President Hinckley, MDB, and Social conduct

[_Ray A]

I'm well beyond any desire to discourse with you Ray, and this response above is a wonderful indication of just why.

Well suit yourself and continue to play "prophet to the apostates". If it makes you feel filled with self-righteousness, maybe you need it.

[_harmony]

The Church then is co-opted by the culture, and is hence destroyed.

This is my message, distilled to one sentence. Thank you, Droop.

The church has been co-opted by Mormon culture, and is well on the way to destroying itself. And there is nothing anyone who really cares about the church can do about it, since there is no mechanism by which a member of the rank and file can access the Brethren. (And I suspect they wouldn't hear the message anyway. Greater minds than mine have tried and failed. What we really need is a leader who isn't afraid of the world as it is in 2009. We need someone who isn't living in the 50's)

The rest of your post is vintage Droopy, Droop. I'll just file that with the rest of them.

[_Droopy]

This is my message, distilled to one sentence. Thank you, Droop.

I'm happy I was able to accurately articulate you core position here.

The church has been cop-opted by Mormon culture, and is well on the way to destroying itself.

What is "Mormon culture" and why should the Church be understood to be destroying itself because of it?

What we really need is a leader who isn't afraid of the world as it is in 2009. We need someone who isn't living in the 50's

What do you mean?

[_Mister Scratch]

What we really need is a leader who isn't afraid of the world as it is in 2009. We need someone who isn't living in the 50's

What do you mean?

I could be wrong, but I believe she means that the best aspects of the Church are the parts that inspire and empower Saints as individuals. Within the context of the Church as an organization, however, this empowerment starts to seem irrelevant, since the Brethren don't care what the members think. As Elder Oaks said, "It's wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true." This contradicts with some of the core tenets and doctrines of the gospel.

[_harmony]

The church has been cop-opted by Mormon culture, and is well on the way to destroying itself.

What is "Mormon culture" and why should the Church be understood to be destroying itself because of it?

Mormon culture says:

1. That appearances is an accurate way to judge a person's worth.

2. That the higher a man's net worth (or appearance of a high net worth), the higher his calling.

3. That members who are converts are of less worth than their BIC counterparts. This is manifested all the way to the top of the food chain, and easily judged by the number of converts we have in our highest leadership, compared with the number of BIC members.

4. That members who have not served missions are judged to be of less worth than members who have, without ever taking into account the success or lack thereof of the missionaries or personal inspiration of any of them.

5. That the rules surrounding marriage are arbitrary.

6. The women and children are of less worth than men.

7. That the highest leaders do not serve the members, but are served by the members.

8. That the members do not deserve to have access to their own church's financial dealings.

9. That the CHI, ie the rules that bind the members, are not available to the members and are doled out, piecemeal if ever, at the whim of the leaders.

10. That fear (whether of nonmembers, of ex members, of reprisal by leaders, of being ostracized by friends and family, etc) drives this church.

A small sampling only.

What we really need is a leader who isn't afraid of the world as it is in 2009. We need someone who isn't living in the 50's

What do you mean?

We need leadership that asks the right questions, instead of the same questions. Our leaders are getting the same answers we've had for 50 years because they're asking the same questions that have been asked for 50 years. We need them to ask questions appropriate for 2009 issues, not 1959.

[_Droopy]

Mormon culture says:

1. That appearances is an accurate way to judge a person's worth.

Mormon culture "says" no such thing. Having been in it my entire life, I can testify to this fact. Some Mormons, as some non-Mormons, do indeed make such assumptions, but "Mormon culture" does not, and in this sense, such Mormons are not in harmony with LDS teachings.

2. That the higher a man's net worth (or appearance of a high net worth), the higher his calling.

Pure nonsense. Mormon "culture" makes no such overt or covert claim.

3. That members who are converts are of less worth than their BIC counterparts. This is manifested all the way to the top of the food chain, and easily judged by the number of converts we have in our highest leadership, compared with the number of BIC members.

