You're moving your horsey wrong

[myboynoah]

This was a good thread. Kind of surprised I never participated in it. Some random thoughts:

Of course scriptures are valuable mainly as allegories and myths. Especially the BOM and most of the Bible really has to be viewed that way in my opinion. Truth is truth: most of the events described in the Scriptures never happened.

TBM stands for True Believer Mormon (IMO).

I wish we had a Reformed LDS Church a la Judaism: more liberal WofW focused on weight and exercise and allowing one alcoholic beverage per day, one hour Church with a paid clergy and intelligent sermon during that hour, women with the Priesthood, gays welcome. I would pay 20% tithing for that kind of Church.

I think there are quite a few people who participate in the LDS Church on their own terms. I have a good friend here in SLC who hasn't had a temple recommend or a calling in 10 years, attends Church about half the time, does not completely observe the WofW, and has reached an understanding with his Bishop that he still can baptize and ordain his kids. That's possibly more common in an East SLC ward because there are so many Mos that are completely non-participating that the Church leaders tend to be happy with whatever degree of participation they can get from people.

Somebody should get that Reformed LDS Church started. I assign Nikuman.

[Joe Public]

TBM stands for True Believer Mormon (IMO).

That's what I've always thought people meant by it, too, in an Eric Hoffer kind of way.

[LA Ute]

TBM stands for True Believer Mormon (IMO).

But the keepers of the lexicon here insist that it is not a pejorative term. If it's Hofferesque, it's pejorative. (I thought it meant True Blue Mormon, BTW.)

[SeattleUte]

I think there are quite a few people who participate in the LDS Church on their own terms. I have a good friend here in SLC who hasn't had a temple recommend or a calling in 10 years, attends Church about half the time, does not completely observe the WofW, and has reached an understanding with his Bishop that he still can baptize and ordain his kids. That's possibly more common in an East SLC ward because there are so many Mos that are completely non-participating that the Church leaders tend to be happy with whatever degree of participation they can get from people.

creekster is right. If everyone participated thusly on their own terms there'd be no LDS Church. Such people can participate on their own terms because of people like creekster and LA Ute. This is the progmo conundrum.

[clackamascoug]

But the keepers of the lexicon here insist that it is not a pejorative term. If it's Hofferesque, it's pejorative. (I thought it meant True Blue Mormon, BTW.)

I pretty sure it's True Blue.

Joseph F. Smith was once surrounded by ruffians and asked if he was a "mormon," his reply was "Yessiree, True Blue, Dyed in the Wool..."

[wuapinmon]

A paid-clergy church with cardiologists paying 20% tithing? Shit...I'll be bishop.

[UtahDan]

But the keepers of the lexicon here insist that it is not a pejorative term. If it's Hofferesque, it's pejorative. (I thought it meant True Blue Mormon, BTW.)

I quit using the term because if this thread.

[pellegrino]

I quit using the term because if this thread.

[wuapinmon]

[Uncle Ted]

I'm not sure I fully agree. Over the past decade the church has become much less demanding, at least in terms of time commitment.

The church has become less demanding of time (well more than in just the last decade) but more demanding of donations of money. I remember before the 3 hour block going to primary on Wednesdays after school. Priesthood meeting was in the morning. Between meetings we had lunch and then sacrament meeting in the afternoon. It sucked. Lately, I have been wishing that the church would go to a two hour block. Of course, since I have been released from the YMs I just usually skip priesthood meeting all together and leave early. My own two hour block.

The church, however, has been become more demanding of money. For example, tithing use to be 2% of one's net worth and not 10% of one's increase (or income). Fast offerings started shortly after the pioneers settled in Utah and donations of the food they didn't eat when fasting. Today food isn't even accepted and members are encouraged to donate a lot more than the costs of the meals. Even in the last couple of decades the church has added things like the perpetual education fund. Also, I had members of my former stake presidency in my home hitting me up for additional donations (e.g. prop 8 and helping the mormon tabernacle choir offset their travel costs to OK City).


Of course, we no longer have building funds. I recall waiting for my dad outside the bishop's office for what seemed like forever to a six year old boy and, when I asked what took him so long on the way home, him telling me that he had just purchased seats in the new church for our family. (I also recall asking my Dad on the first Sunday in the new building which seats were ours.)

[Indy Coug]

We also don't have to contribute towards a ward budget.

[Uncle Ted]

We also don't have to contribute towards a ward budget.

Yes, but neither does the stake/church so it seems.

[pellegrino]

One of the things that often gets lost, IMO, in this type of discussion is that the very fact that the church is so demanding is precisely why it is so integral to so many members' lives. Changing that would leave the church a shadow of itself and changed in a way that would make it of less value to most. It's like owning a sports car and then wishing it had a pick up bed so you could bring home the plywood you need from home depot. If you got your wish you would lose what you had.

I don't quite understand why you think this would happen, perhaps if the church were to allow more control to local congregations and then allow members do decide for themselves where they want to go then I think you'd have congregations that would choose to remain more orthodox and congregations that would choose not to. I don't doubt that there would be enough people to staff positions, or if a certain ward wanted to hire professional clergy to take care of certain things then I think people would be getting exactly what they want. This would of course require the COB to relinquish control to local congregations, which isn't likely to happen. However, I think that if it were to happen then people would be able to work things out without losing what they think makes it unique.

[TripletDaddy]

I pretty sure it's True Blue.

Joseph F. Smith was once surrounded by ruffians and asked if he was a "mormon," his reply was "Yessiree, True Blue, Dyed in the Wool..."

that story doesnt sound very believable.

[Moliere]

After rereading the original post, I think I finally get the point, which is that we have to take into consideration not just context, but the environment in which Genesis was written. I'd agree with this but I also see the pitfalls. For instance, Isaiah 9:6 reads:

6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder. And His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

This verse causes some issues with our doctrine, one of which is literal because we believe it talks about Christ but then it calls him the Father. Of course, the phrase "everlasting father" is a bad translation, but this verse and some others like it probably led to the discussion in the BoM of how Christ can be both the Son and the Father.

Then when you take into account the historical context, you can come up with an interpretation that this verse was not talking about Christ at all, but likely was talking about an earthly king (the word translated "God" is translated as "ruler" in other places in the Bible).

So where does that leave us? Well, it leaves me wanting Pelagius to help write the next edition of the church GD curriculum