The Future of the Community of Christ (RLDS)

[huckelberry]

I think this is being rather unfair to theologically liberal denominations. People from more liberal faith traditions see no value in the factual claims of the Bible, since they really don't stand up. They see moral value in at least some of them.

More importantly, they value the universal connection you can get once you break free from dogma. It not only allows you to better relate to others outside your background, but also inside of the congregation since there's no "correct" way to believe or interact. Additionally, there's something to be said about a more streamlined theism which does not pretend to have knowledge about who or what God is. It's more humble as well.

These traditions are much more philosophical and community-centric rather than dogma-centric so that aspect can be burdensome or irritating to some people, it would seem.

I don't doubt that there are appeals to liberal / mainline traditions, and I know many fine practitioners of these traditions. I myself got my religious start, for the most part, in a branch of the PCUSA. One person I know who converted from Mormonism is now a minister in the ELCA; she performed my second wedding.

But Finke and Stark cover in The Churching of America how the more costly religions that place more demands on their members are, paradoxically, the ones most likely to generate growth, and how this has been the case for most of American history. There's nothing wrong with generic universal connection in principle; there's also hypothetically nothing wrong with "Don't believe in that crap in the Bible? We don't, either." The problem is, if that's the main product that a church is promoting, it's one that a person can get almost anywhere: from a yoga class, from a favorite podcast, from a book club on Meetup. Why go to church for that? Every church has to have a product or a message that it promotes, one that makes a case for itself in the market, and plenty of people are already selling tolerance, understanding, and freedom from "dogma." In my view, many liberal / mainline churches simply never figured out what they were offering beyond that (although, social justice and attention to poverty was a strong attempt in this direction).

MsJack, I find myself with a couple of little puzzles. Both ELCA and PCUSA would be to my knowledge relatively conservative groups compared to what sounds like Unitarian universalism in Alphus and Omegus discription. The groups are liberal compared with fundamentalist groups but they hold basic Christian doctrines and dogmas. Your observation that tolerance and freedom from dogma is actually not much of anything makes sense to me. Perhaps I am wondering more what you have in view for more demands to make a difference. My wife spent years in the past with conservative evangelical groups. lots of hours going to church for prayer group, Bible study etc. She wondered, and I do not blame her, is this all there is to it?

[Failed Prophecy]

Mormonism is also explicitly based on the claim that all the other religions are false. As a devout member who takes it seriously, you soon learn all the problems with the "other guys." Then once you see the hidden Mormon history, non-theism is almost inevitable.

In logical form:

• Mormonism taught me that all the other religions are false
• I now believe that Mormonism is false
• I still believe that all the other religions are false because Mormonism taught me so.

Huh?

[Failed Prophecy]

I have been watching some of the conference of the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS). They seem to have a large attendance many from overseas and representing different races with their flags etc. The guy from Gospel Tangents visited their conference and noted differences. Apostles only serve a limited time not for life and includes women. They seem to have membership in a number of countries such as Congo, Tahiti etc. They have been having I think budget problems setting aside money for their retirees.

https://cofchrist.org/financial-updates ... on-budget/

Perhaps they should sell the Kirkland Temple.

Liberal denominations tend to lose members as teachings that set them apart become abandoned such as historicity of the Book of Mormon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_81zF8s ... Cc&index=1

I don't think the issue with the CoC are with their liberal leanings. I think the real issue for the CoC is that they have had a basic identity crisis since the 1970's, which accelerated in the 1990's. Two huge identity markers for the CoC since its formation as the RLDS were that polygamy was a Brighamite invention and that the prophet should be a descendant of Joseph Smith. They abandoned the first under the obvious historical evidence in the 70's and abandoned the latter for practical reasons in the 90's.

This is not a critique of the CoC, I think both changes were admirable. However, they lost a lot of people over this, I think 1/3 of their members ultimately left or started other churches. Additionally, when there's nothing unique about you, you have a hard time convincing people to join us rather than someone else. This is where the problem intersects with liberal theology. Why join CoC rather than PCUSA, ELCA, or TEC?

[Chap]

Mormonism is also explicitly based on the claim that all the other religions are false. As a devout member who takes it seriously, you soon learn all the problems with the "other guys." Then once you see the hidden Mormon history, non-theism is almost inevitable.

In logical form:

• Mormonism taught me that all the other religions are false
• I now believe that Mormonism is false
• I still believe that all the other religions are false because Mormonism taught me so.