Although the sheer subjectivity of these criticisms makes this almost impossible to critique at this point, I think the claim here qualifies as a purely baseless slander against the Church and most of its people. I've known a number of converts as Bishops, SPs, Quorum leaders, and Relief Society President, so I really don't know what Harmony is talking about here, or how the perception was generated, because I've noticed no such thing in my own particular circumstances.

4. That members who have not served missions are judged to be of less worth than members who have, without ever taking into account the success or lack thereof of the missionaries or personal inspiration of any of them.

Again, this is a purely subjective perception on Harmony's part that is strictly her own. Again, those who have gone (at least men) on missions indicate (in most cases I think) a clearer spiritual vision and discipline at at younger age, but it is not unusual for returned missionaries to fall away from the Church in later life, or sometimes even soon after a mission. The Church and, in general, Mormon culture makes no claim upon the "worth" of anybody who has or has not done such and such. All of these things can be repented of and made up at another time and in another context.

5. That the rules surrounding marriage are arbitrary.

Huh?

6. The women and children are of less worth than men.

Utter nonsense. This is where I become tempted to parody and superciliousness, but I forbear in this instance.

7. That the highest leaders do not serve the members, but are served by the members.

Utter nonsense. This is where I become tempted to parody and superciliousness, but I forbear in this instance.

8. That the members do not deserve to have access to their own church's financial dealings.

What is the reason Church leaders have given for this state of affairs?

9. That the CHI, ie the rules that bind the members, are not available to the members and are doled out, piecemeal if ever, at the whim of the leaders.

The rules (doctrines, policies, counsel) that binds the members is inspired and is the will of the Lord for the maintinence and order of his Church. If one neither understands nor accepts this proposition, then, in a very real manner, one is not a Latter Day Saint at all.

10. That fear (whether of nonmembers, of ex members, of reprisal by leaders, of being ostracized by friends and family, etc) drives this church.

This last claim is far too confused and incontinent to deal with in this thread, so I will say little except to point out that the only power church leaders have over anyone is the power of disfellowshipment and excommunication, and this happens for reasons of an unwillingness by a member to accept and live fundamental moral or ethical Gospel/Christian principles. The idea that dissident members fear other members is rather overwrought, to say the very least. That family upset can occur when a valued and loved member leaves the Gospel and puts his soul in jeopardy, is true, and a natural reaction. In my life long experience, I've found that most members, with a few notable exceptions, deal with such things in stride. I've seen it many times before and seen other deal with it many times before. My own parents dealt with it with me. I've heard a great deal about ostracizing etc. (mostly in anti-Mormon and exmo literature) but actually observed very little of it in LDS practice.

We need leadership that asks the right questions, instead of the same questions. Our leaders are getting the same answers we've had for 50 years because they're asking the same questions that have been asked for 50 years. We need them to ask questions appropriate for 2009 issues, not 1959.

OK, which is just to say that the Church is not PC, which is another way of saying the Church does not conform to your desires and expectations of it, which is another way of saying that the Church is not true;
that is, if the Church is true, then the culture is accountable to its critique and judgment of it where the culture is incongruent or in opposition to Gospel critique. If the Gospel is nothing more than another human sociological/anthropological phenomenon, then there is no particular problem in attempting to push a square Gospel peg into a round cultural hole; there is no problem seeking to amend and modify the Church to reflect the surrounding culture.

This, however, forces us to ask other questions, not the least of which must be are the culture and the cultural attributes we are trying to graft onto the Church actually worth preserving or grafting at all, and what is the basis for our acceptance of them in preference to Church/Gospel teachings?

[_Droopy]

OK, I think I'm finally figuring you out. You seem to believe that apostates and exmos deserve, nay demand, your contempt and condescension. It's the Christlike thing to do, after all.

No, they just, at some point, need to be told the simple and lucid truth about what they are doing, the quality of their beliefs (unless one thinks apostate or dissident beliefs are somehow sacrosanct) and what their example may be doing to others. This may be done kindly, of course, but sometimes it needs to be done "with sharpness", with more kindness coming later.

