What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

Post by _Drifting »

KevinSim wrote:
If so, why do you think I am living my life that way? I made a choice a long time ago to believe that God exists, that God loves each of us individually, and that God is able and willing to communicate with each of us individually, at least once. That's the reason I'm LDS. How does any of that involve me living a lie?


Kevin, how do you know God has communicated individually with you?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

Post by _Themis »

Runtu wrote:
zeezrom wrote:Revealing all their finances. All of them. That would be devastating and the leaders know it.


I don't know about that. I think people might be a little shocked at how much money the church has, but I think the financial secrecy is needless. Most people would be upset only if there were solid evidence of fraud and mismanagement, and I don't believe that happens on a large scale in the church.


Agreed. I think the most damaging thing would be to allow open access to all historical documents.
42
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

Post by _Blixa »

Of course the financial records should be transparent and all historical documents made available. But honestly I don't think this would make a great deal of difference to the vast majority of members. And that's not to say that they are stupid or apathetic; I think belief is cathected in entirely different objects and areas.

However, I do think that both actions would result in institutional improvements that would affect people's lives for the better.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Blixa wrote:Of course the financial records should be transparent and all historical documents made available. But honestly I don't think this would make a great deal of difference to the vast majority of members. And that's not to say that they are stupid or apathetic; I think belief is cathected in entirely different objects and areas.

However, I do think that both actions would result in institutional improvements that would affect people's lives for the better.



I don't know what effects financial disclosure would have, but we can look at the RLDS for an indication of what can happen with historical disclosures.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

Post by _Blixa »

Fence Sitter wrote:
Blixa wrote:Of course the financial records should be transparent and all historical documents made available. But honestly I don't think this would make a great deal of difference to the vast majority of members. And that's not to say that they are stupid or apathetic; I think belief is cathected in entirely different objects and areas.

However, I do think that both actions would result in institutional improvements that would affect people's lives for the better.



I don't know what effects financial disclosure would have, but we can look at the RLDS for an indication of what can happen with historical disclosures.


True, but given the differences between the two sects---population, institutional history---I don't think historical disclosure would play out in quite the same way. At least not at this point in Brighamite history. I think the GBH "I don't know that we teach that" incident is quite telling in this regard.

Of course, I could be wrong.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

Post by _Darth J »

KevinSim wrote:I made a choice a long time ago to believe that God exists, that God loves each of us individually, and that God is able and willing to communicate with each of us individually, at least once. That's the reason I'm LDS.


If you're not seeing your non sequitur here, I'll give you a hint. It has to do with none of the things you listed being unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

Post by _Shulem »

KevinSim wrote:
Shulem wrote:The only people who don't know it are those who are living a lie, the Mormons.

What does that mean exactly, living a lie? Paul, are you saying I'm living my life as if I believe in things that I know aren't true? Is that what it means to be living a lie?

If so, why do you think I am living my life that way? I made a choice a long time ago to believe that God exists, that God loves each of us individually, and that God is able and willing to communicate with each of us individually, at least once. That's the reason I'm LDS. How does any of that involve me living a lie?


You're living a lie because you believe in the false translations of Joseph Smith. Your founding prophet using his alleged gift of seership said there was a kings name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3. There is no king's name written therein. That revelation as well as all the other Egyptological revelations Joseph Smith gave about Facsimile No. 3 are a lie -- and that lie is foundational to your testimony because the man who provided means for you to receive your testimony lied to you.

Are you going to lie and tell me there is a king's name in the writing of Facsimile No. 3? Are you going to lie and tell me that the god Abubis is really only a slave? Are you going to lie to me and tell me that the personages in Facsimile No. 3 are Egyptologically correct?

Paul O
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

Post by _Darth J »

Zeezrom, what honest act would hurt the Church the most depends on what you mean by "hurt." Hurt the Church among what audience?

I think what would hurt the Church about disclosing its finances is people seeing what the money is really spent on. I don't mean that I think there is a bunch of embezzlement or self-dealing going on. I mean how much is spent on salaries, fringe benefits, legal fees, public relations, business investments, etc. In other words, the things that look more corporate than ecclesiastical.

But where, exactly, would that hurt the Church? Probably in the same place the it would hurt the Church with other honest acts like not being coy about whether Jesus comes to visit the Bretheren, or presenting actual history instead of the sanitized faith-promoting narrative, or inventing arbitrary Mormon social taboos and declaring them to be "inspired counsel" that will keep the members "safe." It would hurt the Church's overall public image, it would hurt what hope for the missionary effort is still limping along, and it would hurt the faith of members who have not predetermined that the Church will always be true at any and all costs.

