Washington Post: Five myths about Mormonsim

[Donuthole]

MDL responses remind me of how attorneys have counseled me to respond in depositions--terse statements that force the opposing counsel to pull out all information. It makes me wonder if the MDL is composed of attorneys.

Yes, it's a great approach when you're trying to conceal as much information as possible. Unfortunately, it's a rather ineffective way of trying to volunteer information, which is supposedly what the MDL is trying to do. Then again, it's not called the "Mormon Information League" or the "Mormon Truth League", so maybe not. Interesting name choice, really.

Its interesting how much shorter the Brooks piece is, while conveying about the same amount ofeven more information.

FIFY

[Mormon Red Death]

There's no great mystery here, just as there's no great mystery with what to do about singles in the Church.

In the short term, having Institute classes that are actually relevant would be helpful. How about an Institute class that reads RSR and an instructor who is up to teaching it? Even better, how about having some of such classes meet online?

Church members have had enough with conversation ending pronouncements, insincere, dismissive rhetorical questions, and simpleton answers during their meetings. They have not had enough facts, especially on a topic like polygamy that is deeply and consistently relevant to Mormonism's relationship to the larger American culture. The Church has not equipped Church members to substantively and accurately answer questions about the Church that are being asked by their neighbors and coworkers, on news programs, on blogs, and in newspapers all over the country right this second.

Church members' lack of knowledge about polygamy lends to their feeling "uncomfortable" when someone like Joanna Brooks goes public with facts in an accurate, non-sensational manner. It has them wondering if what she has written is "proper." It's a vicious cycle, it's pathetic, and the correlated programs, manuals, and attitudes that have contributed to this sorry state bear some responsibility for it. They also bear responsibility for the tensions in the Church between those in the know who discuss these things with impunity in the media sphere, and those who are trying to make Mormonism comfortable and proper.

It is frustrating how true your words are. Alas, the brethren will never do anything about it.

[Surfah]

There's no great mystery here, just as there's no great mystery with what to do about singles in the Church.

In the short term, having Institute classes that are actually relevant would be helpful. How about an Institute class that reads RSR and an instructor who is up to teaching it? Even better, how about having some of such classes meet online?

Church members have had enough with conversation ending pronouncements, insincere, dismissive rhetorical questions, and simpleton answers during their meetings. They have not had enough facts, especially on a topic like polygamy that is deeply and consistently relevant to Mormonism's relationship to the larger American culture. The Church has not equipped Church members to substantively and accurately answer questions about the Church that are being asked by their neighbors and coworkers, on news programs, on blogs, and in newspapers all over the country right this second.

Church members' lack of knowledge about polygamy lends to their feeling "uncomfortable" when someone like Joanna Brooks goes public with facts in an accurate, non-sensational manner. It has them wondering if what she has written is "proper." It's a vicious cycle, it's pathetic, and the correlated programs, manuals, and attitudes that have contributed to this sorry state bear some responsibility for it. They also bear responsibility for the tensions in the Church between those in the know who discuss these things with impunity in the media sphere, and those who are trying to make Mormonism comfortable and proper.

Well singles institute online doesn't do much to help them get hitched.

I don't necessarily disagree with your argument and certainly not your frustration here, but I do disagree with this generalization:

Church members have had enough with conversation ending pronouncements, insincere, dismissive rhetorical questions, and simpleton answers during their meetings.

I don't think that is true, at least not for a majority of members. This group you describe is represented here in the Foyer and elsewhere on the internets, but I don't think it's pervasive. Lots of people go to Church to worship and to associate with family and friends. They want questions they can answer. They don't want to be challenged. They want to feel good. They love rhetorical questions because it makes them feel as though they're being introspective with their spirituality and relationship with God. They love questions that require the simpleton answers because they can give them. I think most members are content with this and don't care to know anything more.

[Shaka]

I'll give you a heads up about institute. Most of us singles don't want to go.

[pellegrino]

I don't think that is true, at least not for a majority of members. This group you describe is represented here in the Foyer and elsewhere on the internets, but I don't think it's pervasive. Lots of people go to Church to worship and to associate with family and friends. They want questions they can answer. They don't want to be challenged. They want to feel good. They love rhetorical questions because it makes them feel as though they're being introspective with their spirituality and relationship with God. They love questions that require the simpleton answers because they can give them. I think most members are content with this and don't care to know anything more.