Light is the disinfectant, but disinfectants can sting on occasion.

[_Ray A]

No, they just, at some point, need to be told the simple and lucid truth about what they are doing, the quality of their beliefs (unless one thinks apostate or dissident beliefs are somehow sacrosanct) and what their example may be doing to others. This may be done kindly, of course, but sometimes it needs to be done "with sharpness", with more kindness coming later.

That had me in stitches!

In Droopy's case the reality is:

"This may be done kindly, of course, but sometimes it needs to be done "with sharpness", with more sharpness coming later."

[_harmony]

Mormon culture says:

1. That appearances is an accurate way to judge a person's worth.

Mormon culture "says" no such thing. Having been in it my entire life, I can testify to this fact. Some Mormons, as some non-Mormons, do indeed make such assumptions, but "Mormon culture" does not, and in this sense, such Mormons are not in harmony with LDS teachings.

Droopy, denying the truth will not make it so. Requiring the Aaronic priesthood to dress in white shirts and ties, or else the bishop gives them a tie or doesn't allow them at the table, in order to participate in preparing and passing the sacrament is a manifestation of Mormon culture. There is nothing inherently wrong with preparing or passing the sacrament in a tee shirt or no shirt. The symbolism and sanctity is the same. Same for giving a priesthood blessing; a white shirt and tie are not necessary for the efficacy of the blessing to happen. Same with multiple earrings, tattoos, women wearing pants to church... all of it is Mormon culture, not doctrinal at all. The truthfulness of the gospel is not found via outward appearances, but only within a person's heart and soul. And no amount of bleaching the shirt is going to make any difference to what's in a heart and soul.

2. That the higher a man's net worth (or appearance of a high net worth), the higher his calling.

Pure nonsense. Mormon "culture" makes no such overt or covert claim.

The next time a blue collar worker is called as an apostle, you may have a case. Until then, you don't.

3. That members who are converts are of less worth than their BIC counterparts. This is manifested all the way to the top of the food chain, and easily judged by the number of converts we have in our highest leadership, compared with the number of BIC members.

Although the sheer subjectivity of these criticisms makes this almost impossible to critique at this point, I think the claim here qualifies as a purely baseless slander against the Church and most of its people. I've known a number of converts as Bishops, SPs, Quorum leaders, and Relief Society President, so I really don't know what Harmony is talking about here, or how the perception was generated, because I've noticed no such thing in my own particular circumstances.

When you find an apostle who is not BIC, let me know. When more than half of the apostles are converts, I'll concede that I am wrong on this point. Until then, you have no argument.

4. That members who have not served missions are judged to be of less worth than members who have, without ever taking into account the success or lack thereof of the missionaries or personal inspiration of any of them.

Again, this is a purely subjective perception on Harmony's part that is strictly her own. Again, those who have gone (at least men) on missions indicate (in most cases I think) a clearer spiritual vision and discipline at at younger age, but it is not unusual for returned missionaries to fall away from the Church in later life, or sometimes even soon after a mission. The Church and, in general, Mormon culture makes no claim upon the "worth" of anybody who has or has not done such and such. All of these things can be repented of and made up at another time and in another context.

As long as talks over the GC pulpit demand that young men serve missions, you will have no argument. There is no doctrine that requires this; this is culture. And you really need to listen to young men who haven't served missions, and see how often they are told by young women that they won't date them, no matter how worthy or how spiritual they are, and the reason is because the young men didn't serve a mission. When young women are taught in Mutual to not marry young men who didn't serve missions, that is a cultural impact.

5. That the rules surrounding marriage are arbitrary.

Huh?

In other countries, temple workers cannot marry anyone. They must be married in a secular setting (court house, judge's chambers, etc). Yet those couples are not required to wait a year in order to be sealed. That is cultural.

6. The women and children are of less worth than men.

Utter nonsense. This is where I become tempted to parody and superciliousness, but I forbear in this instance.

What Mother holds the priesthood that is virtually automatically bestowed on any 12 year old boy, Droopy? Please point her out to me.

