen talk about the "feminization" of Christianity and how churches may be alienating (stereotypical) men in favor of embracing (stereotypical) women. I've seen various "church for men" groups and movements over several years. I wonder if we could find a better proponent of this message than Peterson, since it seems that some don't like him as the messenger.

Real questions that this topic raises in my mind:

1) Do churches (and does the LDS Church specifically) consciously or subconsciously cater to women in topic and tone and alienate men?
2) To what extent are the stereotypes that tend to drive this kind of thing real or made up?
3) Do men and women want/need something different from church?
4) What about benevolent patriarchy? Are men and churches consciously or subconsciously trying to "make up" for past inequities by self-denigrating?

I'm sure I could come up with more. The basic idea is whether or not churches -- and our Church specifically -- need to pay better attention to what men might need from church that is different from what women need.

[Bernard Gui]

Peterson does not object to unusual pronouns, but he absolutely rejects being forced to use them by penalty of law.

Peterson has directed a lot of his best efforts to encouraging and helping young men to get their acts together. From my point of view he is spot on. We are paying dearly and will pay more for what is happening with them across our diverse culture if we don’t pay attention. We cannot survive this decline.

I haven’t met many people who are as openly honest and blunt about their own foibles as Peterson is, or as willing to converse with anyone pro or con whenever given the opportunity. I recommend listening to some of his college religious and historical lectures to hear what insights he has to offer. They are all available on line. He is an excellent debater and knows his field extremely well. One may not agree with him in all particulars, but he has much of value to say. 

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not particularly fond of Jordan Peterson or male (or female) stereotyping and that. Peterson is not the first person I've seen talk about the "feminization" of Christianity and how churches may be alienating (stereotypical) men in favor of embracing (stereotypical) women. I've seen various "church for men" groups and movements over several years. I wonder if we could find a better proponent of this message than Peterson, since it seems that some don't like him as the messenger.

Real questions that this topic raises in my mind:

1) Do churches (and does the LDS Church specifically) consciously or subconsciously cater to women in topic and tone and alienate men?
2) To what extent are the stereotypes that tend to drive this kind of thing real or made up?
3) Do men and women want/need something different from church?
4) What about benevolent patriarchy? Are men and churches consciously or subconsciously trying to "make up" for past inequities by self-denigrating?

I'm sure I could come up with more. The basic idea is whether or not churches -- and our Church specifically -- need to pay better attention to what men might need from church that is different from what women need.

1. Not really except in the more excessive toxic expressions of masculinity and femininity.
2. They are made up but far too many aspire to the stereotypes.
3. Saying what I think men and women really need would derail the thread.
4. No. The whole man self-denigration thing and the whole superior spiritual woman thing is demeaning to everyone but probably hurts women more since they get to wonder what is wrong with them when they don’t have all the “natural” superiority well-meaning but ignorant men attribute to an entire gender.

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not really except in the more excessive toxic expressions of masculinity and femininity.

I don’t understand this answer.

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t understand this answer.

It tend to alienate men who buy into the hypermasculine stereotype.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It tend to alienate men who buy into the hypermasculine stereotype.

Got it.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I get a kick out of Jordan Peterson.  My daily half hour of tiktok has one or two accounts showing clips from his various talks/speeches/interviews.  He makes good sense (to me at least) at least 75% of the time.  The other 25% is a mixture of "I don't get his point", "I don't find his point persuasive", or "this guy is acting unhinged, I hope he's ok".    A small portion of that 75%, is some of the best rhetorical argumentation I've encountered.

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I get a kick out of Jordan Peterson.  My daily half hour of tiktok has one or two accounts showing clips from his various talks/speeches/interviews.  He makes good sense (to me at least) at least 75% of the time.  The other 25% is a mixture of "I don't get his point", "I don't find his point persuasive", or "this guy is acting unhinged, I hope he's ok".    A small portion of that 75%, is some of the best rhetorical argumentation I've encountered.

 

 

I would say a great portion.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Something a lot of folks miss about Peterson, is that he's not spewing opinions he pulled out of the air.  He has a PhD in Clinical Psychology, and reads a tremendous amount of work done in various fields he opines about.

