Washington Post: Five myths about Mormonsim

[smokymountainrain]

Lucky. What ward do you attend? Maybe we should come over some Sunday.

(The "White Shirts and Right Hand" line is a placeholder for any number of inconsequential possible topics.)

You know, partly because of what I read on CUF, I do feel lucky. I'm in Sandy. Come any time, but leave your damn ute tie at home.

[NorthwestUteFan]

You know, partly because of what I read on CUF, I do feel lucky. I'm in Sandy. Come any time, but leave your damn ute tie at home.

For some reason I thought you lived here in Washington. The church is significantly different outside of Utah, even in a strongly lds state like Washington. We make do with the resources available to us, and realize we don't have the luxury of having fifteen different men who could be Elders Quorum president of hpgl, and we don't have seven potential Bishops at all times.

On the other hand we also do not have a local media apparatus constantly blowing sunshine up our skirts about the wonders of byu football so we are genuinely happy to see sports-related ties of any stripe. Even if we don't like the team represented by the tie we are simply grateful to see one more warm body at church.

[myboynoah]

I can see why you would think that. But being in that class, it was clear that he was leading the conversation to the point where that conclusion would come out.

This really isn't a big deal for me. People can believe what they want. But it's clear that many prophets and apostles thought it was a big enough deal to explicitly state how it happened.

Why am I never in any of these classes? If I am so blessed someday, I will point out that the Word of God states that Jesus was born of a virgin. That seems pretty clear. Until the speculations of well-meaning frontier prophets and apostles on this particular topic are cannonized, I don't see the point.

[LA Ute]

I think we can point to having to fill 3 hours every single week with content (teachers and students trying to make things interesting, sacrament mtg speaking, F&T mtg, leaders trying to give counsel in interviews, etc.) as a big/biggest cause.

As my friend ER has pointed out, one good thing about correlation is that it tends to reduce such forays into the weeds.

[TripletDaddy]

Until the speculations of well-meaning frontier prophets and apostles on this particular topic are cannonized, I don't see the point.

Interesting line of demarcation. Do you apply this rationale to all topics or do you pick and choose the statements and the prophets you want to believe?

[smokymountainrain]

For some reason I thought you lived here in Washington. The church is significantly different outside of Utah, even in a strongly lds state like Washington. We make do with the resources available to us, and realize we don't have the luxury of having fifteen different men who could be Elders Quorum president of hpgl, and we don't have seven potential Bishops at all times.

On the other hand we also do not have a local media apparatus constantly blowing sunshine up our skirts about the wonders of byu football so we are genuinely happy to see sports-related ties of any stripe. Even if we don't like the team represented by the tie we are simply grateful to see one more warm body at church.

I used to live in the Seattle area, perhaps that is the reason you thought I lived there. Also, perhaps I misunderstood the tone of your post, but fwiw, the tie comment was a joke. Apparently not the funny kind, but a joke nonetheless.

[Sleeping in EQ]

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:



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.

Somehow I missed your response, Surfah. I'll say a couple of things about it, though.

Your comment about online institute not helping singles get hitched seems to have been in jest, but the research on online dating/socializing says that it is almost as reliable a way of meeting one's longtime partner or spouse as living near someone was in the 1920s. Living near someone is incredibly ineffective today compared to the past (today, less than 3% of people marry someone who lives nearby, while in the 1920s around 15% of people did so).

As to your second comment, I think you are missing the point. Correlated comfort is becoming spiritual stagnation for more and more Church members, and even if they don't realize it. Long term, in order to be spiritually nourished, people need more of what I'm talking about and less correlated "material."

[Surfah]

Somehow I missed your response, Surfah. I'll say a couple of things about it, though.

Your comment about online institute not helping singles get hitched seems to have been in jest, but the research on online dating/socializing says that it is almost as reliable a way of meeting one's longtime partner or spouse as living near someone was in the 1920s. Living near someone is incredibly ineffective today compared to the past (today, less than 3% of people marry someone who lives nearby, while in the 1920s around 15% of people did so).