7. That the highest leaders do not serve the members, but are served by the members.

Utter nonsense. This is where I become tempted to parody and superciliousness, but I forbear in this instance.

It's about accountability, Droopy. And there is none applied to our leaders. There can be no stewardship done if there is no accountability. No stewardship, no service.

8. That the members do not deserve to have access to their own church's financial dealings.

What is the reason Church leaders have given for this state of affairs?

None. There is no accountability.

9. That the CHI, ie the rules that bind the members, are not available to the members and are doled out, piecemeal if ever, at the whim of the leaders.

The rules (doctrines, policies, counsel) that binds the members is inspired and is the will of the Lord for the maintinence and order of his Church. If one neither understands nor accepts this proposition, then, in a very real manner, one is not a Latter Day Saint at all.

Kinda hard to know those, when they're kept secret from the members. That which is in the bishop's hands and no one else's isn't useful knowledge to those who are not the bishop.

10. That fear (whether of nonmembers, of ex members, of reprisal by leaders, of being ostracized by friends and family, etc) drives this church.

This last claim is far too confused and incontinent to deal with in this thread, so I will say little except to point out that the only power church leaders have over anyone is the power of disfellowshipment and excommunication, and this happens for reasons of an unwillingness by a member to accept and live fundamental moral or ethical Gospel/Christian principles. The idea that dissident members fear other members is rather overwrought, to say the very least. That family upset can occur when a valued and loved member leaves the Gospel and puts his soul in jeopardy, is true, and a natural reaction. In my life long experience, I've found that most members, with a few notable exceptions, deal with such things in stride. I've seen it many times before and seen other deal with it many times before. My own parents dealt with it with me. I've heard a great deal about ostracizing etc. (mostly in anti-Mormon and exmo literature) but actually observed very little of it in LDS practice.

Your experience is valid for you but not to be extrapolated to anyone else. Thus your dismissal of this phenomena isn't necessarily valid across the culture... and actually, has little that reflects what can be seen in the real world or read on forums like this or RfM.

We need leadership that asks the right questions, instead of the same questions. Our leaders are getting the same answers we've had for 50 years because they're asking the same questions that have een asked for 50 years. We need them to ask questions appropriate for 2009 issues, not 1959.

OK, which is just to say that the Church is not PC, which is another way of saying the Church does not conform to your desires and expectations of it, which is another way of saying that the Church is not true;
that is, if the Church is true, then the culture is accountable to its critique and judgment of it where the culture is incongruent or in opposition to Gospel critique. If the Gospel is nothing more than another human sociological/anthropological phenomenon, then there is no particular problem in attempting to push a square Gospel peg into a round cultural hole; there is no problem seeking to amend and modify the Church to reflect the surrounding culture.

Mormon culture has little if anything to do with the truthfulness of the church. It is, however, a phenomena that grows until pruned by our leaders, and that our leaders have seen fit to not prune it shows a disconnect from what is real and what is true.

White shirts and ties have nothing to do with the validity or authority of the priesthood. They have nothing to do with the value of faith or worthiness. Serving a mission is not a valid measure by which to judge faith or worthiness. Neither is the number of earrings, whether a person was born BIC or is a convert. Keeping the books closed serves only to keep the leaders' secrets; it has nothing to do with doctrine or salvation. Marginalizing women serves only to pander to those who feel threatened by women to the point that they have to patronize them as worthy only as walking wombs, instead of humans fully capable of leadership and spirituality.

It's all culture, Droopy.

This, however, forces us to ask other questions, not the least of which must be are the culture and the cultural attributes we are trying to graft onto the Church actually worth preserving or grafting at all, and what is the basis for our acceptance of them in preference to Church/Gospel teachings?

Perhaps you should start another thread.

[_Lamanite]

There is a book that I seem to be recommending quite frequently lately. It is called: The Angel and the Beehive, The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation. Armand L Mauss


Harmony, I think you would relly enjoy it. It definitely beats the infantile bantering about Mormon culture found on this thread. Me included.

Big UP!

Lamanite