What is currently hurting the Church---and will continue to hurt the Church---is apathy among its longstanding members. Not an apathy from laziness, but an apathy because investment and reward are completely disproportionate in the Church. Aristotle Smith recently, and succinctly, summarized this problem:

Aristotle Smith wrote: Even more than fraud is the whole issue of relationship being a two way thing. If he is going to use the marriage analogy, then the church member has to be in partnership with the church. In other words, the church has to be some positive force. And there is the problem for Mormonism, when you get right down to it, it does very little from an institutional standpoint to nurture this relationship. Bland uninspiring general conferences, bland uninspiring manuals, no theological depth in anything, hundreds of rules, and defining a spirituality that largely consists in giving people a large list of things to do and making them feel guilty about not doing them when they inevitably fail. There are some positives about the church, but those are almost entirely the social/community aspects at the local level that haven't been killed by institutional rules and procedures, yet. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21936&p=538753#p538753


So ultimately, I think what the Church could do that would hurt itself the most is to keep being itself. That is what is causing it to hemorrhage formerly active, believing members. The problems with it history are just the cherry on top of the sundae (and I will continue to mix metaphors until I run out of them!). Members who stop going, contributing, and caring because of the problem Aristotle Smith summarizes do not lose their faith because of the origins of the Church, but because of where the Church is now. For example, me.

But you are always going to have some members for whom it will not matter what the Church does. "The Church is true!!!" in such cases is the beginning, middle, and end of how they will perceive and interpret anything and everything that happens.

One broad category is the devout TBM, which is a euphemistic way of describing a mild-mannered fanatic. No matter what the Church or its leaders do, it is evidence of the truthfulness of the Church (perforce, since it is a foregone conclusion). Look at the reaction to things like the Salamander Letter ("Well, the gift of discernment isn't perfect!") Paul H. Dunn being exposed as a fraud ("Well. they were still good stories!"). Among such people, nothing the Church could possibly do what hurt it. Thomas S. Monson could walk up to the podium at the Conference Center and start having sex with a goat, and they would be like, "Isn't it wonderful that the Lord is blessing the prophet so he can do things like that at his age?"

The other broad category is analogous to the Limited Geography Theory for the Book of Mormon (although "the" LGT is a misnomer, as there are in fact several versions of the LGT). It might be called the "Limited Church-is-True Theory." It is frequently found among Mopologists and/or militant cafeteria Mormons (the difference between the former and the latter is the latter don't usually feel obligated to invent crackpot theories to justify their selective apostasy). Much like the LGT, the Limited Church-is-True Theory ("LCCT") has as its objective shrinking down your expectations and claims of truth down so that it can't be falsified because it is too small to be measured. In the LCTT view, you can freely concede that there is little if anything miraculous about the modern LDS Church, and that many of the things the Church teaches as truths or inspired prophetic counsel are nonetheless false. No death before the Fall, the global flood, Joseph Smith having the slightest idea what he was doing when receiving revelation---all of these and more are out. Prophets as a rule speculating or giving their personal opinions as gospel truth, receiving personal revelation that Trump's that of living prophets and apostles, understanding what the Gospel is and what the scriptures mean better than the Bretheren or the Correlation Committee---these things are in. The problem with trying to define everything down so that it can't be falsified is that you surrender the ability to assert anything. Thus, you will never hear such a person explain what exactly they mean by "the Church is true," because they lack the meta-cognition to recognize that the only thing it means is brand loyalty. It has approximately the same deep spiritual import as Ford vs. Chevy or Coke vs. Pepsi.

But never mind any of this. We have the sure words of the prophets that the Church will continue to endure, and no unhallowed hand can stop this work. The mere existence of the Church is proof of its truthfulness, as indicated by this self-fulfilling prophecy. Never mind that any number of competing belief systems and denominations also continue to exist (and whose continuing existence presumably is not evidence of their respective truth values). So long as nothing happens that completely obliterates the LDS Church from the face of the Earth, and one single still lives who believes in it, the Church is true!!!

EDIT: I have noticed several typos in this post, but I am leaving them because this is how the wording appeared on the seer stone that reveals my Mormon Discussions posts to me.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
_KevinSim
_Emeritus
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:31 am

Re: What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

Post by _KevinSim »

Drifting wrote:Kevin, how do you know God has communicated individually with you?

In one sense I don't know that God did. In one sense I don't know that God even exists.

But as I stated in my last post, some time ago I made the conscious decision to believe that God does exist. I really don't see any sense in believing in a deity that can't communicate with each of us directly. I mean what use is there in considering the possibility of such a deity? I might as well not believe in any deity at all. Furthermore, what use is there in believing in a deity who doesn't want me to know that deity's will? Once again I might as well not believe in any deity at all.

So I've chosen to believe in a deity that is capable of talking to me directly about that deity's will, and who wants me to know that deity's will. I've thought about this a lot, and I certainly can't think of any reason in the world why such a deity would let someone who really wanted to know that deity's will ask that deity a question, ready to base the whole rest of that someone's life on whatever answer that deity would provide, and not give that someone a direct answer. Can you think of any reason why God would let that someone ask such a question and not give an answer? I mean, how else can that someone ever have any hope of ever finding out what that deity's will actually is?

I refuse to believe God doesn't want us to know God's will, and therefore I have concluded that the answer I got to the question I asked was in fact God communicating "individually with" me. What other alternative is there for someone like me who is committed to discovering God's will in that someone's life?
KevinSim

Reverence the eternal.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: What single honest act would hurt LDS the most?

Post by _Shulem »

KevinSim wrote:In one sense I don't know that God did. In one sense I don't know that God even exists.


I have no problem with you having faith that a God exist even though you cannot prove it. Have all the faith in God you want.

But I do have a problem if you have faith that there is a king's name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 as per your founding prophet's official revelatory declaration to the whole world. I have a problem with that!

Do you have a problem with that?

Paul O
Post Reply