Mormonism as a stalled progressivism

[ERCougar]

Who would you call if you were in charge, and you didn't have correlation as the goal? Let's just assume for discussion sake you had a crazy goal like "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of men" through a threefold mission of proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the saints, and redeeming the dead.

Ha...exactly.
Rambam's post is articulate, except that it misses the point of dave's post (which was nicely done, I think). Yes, Rambam, maybe you would call these types to run the church, but dave is asking if this is the reason we have a retention problem--we tempt people with the idea of newness, only to have them run into the wall of the typical bureaucratic large organization? Yes, this seems to be inevitable as any organization grows from its humble yet exciting beginnings, but shouldn't we expect God's church, with the missions that it claims, to be the exception to the standard organization life cycle? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know, but it's an interesting point to discuss.

[taekwondave]

You're the new age Mormon who likes to bitch about the Church not meeting your needs while you do jack-shit about it.

Sloan, I see you've got over a thousand posts on this site. In all your time here you haven't noticed that almost three quarters of the posters here would probably classify as a "new age Mormon?" I could recommend some other sites for you if you want to be around more people who still "get all their needs met" by the church. Cougarcorner is a great place to go for those who want to toot the follow the prophet horn. They'll blow sunshine about the church without pointing out any ways it can improve all day long, if that's what you're looking for. Geez, if you're coming at me like this, do you have half the posters on this site on ignore?

[taekwondave]

Ha...exactly.
Rambam's post is articulate, except that it misses the point of dave's post (which was nicely done, I think). Yes, Rambam, maybe you would call these types to run the church, but dave is asking if this is the reason we have a retention problem--we tempt people with the idea of newness, only to have them run into the wall of the typical bureaucratic large organization? Yes, this seems to be inevitable as any organization grows from its humble yet exciting beginnings, but shouldn't we expect God's church, with the missions that it claims, to be the exception to the standard organization life cycle? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know, but it's an interesting point to discuss.

I think you've captured the essence of my feelings, yes. Nicely done. I wasn't sure I was clear enough.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If only Brigham and his successors had focused on Joseph's METHOD of finding out truth, rather than Joseph's actual FINDINGS (his method resulting in never-ending considerations and "revelations", whereas his findings had an end) I think we'd see a very different church than the one we have today.

Seems to me like it was more of a gradual shift. Are you familiar with all of the speculative theology from BY? He said a lot of really wacky stuff (most of which we don't hear thanks to correlation). Adam-God theory being just one example.

[taekwondave]

Seems to me like it was more of a gradual shift. Are you familiar with all of the speculative theology from BY? He said a lot of really wacky stuff (most of which we don't hear thanks to correlation). Adam-God theory being just one example.

Oh, I didn't mean to insinuate that Brigham didn't think for himself, or John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff for that matter (holy cow, they said some incredible things) but they were also the guys sending letters back and forth to the RLDS, asking them questions that "surely, a Prophet of the Lord could answer", accusing others in the church with equally crazy ideas as "heading down the path of apostasy" and generally squashing free-thinking in the church. They essentially set themselves up to be the sole mouthpiece, whereas it seems Joseph had a greater focus on teaching others to be mouthpieces as well. Sure, he put the smack down a few times (Sydney's seer stones and the church wiggling around like snakes one sabbath morning) but he also was greatly encouraging of others to exercise faith to be healed (even at great distances) suggesting new doctrinal premises, and things like that.

I don't want to insinuate that Joseph was perfect at this either, but I do think a shift occurred at his death and, you're probably right, it was probably more gradual than my posted suggested.

[jay santos]

Seems to me like it was more of a gradual shift. Are you familiar with all of the speculative theology from BY? He said a lot of really wacky stuff (most of which we don't hear thanks to correlation). Adam-God theory being just one example.

Daymon Smith's MoSto podcast was very enlightening on this. The church pulled the reigns in it at some point. I'm thinking late 1800's? Or was it the 20th century.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Daymon Smith's MoSto podcast was very enlightening on this. The church pulled the reigns in it at some point. I'm thinking late 1800's? Or was it the 20th century.

Yeah, that was a great podcast. IIRC, he argued that the introduction of the correlation concept coincided with church leaders trying to herd cats and stamp out polygamy. Early 20th century.

[SloanHater]

I've spent years studying the teachings of Brigham Young. He's always been one of my favorites. But I think it's pretty clear that he had an ego problem that tended to suppress the creativity of the rest of the church.

Actually I'm the new age Mormon who likes to bitch about the church not meeting millions of people's needs. I think my post makes that pretty clear. You sound upset. Can I get you a cupcake or something?

Ego Problems? Ha. Unlike Joseph. Ha.

You realize more people were dismissed from the Church during the reign of Joseph than under Brigham? Typically for differences in ideology and refusal to conform. So much for free-thinking, all accepting Prophet.

You also realize that more theology was put forth by members of the 12 under Brigham than Joseph, though this has more to do with length of tenure. So much for the suppressive regime of Brigham.

It bothers me to no end when people state their opinion as fact in regards to the Mormon Church.

As for being upset. Nah. I'm one of those millions who's having my needs met.

{Edit} Again, your initial post simply lays out a criticism of an organization for not meeting yours or 'millions' of others' needs. I'm asking what you do to address your own needs?

[taekwondave]

It bothers me to no end when people state their opinion as fact in regards to the Mormon Church.

Well I apologize then, because I really tried to present this as my own personal view, but apparently I stepped over that line. But I'm sure you know how easy that can be

[taekwondave]

I'm asking what you do to address your own needs?