I won't disagree with you regarding the numbers, though I think the number of the type of people SIEQ describes is growing. Regardless, what would you do with those who can't support the superficiality of such an approach to LDS worship.

[Pheidippides]

I won't disagree with you regarding the numbers, though I think the number of the type of people SIEQ describes is growing. Regardless, what would you do with those who can't support the superficiality of such an approach to LDS worship.

In my congregation there are many. That's what the bishop told me. I don't know who any of them are, but there are multiples that have approached him about this issue. And it is his opinion that there are ten for every one he knows about. That makes half the ward.

[pellegrino]

In my congregation there are many. That's what the bishop told me. I don't know who any of them are, but there are multiples that have approached him about this issue. And it is his opinion that there are ten for every one he knows about. That makes half the ward.

like I said, I think the number is growing. In some areas it wouldn't surprise me if they were a silent majority.

[Surfah]

I won't disagree with you regarding the numbers, though I think the number of the type of people SIEQ describes is growing. Regardless, what would you do with those who can't support the superficiality of such an approach to LDS worship.

That I am not sure. I don't think it's simple.

It would be interesting to know if that number is growing. I think there has always been a number of the people SIEQ describes. But now there are places for them to congregate that didn't exist before. So perhaps the numbers aren't really growing. I don't know. What I really want to know is what affect the easily accessible, non-correlated history is having on Church members.

[pellegrino]

That I am not sure. I don't think it's simple.

It would be interesting to know if that number is growing. I think there has always been a number of the people SIEQ describes. But now there are places for them to congregate that didn't exist before. So perhaps the numbers aren't really growing. I don't know. What I really want to know is what affect the easily accessible, non-correlated history is having on Church members.

I think we see that playing out here on CUF, throughout the bloggernacle and on a lot of different sites/fora dedicated to Mormon discussion. I would say that we are somewhat of a microcosm, perhaps not entirely representative of the larger body of Mormonism, but if you look at the evolution of this community from cougarboard to cougarguard to CUF I think you have a good sample of what the affects of un-correlated history among the rank and file.

[Pheidippides]

I think we see that playing out here on CUF, throughout the bloggernacle and on a lot of different sites/fora dedicated to Mormon discussion. I would say that we are somewhat of a microcosm, perhaps not entirely representative of the larger body of Mormonism, but if you look at the evolution of this community from cougarboard to cougarguard to CUF I think you have a good sample of what the affects of un-correlated history among the rank and file.

Agreed, on both a macro and micro level. Today's mullah is tomorrow's apostate. In fact, I would suggest that the more mullah one is the more difficult the cognitive dissonance is to handle once it comes.

[Surfah]

Today's mullah is tomorrow's apostate.

Isn't that always the case regardless?

[pellegrino]

Isn't that always the case regardless?

I don't think it has always been the case. Past generations didn't have access to the amount of uncorrelated material that our generation has. If they did, it was generally through anti-Mormon sources and so it was easy to explain why someone went apostate. It's a completely different ballgame now as those who would otherwise be 100% certain of their faith and their worldview can find themselves turned on their heads with information from reliable sources. It takes a special person to keep their convictions at a similar level after such an encounter.

Even if it were the case, what does that say about the future of the church?

[Surfah]

I don't think it has always been the case. Past generations didn't have access to the amount of uncorrelated material that our generation has. If they did, it was generally through anti-Mormon sources and so it was easy to explain why someone went apostate. It's a completely different ballgame now as those who would otherwise be 100% certain of their faith and their worldview can find themselves turned on their heads with information from reliable sources. It takes a special person to keep their convictions at a similar level after such an encounter.

Even if it were the case, what does that say about the future of the church?

My point was/is I don't think you can become an apostate (as Mormons define it) without ever being a mullah to begin with.

I am also not sure it requires a special person. It does require faith though. Maybe that makes the person special. At least, I don't consider myself special.