So he says stuff like "The woke are wrong when they say the more egalitarian a society is, the less sex and gender differences matter."  He says that, because he's read the various studies* and literature that measure such things, and when they conclude that the exact opposite is true, he accepts those conclusions.  

(Of course, if you're one of the activist culture changers, trying to get all humanity to believe that sex and gender are merely useless cultural constructs, you get mad at Peterson for daring to go against your narrative.)

 

* Studies like this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044344/

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

(Of course, if you're one of the activist culture changers, trying to get all humanity to believe that sex and gender are merely useless cultural constructs, you get mad at Peterson for daring to go against your narrative.)

Sex and gender are useless cultural constructs? What? Who is saying that? Certainly not the lgbt community.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I get a kick out of Jordan Peterson.  My daily half hour of tiktok has one or two accounts showing clips from his various talks/speeches/interviews.  He makes good sense (to me at least) at least 75% of the time.  The other 25% is a mixture of "I don't get his point", "I don't find his point persuasive", or "this guy is acting unhinged, I hope he's ok".    A small portion of that 75%, is some of the best rhetorical argumentation I've encountered.

 

 

He is very good at rhetoric.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Sex and gender are useless cultural constructs? What? Who is saying that? Certainly not the lgbt community.

Heh - I didn't realize they were a homogenous group all marching under the same rulebook.  Perhaps it looks like that from your perspective?

I've had the opportunity to mingle with some of them, some who are proud progressive activists.  I've had it explained to me that when we decide who belongs in a women's space, we need a better definition of gender in order to include anyone who identifies as a woman.  And everyone who has struggles similar to women, for that matter.   They tell me we need to break free of ridiculous gender norms, the necessity of busting out of the tiny restrictive binary boxes we've been binned into.  We owe it to humanity, I'm told.   I talk with people who think it's silly that we still write laws about biological sex.  

So yeah, there are some folks in the alphabet community who do indeed think that both biological sex, as well as traditional notions of gender, are merely cultural constructs that need to be ejected so we can continue to evolve and become better humans. 

And Jordan Peterson sure the heck has heard from a bunch of the louder angrier end of 'em, who are saying such things. 

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Heh - I didn't realize they were a homogenous group all marching under the same rulebook.  Perhaps it looks like that from your perspective?

I've had the opportunity to mingle with some of them, some who are proud progressive activists.  I've had it explained to me that when we decide who belongs in a women's space, we need a better definition of gender in order to include anyone who identifies as a woman.  And everyone who has struggles similar to women, for that matter.   They tell me we need to break free of ridiculous gender norms, the necessity of busting out of the tiny restrictive binary boxes we've been binned into.  We owe it to humanity, I'm told.   I talk with people who think it's silly that we still write laws about biological sex.  

So yeah, there are some folks in the alphabet community who do indeed think that both biological sex, as well as traditional notions of gender, are merely cultural constructs that need to be ejected so we can continue to evolve and become better humans. 

And Jordan Peterson sure the heck has heard from a bunch of the louder angrier end of 'em, who are saying such things. 

 

That is not a rejection of sex or gender. It is a deconstruction. A transgender person claiming gender is irrelevant would be a form of insanity. If gender is irrelevant what is the point of transitioning. Gay men and lesbians saying sex and gender are irrelevant is invalidating their sexuality. Bisexuals and their various sub-groups (pansexuals, omnisexuals, heteroflexible, homoflexible, etc) are the closest you will come and most bisexuals who come to that realization late (unsurprisingly they are the least likely to realize they are different) who are in monogamous relationships often struggle with never getting the opportunity to experiment with other genders. The lgbt community loves gender. Gay males debate the merits of twinks vs. bears. Lesbians debate butch vs. feminine. Bisexuals debate the relative merits of tomboys and femboys. Transgender individuals are endlessly preoccupied with how well they “pass” and constantly ask for tips on being better at it.

They are in favor of breaking down the distinctions and making them less restricted. Even outside of those with the desire to transition the community is filled with men experimenting with femininity and women experimenting with masculinity.Then there are the other more esoteric expressions.

