Quasimodo wrote:It's not the leadership or the members. It's the tenets and the history of the religion, itself. It faces an onslaught of facts that are now available to everyone.
The Church can reinvent itself--salvaging what is useful, discarding what isn't--before it dies. It has done so in the pass, and I am confident that it can and will do so again, if necessary. If it refuses to evolve and instead anchors itself to fundamentalism... then you may be right that the Church's demise may be quickly around the corner. But again... I don't think the Church leaders will allow that to happen. Many of the Church leader have after all have proven themselves to be successful business men.
son of Ishmael wrote:If you just want to make it a nicer organization to be part of then you may have a point
There are so many nice organizations to belong to out there. Why belong to one that has so many problems with it's tenets?
If some unbiased archaeologist finds a chariot and steel swords somewhere in the Western Hemisphere, that could be a good point. Other than that, why bother?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
son of Ishmael wrote:If you just want to make it a nicer organization to be part of then you may have a point
There are so many nice organizations to belong to out there. Why belong to one that has so many problems with it's tenets?
If some unbiased archaeologist finds a chariot and steel swords somewhere in the Western Hemisphere, that could be a good point. Other than that, why bother?
Yeah that is why I have left.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just god when he's drunk - Tom Waits
son of Ishmael wrote:If those of us who have left the church really believe that it is "not true", what is the use of staying? If the church is not true, all the bottom up internal changes in the world are not going to make the church true.
To use Dehlin's example, is a sandwich "true"? What kind of question is that, right? Better questions to ask may be "Does the sandwich taste good? Is it healthy?"
son of Ishmael wrote:If those of us who have left the church really believe that it is "not true", what is the use of staying? If the church is not true, all the bottom up internal changes in the world are not going to make the church true.
If you just want to make it a nicer organization to be part of then you may have a point
As my first, not particularly profound post to this board, I would say that a number of people I know are hoping for a wider tent approach. That is, if the church continues down the liberalizing path, it may be that the definition of Mormon changes to encompass all sorts of people who now do not belong inside the tent. This would be a disaster for either hardcore opponents or conservative members, but may be a welcome change for people who identify with the people and the culture but are struggling with aspects of belief.
Mike Reed wrote:To use Dehlin's example, is a sandwich "true"? What kind of question is that, right? Better questions to ask may be "Does the sandwich taste good? Is it healthy?"
Hi Mike.
If the sandwich in your hand is imaginary and you try to take a bite, how satisfying would it be?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Tim wrote:A Smithless church wherein only the Bible remains and each Sunday you can find working mom's sporting victoria's secret panties under their sleeveless sundresses while attending a soft rock Jesus concert and waving to her husband who just went to get the free latte?
When I realized that I just really couldn't "fully believe" in the LDS church, I spent eight years looking for another church that fit my world view, and couldn't find one. "Modern" churches like the one you describe above make me want to retch (Jesus rock? Vomit!), and most of the older religions focus on things that I do NOT want my children taught (like that they are born "sinners"). I am very attracted to many of the religious beliefs in Judasim, but they suffer from the same thing that the LDS church does--many good truths mixed in with many silly traditions--and they aren't really very open to converts.
Like someone else said, I don't think its necessary to view the LDS church in the black and white way that some LDS leaders demand. It isn't ALL true or ALL false. Being family-centered, doing service to others, and avoiding addictive substances are all good, true things. I believe that many good people have been involved in forming some of the church's beliefs. (Unfortunately, not-so-good people were also involved, but that subject is well-covered elsewhere on this forum).
Each ward is different, and I have adjusted my attendance accordingly. When we lived in a small, fiscally poor farming community outside Ogden, we went to many of our church meetings because the emphasis was on service and "Be nice to each other." In our previous ward, in Arizona, the primary emphasis was on whether or not it was sinful to wear denim to Sacrament meetings. We didn't bother to attend there.
Our children are teens, and we've been pretty open with them on what we do and don't believe--and equally open to them that our opinion isn't the ONE and ONLY way to be. (To be very frank, this means that on the way home from church we sometimes say, "You remember that thing that the Bishop was talking about? We think it's bologna. Here's why... What do you think?")
I guess that makes me a "social Mormon?"
And then there's this:
DarkHelmet wrote:It makes no logical sense that your happiness depends on the choices other people make on how they want to live their lives, but that is how Mormonism is set up, and that is why it is so difficult to leave. There is tremendous guilt associated with leaving the church because you hurt so many people.
My mother literally cries every time I accidently let her know that I don't believe any more. When we lived close to her, it was easier to just suit up and attend church than to deal with her utter misery at the idea that we won't all be "together forever."
In my opinion I think those who leave have more of an impact on the church. The loss of revenue and participation hurts them more than somebody who just stays and disagrees. If the church is able to fix the reason people leave, they will. I believe this will be the case on the church's stance on homosexuality. The people leaving will break the church more than the people who stay and disagree.
Polygamy-Porter wrote:All of my children and myself are atheists, albeit apathetic atheists, for the past seven years with no serious repercussions for lacking belief in god. My children are taught to be ethical before being moral.
I have no real problem with someone being an atheist. There's no inherent reason why someone with a conscience would have to believe in God.
Nonetheless, I ask you, Polygamy-Porter, what is your obligation to the human race? You said you taught your children to be "ethical before being moral"; I assume you yourself believe in being ethical too. What does your sense of ethics require you to do for the human race?