As to the future of the church I don't think much if anything will change. Why would it? A lot of people want a church that helps them be better people. They want something that will stabilize their family. They want an opportunity to serve and feel important. They want community. They want boundaries. The church provides all of these things. People will continue to transition in and out of the church as they always have for a number of reasons. And I don't know if that will happen at a greater rate (either way) or not. My feeling is that it won't fluctuate much.

[Pheidippides]

My point was/is I don't think you can become an apostate (as Mormons define it) without ever being a mullah to begin with.

I am also not sure it requires a special person. It does require faith though. Maybe that makes the person special. At least, I don't consider myself special.

As to the future of the church I don't think much if anything will change. Why would it? A lot of people want a church that helps them be better people. They want something that will stabilize their family. They want an opportunity to serve and feel important. They want community. They want boundaries. The church provides all of these things. People will continue to transition in and out of the church as they always have for a number of reasons. And I don't know if that will happen at a greater rate (either way) or not. My feeling is that it won't fluctuate much.

A lot of people also want truth. And there's your problem.

[LA Ute]

A lot of people also want truth. And there's your problem.

I've posted this before and I think it's relevant to this discussion. It's from "What Is Our Doctrine?" by Bob Millet of BYU:

Some time ago a colleague and I were in southern California speaking to a group of about five hundred people, both Latter-day Saints and Protestants. During the question-and-answer phase of the program, someone asked the inevitable: "Are you really Christian? Do you, as many claim, worship a different Jesus?" I explained that we worship the Christ of the New Testament, that we believe wholeheartedly in His virgin birth, His divine sonship, His miracles, His transforming teachings, His atoning sacrifice, and His bodily resurrection from the dead. I added that we also believe in the teachings of and about Christ found in the Book of Mormon and modern revelation.

After the meeting, a Latter-day Saint woman came up to me and said, "You didn't tell the truth about what we believe!"

Startled, I asked, "What do you mean?"

She responded, "You said we believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and you know very well that we don't believe that."

"Yes, we do," I retorted.

She then said with a great deal of emotion, "I want to believe you, but people have told me for years that we believe that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary and thereby Jesus was conceived."

I looked her in the eyes and said, "I'm aware of that teaching, but that is not the doctrine of the Church; that is not what we teach in the Church today. Have you ever heard the Brethren teach it in conference? Is it in the standard works, the auricular materials, or the handbooks of the Church? Is it a part of an official declaration or proclamation?"

I watched as a five-hundred-pound weight seemed to come off her shoulders, as tears came into her eyes, and she simply said, "Thank you, Brother Millet."

The whole Millet piece is worth a read. I'm not endorsing all of it, but it is a serious effort at addressing the question of what is doctrine and what is not.

I know most who post and read here will reject Millet's approach (some will denounce it quite colorfully and in absolute terms, I'll bet), but I think the overwhelming majority of members of the church are comfortable with it. They feel they have testimonies of the Restoration and of the church's ongoing divine authority and they say to themselves, "Well, the early brethren sure did make some wild statements, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses, and those chapters in RSR about Joseph Smith's polygamy were pretty startling, but I like the horse I am on now and I am going to stay on it. It makes me very happy and gives me and my family peace, and I can't deny the feelings I have had about JS, the BofM, and the current leadership of the church, among other things. So I am still in with both feet."

I am pretty much in the category I just described. I do want to learn more (and this board has piqued my interest in the uncorrelated subjects, mainly because I am a little skeptical about the certitude of many others here), but I am not going to make that effort the focus of my study about the church. I'm not saying this because I think I am righteous; it just feels comfortable to me, both intellectually and spiritually.

Like Surfah, I doubt that the Internet and the increased accessibility to information it creates will cause more people to leave the church. I do think that more people will have serious questions, and that problems in the missionary effort will increase. My guess is that as a result, the church leadership (the "big" leadership in SLC) will start to realize they have to provide more answers to the controversial subjects that have historically been downplayed. The church moves slowly in that regard (understatement alert!) but it does move. There's some evidence they're moving already. The Joseph Smith papers are pretty candid about his polygamy, for example, at least in the parts I have read.

Sorry to ramble on so long. I am now back from vacation and actually have to work.