Blixa wrote:I do find it interesting that such "blandification" is often legitimated with apologetic prevarications over "official doctrine." The wide, various, contradictory, wonderful, eccentric, and moving beliefs and convictions that have historically comprised Mormonism are sorted into rigid and historically false categories of “doctrine” and “non-doctrine.” The result is, to me, an impoverished Mormonism that is becoming less and less Mormon.
Well said, Blixa. I don't believe the early church leaders would recognize what passes for Mormonism today. Heck, even Joseph Fielding Smith would be appalled at the increasingly narrower and blander definition of what it is to be Mormon.
You know what we need? Some splinter sects! One can be heavy on the cultural/social goodness and another on early theological doctrines.
It would be a healthy move. Get people thinking.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
zeezrom wrote:You know what we need? Some splinter sects! One can be heavy on the cultural/social goodness and another on early theological doctrines.
It would be a healthy move. Get people thinking.
I would join one that involved a strict study of the methods of placing air inflated objects through upright poles or through round metal rings set ten feet in the air.
"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."
The doctrines of the church are being watered down, and even get thrown under the bus for the sake of PR. This movement started before GBH, but he did help it along considerably. I do believe that the retreat started in the mid 60's when the Book of Abraham papyrus came to light. What a bitch slap that was. The church did everything they could to cover that up.
When was the last time that theological doctrines were preached in General Conference? Say what you want about BRM, but at least he had the stones to talk doctrine. He was the last one. Today, the big 15 are not theologians, they are businessmen, and have been for sometime. Hell, even the new head church historian is not even a trained historian. The focus is now on pray, obey and pay. Keep the members from thinking too deeply by boring them to death with watered down correlated tripe written on a third grade level. Yes, the church is headed to was of the Community of Christ.
The NOMs wouldn't do any better than their intellectual cousins currently running the CoC and the mainline denominations.
I say this without being the least bit sardonic. The only thing that can save the LDS church is an act of God, specifically Jesus.
A massive and authentic "second great awakening" style revival centered around confession and repentance and a sharp return to orthodoxy may not only save it but reinvigorate and grow it.
I agree that it's headed for a long slide into Protestantism, but that strategy will painfully arduous and ineffective in keeping the numbers up. There has to be a BANG.
bcspace wrote:It is tempting to include Mormon Democrats in the list of NOM's. They are organized and they do seek to change the doctrines of the Church which means they are unbelievers.
What's really frightening, is that the Brethren have not only allowed one of these unbelievers to infiltrate their ranks, but have allowed him to become a Seventy, a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, general president of the Sunday School (*gasp*, I can only imagine the nefarious liberal brainwashing he tried to institute), and now he's the Church Historian and Recorder.
We must mobilize, and remove him before his unbelief begins to taint the history of the Church.
Be afraid! Be afraid!
*Sleeping better now that James Faust is dead*
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
consiglieri wrote:Coming back to this thread after an eventful weekend, I find my suggestion getting panned from all quarters.
This would be a good sign I am wrong.
--Consiglieri
NOMs have a place in the Church. Perhaps they will have some salvatory value in the future, but in order for that to happen, things must first worsen in terms of member attrition and societal incredulity of Church teachings. At that point, it might be safe from NOMs to speak without censure or excommunication.