Huh?

I think you have slightly missed the point. This is the sentence you need to pay attention to:

'As a devout member who takes it seriously, you soon learn all the problems with the "other guys." '

And there are a LOT of quite real problems with all of the world's major religions. The point is, at least according to Alphus and Omegus, that Mormons get told what those problems are. Thus, for instance, they are taught to ask where did Jesus say that all Peter's successors should have jurisdiction over all Christians? Does it make sense, as some Protestants do, that the last sentence of the Book of Revelation marks the end of what God has to say to humanity? And so on.

The aim is to end with Mormonism as the 'last man standing'. But a result is that if the believer gives up Mormonism, the criticisms of the other churches still stand, thus deterring the ex-Mormom from joining them. That is, I think, what Alphus and Omegus is suggesting to us.

[Failed Prophecy]

I think you have slightly missed the point. This is the sentence you need to pay attention to:

'As a devout member who takes it seriously, you soon learn all the problems with the "other guys." '

And there are a LOT of quite real problems with all of the world's major religions. The point is, at least according to Alphus and Omegus, that Mormons get told what those problems are. Thus, for instance, they are taught to ask where did Jesus say that all Peter's successors should have jurisdiction over all Christians? Does it make sense, as some Protestants do, that the last sentence of the Book of Revelation marks the end of what God has to say to humanity? And so on.

The aim is to end with Mormonism as the 'last man standing'. But a result is that if the believer gives up Mormonism, the criticisms of the other churches still stand, thus deterring the ex-Mormom from joining them. That is, I think, what Alphus and Omegus is suggesting to us.

I'll return the favor, this is the phrase you need to pay attention to:

"Thus, for instance, they are taught to ask"

The passive voice is covering over a problem here. Who is teaching Mormons to ask? Presumably the church leaders. Church leaders don't teach Mormons to ask anything. Church leaders might have in the past told Mormons that Catholic claims are false because Petrine succession doesn't hold up, but they never told members to go out and ask anything, they told them what to think. Thus the original syllogism holds.

[Doctor Steuss]

Why join CoC rather than PCUSA, ELCA, or TEC?

I apologize for my ignorance, but what are the last 3 (PCUSA, ELCA, TEC)?

[huckelberry]

I think you have slightly missed the point. This is the sentence you need to pay attention to:

'As a devout member who takes it seriously, you soon learn all the problems with the "other guys." '

I'll return the favor, this is the phrase you need to pay attention to:

"Thus, for instance, they are taught to ask"

The passive voice is covering over a problem here. Who is teaching Mormons to ask? Presumably the church leaders. Church leaders don't teach Mormons to ask anything. Church leaders might have in the past told Mormons that Catholic claims are false because Petrine succession doesn't hold up, but they never told members to go out and ask anything, they told them what to think. Thus the original syllogism holds.

"church leaders don't teach Mormons to ask anything"

Failed prophesy, this description is totally alien to my experience with the Mormon church. Yes there are doctrines and foundational stories people are asked not to question but outside of that circle people are taught to seek learning which obviously includes asking all sorts of questions.

[huckelberry]

Why join CoC rather than PCUSA, ELCA, or TEC?

I apologize for my ignorance, but what are the last 3 (PCUSA, ELCA, TEC)?

Presbyterian church in United States of America, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. TEC, I do not know.

[Chap]

In logical form:

• Mormonism taught me that all the other religions are false
• I now believe that Mormonism is false
• I still believe that all the other religions are false because Mormonism taught me so.

Huh?

I think you have slightly missed the point. This is the sentence you need to pay attention to:

'As a devout member who takes it seriously, you soon learn all the problems with the "other guys." '

And there are a LOT of quite real problems with all of the world's major religions. The point is, at least according to Alphus and Omegus, that Mormons get told what those problems are. Thus, for instance, they are taught to ask where did Jesus say that all Peter's successors should have jurisdiction over all Christians? Does it make sense, as some Protestants do, that the last sentence of the Book of Revelation marks the end of what God has to say to humanity? And so on.

The aim is to end with Mormonism as the 'last man standing'. But a result is that if the believer gives up Mormonism, the criticisms of the other churches still stand, thus deterring the ex-Mormom from joining them. That is, I think, what Alphus and Omegus is suggesting to us.