This is a strange question. My own "needs"? Um, I suppose I have a "need" to verbalize my thoughts. I do that in various ways. First, I dated and married a girl with an open mind that eventually came to share my doctrinal premises.

Second, I share with whomever seems really down and therefore, really open to a new suggestion.

Third, I write in my own "spiritual thoughts" journal.

And fourth, I go to CUF, where I know there is pretty substantial group of people asking the same questions about their existence as I am, and I can get a really rousing collection of views to draw from and contribute to.

That's what I do.

But, it would sure be NICE if I could do that at church too. You might try to just spout off, "Well, you CAN!" and you may really believe that too, but try going to church this sunday and saying that you don't think Jesus' blood pays for your sins, because you don't believe in sin, and see how well it goes over. Tell me if the Bishop doesn't call you in "just to see how you're doin" and to inform you that others have "expressed some concern about some of your...views...in class" and tell me that the church is set up appropriately for this kind of thing, because I think there are plenty of people on here who could tell you that simply isn't the case.

Now, I have other outlets, as I just listed, but like I said, it would sure be NICE if these were the kinds of discussions we could have at church. And you can understand, I'm sure, that a group that chest thumps so regularly about modern and personal revelation and new scripture and new worlds and god-like potentialities...that new thoughts would be allowed to be thoroughly examined there. But we both know that isn't the case. My post suggests that there was a time in this church when such activities were more encouraged, even though such activities seemed to inevitably lead people to question the notion of authority, and thus, the right of Joseph to lead his own church, which seems to readily account for the many exoduses you mentioned during his time as President.

And btw: I love your avatar. One of the best comedies of all time.

[SloanHater]

This is a strange question. My own "needs"? Um, I suppose I have a "need" to verbalize my thoughts. I do that in various ways. First, I dated and married a girl with an open mind that eventually came to share my doctrinal premises.

Second, I share with whomever seems really down and therefore, really open to a new suggestion.

Third, I write in my own "spiritual thoughts" journal.

And fourth, I go to CUF, where I know there is pretty substantial group of people asking the same questions about their existence as I am, and I can get a really rousing collection of views to draw from and contribute to.

That's what I do.

But, it would sure be NICE if I could do that at church too. You might try to just spout off, "Well, you CAN!" and you may really believe that too, but try going to church this sunday and saying that you don't think Jesus' blood pays for your sins, because you don't believe in sin, and see how well it goes over. Tell me if the Bishop doesn't call you in "just to see how you're doin" and to inform you that others have "expressed some concern about some of your...views...in class" and tell me that the church is set up appropriately for this kind of thing, because I think there are plenty of people on here who could tell you that simply isn't the case.

Now, I have other outlets, as I just listed, but like I said, it would sure be NICE if these were the kinds of discussions we could have at church. And you can understand, I'm sure, that a group that chest thumps so regularly about modern and personal revelation and new scripture and new worlds and god-like potentialities...that new thoughts would be allowed to be thoroughly examined there. But we both know that isn't the case. My post suggests that there was a time in this church when such activities were more encouraged, even though such activities seemed to inevitably lead people to question the notion of authority, and thus, the right of Joseph to lead his own church, which seems to readily account for the many exoduses you mentioned during his time as President.

And btw: I love your avatar. One of the best comedies of all time.

You seem like a smart, thoughtful person yet you make a ton of assumptions.

Have you gone to your bishop and expressed your thoughts and beliefs? Have you volunteered to teach a Sunday lesson in which you could challenge people's thinking? Do you reach out to others in your ward with personal conversations on doctrine?

Perhaps you should start by simply asking the bishop if you could start a study group and include him on the topics. I think there are a growing number of Bruce McConkies like yourself who love studying and formulating 'doctrine.'

All I'm saying in a nutshell is, it's easy to stand and cast stones of criticism at an instituion, but it's more rewarding to step in and help remodel it.

[tooblue]

Sloan, I see you've got over a thousand posts on this site. In all your time here you haven't noticed that almost three quarters of the posters here would probably classify as a "new age Mormon?" I could recommend some other sites for you if you want to be around more people who still "get all their needs met" by the church. Cougarcorner is a great place to go for those who want to toot the follow the prophet horn. They'll blow sunshine about the church without pointing out any ways it can improve all day long, if that's what you're looking for. Geez, if you're coming at me like this, do you have half the posters on this site on ignore?

Dave, there is a significant group of individuals on this site who avoid this forum all together primarily because it is fruitless to bother with the new age nonsense espoused here. Sloan's observations are astute. Eventually, Sloan will post less and less because it simply is not worth the effort. Nothing you have posited is new or interesting. You have not made the CUF puddle any bigger.

CUF religion forum is what is "stalled" lol

[Viking]

where's exie?

[old_gregg]

Dave, there is a significant group of individuals on this site who avoid this forum all together primarily because it is fruitless to bother with the new age nonsense espoused here. Sloan's observations are astute. Eventually, Sloan will post less and less because it simply is not worth the effort. Nothing you have posited is new or interesting. You have not made the CUF puddle any bigger.

CUF religion forum is what is "stalled" lol

What a douchey post

[tooblue]

What a douchey post

Just being honest ... and in direct response to his posts in this thread.

Hey, while we've got you here, why don't you let let us know if there is a thread about Dave and his posts in the secret forum? I'll bet there is even a thread there about why so many posters no longer participate here in the religion forum also.