As to your second comment, I think you are missing the point. Correlated comfort is becoming spiritual stagnation for more and more Church members, and even if they don't realize it. Long term, in order to be spiritually nourished, people need more of what I'm talking about and less correlated "material."

It was in jest, but I still don't understand how an online institute class will help in that regard. It's been awhile since I have taken an online course in anything, but none of them gave me opportunities to meet or even correspond with classmates aside from maybe posting on Blackboard. Are you proposing some sort of curriculum mashed up with LDSsingles.com?

As to the second comment, I don't understand how the material you want spiritually nourishes any of us. I can buy that just having the discussion might satiate some needs, but I am not sure that it will provide any answers and spiritual fulfillment.

Take the topic of polygamy for example which sparked this thread. How would you teach that in an uncorrelated lesson? What conclusions do you arrive at the end of that lesson? That polygamy was and is ordained of God? That polygamy was nothing more than a way for horny men to satisfy carnal appetites under the guise of revelation? As Niku pointed out earlier he can't say either way because we don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows. So my question is where is the spiritual meat in that kind of lesson? Faith? We don't know so just have faith? I just don't think anyone dissatisfied with currently correlated material will be spiritually full by being told I don't know over and over again.

[myboynoah]

Interesting line of demarcation. Do you apply this rationale to all topics or do you pick and choose the statements and the prophets you want to believe?

Like everyone else, I pick and choose the topics upon which I think discussion time would be well spent during the Sunday block of meetings. I don't see the point of trying to establish that God had sex with Mary. To me, Mormon scriptural canon is clear that she was virgin.

I would, however, be interested in the reasons these frontier prophets and apostles stepped into this and other similar types of speculative musings. But that doesn't sound like a topic for Sundays.

[Pheidippides]

Interesting line of demarcation. Do you apply this rationale to all topics or do you pick and choose the statements and the prophets you want to believe?

I don't know if he does but I do. I don't see any way around that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't know if he does but I do. I don't see any way around that.

We are all cafeteria mormons at some level.

[Surfah]

We are all cafeteria mormons at some level.

Agreed. And I'd argue this extends to most religious people regardless of affiliation.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I used to live in the Seattle area, perhaps that is the reason you thought I lived there.

OK that makes sense.

Also, perhaps I misunderstood the tone of your post, but fwiw, the tie comment was a joke. Apparently not the funny kind, but a joke nonetheless.

Comments about the makeup of wards outside of Utah compared with those inside Utah is accurate in most cases. My reference to the tie was mostly TIC, I was just busting your chops. And the SLC media comment was precise.

[LA Ute]

I don't know if he does but I do. I don't see any way around that.

I agree. "When is a prophet/apostle speaking as a prophet, seer or revelator?" must be one of the oldest and most enduring questions in Mormonism. That isn't going to change.

[Sullyute]

Take the topic of polygamy for example which sparked this thread. How would you teach that in an uncorrelated lesson? What conclusions do you arrive at the end of that lesson? That polygamy was and is ordained of God? That polygamy was nothing more than a way for horny men to satisfy carnal appetites under the guise of revelation? As Niku pointed out earlier he can't say either way because we don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows. So my question is where is the spiritual meat in that kind of lesson? Faith? We don't know so just have faith? I just don't think anyone dissatisfied with currently correlated material will be spiritually full by being told I don't know over and over again.

Not to jump into the middle of your conversation with SIEQ, but realistically isn't everything about religion based on faith. Technically we really don't know, but exercise faith. Unless you have personally seen the resurrected Lord then you are just exercising faith that he exists and did the things written in the scriptures. Outside of Paul and his vision do we have any eye witness accounts of Jesus? We don't have any proof that Jude, James, John, Peter, Matthew etc actually wrote the books attributed to them.

Also why does it have to be uncorrelated? Why can't the church write an honest, but faithful (I am sure that is an oxymoron for some), course on some of these issues?

I agree with you that these type of classes may not be spiritually uplifting for some, but the same thing can be said about the current church curriculum. I agree with The Dude in his post above that we are all cafeteria mormons on one level or another because almost everything in religion comes down to "I don't know but I still believe". Ultimately we are all responsible for our own spirituality and faith no matter what is taught from the pulpit.