I'll return the favor, this is the phrase you need to pay attention to:

"Thus, for instance, they are taught to ask"

The passive voice is covering over a problem here. Who is teaching Mormons to ask? Presumably the church leaders. Church leaders don't teach Mormons to ask anything. Church leaders might have in the past told Mormons that Catholic claims are false because Petrine succession doesn't hold up, but they never told members to go out and ask anything, they told them what to think. Thus the original syllogism holds.

"church leaders don't teach Mormons to ask anything"

Failed prophesy, this description is totally alien to my experience with the Mormon church. Yes there are doctrines and foundational stories people are asked not to question but outside of that circle people are taught to seek learning which obviously includes asking all sorts of questions.

A neat wriggle there by Failed Prophecy. But the point remains that quite a few Mormons become aware of the real problems faced by other religions, and Mormon leaders are, shall we say, not displeased when that happens. So when they discover that their own religion also has serious problems. . . for many of them, there is nowhere else to go.

[DrStakhanovite]

I don't doubt that there are appeals to liberal / mainline traditions, and I know many fine practitioners of these traditions. I myself got my religious start, for the most part, in a branch of the PCUSA. One person I know who converted from Mormonism is now a minister in the ELCA; she performed my second wedding.

But Finke and Stark cover in The Churching of America how the more costly religions that place more demands on their members are, paradoxically, the ones most likely to generate growth, and how this has been the case for most of American history. There's nothing wrong with generic universal connection in principle; there's also hypothetically nothing wrong with "Don't believe in that crap in the Bible? We don't, either." The problem is, if that's the main product that a church is promoting, it's one that a person can get almost anywhere: from a yoga class, from a favorite podcast, from a book club on Meetup. Why go to church for that? Every church has to have a product or a message that it promotes, one that makes a case for itself in the market, and plenty of people are already selling tolerance, understanding, and freedom from "dogma." In my view, many liberal / mainline churches simply never figured out what they were offering beyond that (although, social justice and attention to poverty was a strong attempt in this direction).

MsJack, I find myself with a couple of little puzzles. Both ELCA and PCUSA would be to my knowledge relatively conservative groups compared to what sounds like Unitarian universalism in Alphus and Omegus discription. The groups are liberal compared with fundamentalist groups but they hold basic Christian doctrines and dogmas. Your observation that tolerance and freedom from dogma is actually not much of anything makes sense to me. Perhaps I am wondering more what you have in view for more demands to make a difference. My wife spent years in the past with conservative evangelical groups. lots of hours going to church for prayer group, Bible study etc. She wondered, and I do not blame her, is this all there is to it?

Hey Huck,

I’m of a similar opinion as Jack, but I’ve come to it from a different social-science track than she did, so perhaps how I frame it might help with some of those puzzles.

The fundamental concept here is that social groups whose beliefs and lifestyle conflict (or are otherwise in tension) with broader contemporary culture always have better growth and retention rates than social groups that are not in tension with broader contemporary culture. Hasidic Jews and the Amish are not going to be dwindling into nonexistence anytime soon.

Individual churches want to keep people involved in their particular religious community and the best way to do that is to hold numerous meetings and events to fill out your schedule so that the majority of your socializing is taking place within a church context. Worship services, Bible studies, prayer groups, men/women/teen specific fellowships, ministries for the homeless, intramural sports, evangelization and missions work, etc, etc.

Now the more tension a group feels with the broader culture, the more important that inter-group socializing becomes and as a result, you build up a strong sense of identity. If you combine that with eschewing expressions of popular culture and offer instead media that conforms to your group’s ideals and sensibilities, the bonds are only further strengthened to the point that someone doesn’t really need to leave your community very often for any of their needs.

To Jack’s point, Churches that are comfortable co-existing with the broader culture they exist in are going to struggle to find ways to get people to stay and be committed to a religious identity. If Christ died for everybody and they benefit from it regardless if they embraced the Gospel or not, the act of evangelization rapidly becomes pointless. Sure, you can still do missions work where you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and house the homeless, to get your dopamine hit, but how do you distinguish that from regular charity organizations?

Now if churches with a more liberal theology struggle with building and maintaining a distinctive religious identity, churches with a more conservative theology struggle with maintaining a distinctive religious identity that doesn’t result in more radical expressions that cause harm.

I just don’t see a progressive Mormon Church being at all successful in staving off decline, much less actually growing.