I think your mistake is assuming all this study of gender is designed to destroy it. It is not. They do want people to be able to break gender roles.

Also just in case anyone reading still believes that gay and lesbian couples have a masculine member and a feminine one that is not the case. I think most people are past that but it keeps popping back up in the oddest places.

[SteelMagnoliainTexas]

Uuuhm I'm not sure I understand, but the world is changing and that would include the people in the church.  

The church for me as a widow has not been very supportive, speaking of the church as a whole....not just the Mormon's denomination.

They all have their pet doctrines and some won't even baptise you unless you line up perfectly with the way they see it, which is why I withdrew.

Even smaller churches don't want to nurture the people....just want to go out and get more to attend so they can get more people.  It seems to be more about money and less about the people and nurturing each individual person.

And I think this particular person may have.felt like an outsider.  Maybe someone can reach out to him....because I feel that way too.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SteelMagnoliainTexas said:

The church for me as a widow has not been very supportive, speaking of the church as a whole....not just the Mormon's denomination.

You would have loved President Monson. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/part-2-thomas-s-monson-served-his-widows?lang=eng

1 hour ago, SteelMagnoliainTexas said:

It seems to be more about money and less about the people and nurturing each individual person.

A benefit of unpaid local clergy that we reap. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, SteelMagnoliainTexas said:

Uuuhm I'm not sure I understand, but the world is changing and that would include the people in the church.  

The church for me as a widow has not been very supportive, speaking of the church as a whole....not just the Mormon's denomination.

They all have their pet doctrines and some won't even baptise you unless you line up perfectly with the way they see it, which is why I withdrew.

Even smaller churches don't want to nurture the people....just want to go out and get more to attend so they can get more people.  It seems to be more about money and less about the people and nurturing each individual person.

And I think this particular person may have.felt like an outsider.  Maybe someone can reach out to him....because I feel that way too.

 

I hear ya!

[OGHoosier]

On 7/16/2022 at 12:00 PM, MrShorty said:

 

1) Do churches (and does the LDS Church specifically) consciously or subconsciously cater to women in topic and tone and alienate men?
2) To what extent are the stereotypes that tend to drive this kind of thing real or made up?
3) Do men and women want/need something different from church?
4) What about benevolent patriarchy? Are men and churches consciously or subconsciously trying to "make up" for past inequities by self-denigrating?

Western Christianity appears to alienate men, or appeal to men less. Women outnumber men in pews in the Americas, Europe, and Australia. This is not particularly a new phenomenon either; medieval pastors and early American preachers like Cotton Mather wrote about how women seemed more dedicated and energetic in their church services. The patristics don't act like this - Christianity at their time appealed to men as well as women it seemed. The Eastern Orthodox and Jews don't seem to have as much of a sex imbalance, and Islam is 2-1 men, so it isn't just religion in general that turns men off. There does appear to be something about Protestantism and Catholicism - Western Christianities - that doesn't do as well by men as it does by women. 

I'm getting these from Leon Podles' 1999 book The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity. You can read the whole thing for free here. The title may cause some umbrage. It has to do with the idea that Christianity used to have a lot of mythological character. Ancient mythologies are naturally concerned with the character of the hero, and men pattern their lives after that. Central to the character of the hero is the struggle through which the hero goes. There's a lot to be said for the idea that men take to the agonic life, to struggle. To my mind it's for the best - as Podles writes, societies which face danger need people willing to struggle, and inasmuch as men are predisposed to rise to that occasion, hallelujah. I will note that Eastern Orthodoxy is much more agonic - the mystery of the struggle with God, the fallen world, and the fallen self is a major theme in Orthodox theology (especially the Russian Orthodox.) It's not a macho-man-Randy-Savage sort of thing, but there is an expectation of self-denial and ascetism in degrees as you acquaint yourself with the mystery of the kingdom of God. Individual fulfillment or reception of God's comfort are not superior foci to that struggle, whereas I would say Western Christianity is almost obsessed with them. I am less familiar with Judaism and Islam, though the reason why Islam appeals to men more than women is probably not too difficult to discern. 

It seems reasonable to me that if the challenge and the struggle is downplayed, you're going to lose a certain kind of man. Early Christianity had more focus on Christ as Christus Victor, the conqueror of the world's sin, the eschatological Messiah, Savior and King. That is a hero's role! Christ is struggling and fighting against something, the same things we are called to struggle and fight against! That's the point!

In my time I have heard many jokes about the priesthood session of General Conference, to wit that the Brethren absolutely light into the men of the church with more strident calls for repentance and reformation than they do in the general sessions. My family usually sits down to jokingly compare the two. I don't know about you guys, but I like it. Maybe I'm some sort of spiritual masochist, but I like being challenged, I like being called to repent, I start to lose the script if I am told "God loves you" too many times in a row. Yeah, yeah, I know, what I want to know is what He expects from me. A church that didn't tell me I had work to do would lose my conviction real quick, because that fact is obvious. If this is "toxic" masculinity, then I don't give a damn. 

[OGHoosier]

I should also state that an agonic approach to the gospel is probably going to be necessary in the near future. The Church's social cachet is falling fast and we're probably not going to be terribly popular going forward (to the satisfaction of some.) At best we're going to be swimming against the cultural mainstream - at worst, well, you never know what changing social and cultural conditions can get people to do. The Gospel will never be therapeutic enough under such circumstances, so we're going to need to emphasize the struggle aspect of Christ's gospel a lot more. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/16/2022 at 5:33 PM, The Nehor said:

It tend to alienate men who buy into the hypermasculine stereotype.

Those men are needed as well.

[Tacenda]

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

It's not a macho-man-Randy-Savage sort of thing, but there is an expectation of self-denial and ascetism in degrees as you acquaint yourself with the mystery of the kingdom of God. Individual fulfillment or reception of God's comfort are not superior foci to that struggle, whereas I would say Western Christianity is almost obsessed with them.

You just made me think of Pres Nelson's General Conference talk from six years ago, 'The Price of Priesthood Power':

Quote

I fear that there are too many men who have been given the authority of the priesthood but who lack priesthood power because the flow of power has been blocked by sins such as laziness, dishonesty, pride, immorality, or preoccupation with things of the world.

I fear that there are too many priesthood bearers who have done little or nothing to develop their ability to access the powers of heaven. I worry about all who are impure in their thoughts, feelings, or actions or who demean their wives or children, thereby cutting off priesthood power.

I fear that too many have sadly surrendered their agency to the adversary and are saying by their conduct, “I care more about satisfying my own desires than I do about bearing the Savior’s power to bless others.”

I fear, brethren, that some among us may one day wake up and realize what power in the priesthood really is and face the deep regret that they spent far more time seeking power over others or power at work than learning to exercise fully the power of God. President George Albert Smith taught that “we are not here to while away the hours of this life and then pass to a sphere of exaltation; but we are here to qualify ourselves day by day for the positions that our Father expects us to fill hereafter.”

Why would any man waste his days and settle for Esau’s mess of pottage when he has been entrusted with the possibility of receiving all of the blessings of Abraham?

I urgently plead with each one of us to live up to our privileges as bearers of the priesthood. In a coming day, only those men who have taken their priesthood seriously, by diligently seeking to be taught by the Lord Himself, will be able to bless, guide, protect, strengthen, and heal others. Only a man who has paid the price for priesthood power will be able to bring miracles to those he loves and keep his marriage and family safe, now and throughout eternity.

And your comments quoted below remind me of an experience I once had in America:

Quote

Maybe I'm some sort of spiritual masochist, but I like being challenged, I like being called to repent ...

As a young elders quorum president, I attended a regional priesthood leadership training meeting with Boyd K. Packer. Pres Packer started the meeting by asking how many of us wanted to hear 'hard doctrine'. I raised my hand and, sitting near the front of the chapel, assumed many others had as well. Pres Packer responded: 'Well, it looks like one of you is going to enjoy my words today'. 

By the way, he then began his sermon proper by calling us 'spiritual babies' and telling us it was time to 'grow up' and stop wasting his time as an apostle.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan