A Profound Question (for active Mormons only)

[Sullyute]

I voted RLDS. I think most churches help people grow and progress and become more Godly. I just think our Church does it best.

Are you saying that you would prefer that your child be active in any church (because they help people progress) than be inactive in the LDS church (assuming no progression)? At first read I thought you were indicating that you were a member of the CoC.

[The Fourth Nephite]

Are you saying that you would prefer that your child be active in any church (because they help people progress) than be inactive in the LDS church (assuming no progression)? At first read I thought you were indicating that you were a member of the CoC.

I'm active LDS. By far I prefer my kids to be active LDS, but I'd rather have them be COC (or Methodist or Hindu) than to be nothing.

Now if the choice was to be inactive LDS and then return to activity or to be COC, I would have chosen inactivity, but that's not how the poll was presented.

[myboynoah]

The interesting thing is the majority of members in Nauvoo went west with Brigham, but that was actually a small percentage of the total church population because most of the members lived away from Nauvoo at the time.

The CoC isn't sitting on a huge pile of cash like the Salt Lake branch because they tithe based on 'increase' per the original scripture, and don't obfuscate the issue by stating that we can choose between Net and Gross blessings. They are more originalist with the WoW and don't have a problem with drinking in moderation the way our church did up until Prohibition was repealed.

But the most interesting thing to me is the difference between the way we and the CoC reacted to scientific evidence pointing away from the church's claims. When geology and biology proved the human race is somewhere between 100,000 and 225,000 years old and that evolution is the origin of species, the CoC rolled with it while the SLC LDS branch followed Joseph Fielding Smith's "there was no death before the Fall of Adam" line of logic from "Man, His Origins, and his Destiny" (later mostly disavowed; I think the church does now allow for evolution somewhat; no longer do they make claims one way or the other). When archeology proved many of the claims of the BoM to be incorrect, we doubled down on the accuracy of the BoM and demanded strict obedience to the church, while the CoC took the BoM and bible to be mostly allegorical (the Tower of Babel, Adam and Eve, Noahic flood, exodus from Egypt, and the BoM correllaries of steel, wheat, barley, pigs, horses, cows, wheels, etc). When LDS people have an issue with certain truth claim they are said to be 'struggling with his/her testimony'; the church doesn't even give language to the idea that the 'struggling' person may in fact be correct in his/her unbelief.

The CoC seems to be a natural progression of the church from pre-Nauvoo times. They don't have many of the same temple beliefs, but they also skipped polygamy, denying full fellowship to black menbers, the Danites and the Whittling Elders, essentially lifting the Masonic signs and tokens and rituals, and teaching of the Adam-God Doctrine and Joseph Smith = the Holy Ghost for the better part of 40 years. They also missed out on all the fun of Mountain Meadows Massacre and the other similar wagon party massacre that gets forgotten. They are not stained with many of our uglier historical events.

Bottom line : the CoC shares our earlier heritage and speaks the same language, as it were, and is distinctly 'Mormon', just not LDS. These similarities are the reason I would prefer my kids join the Community of Christ than simply inactive. The term 'Inactive Mormon' just sounds so wishy washy, which is perhaps the reason the church defines people as such.

'Happy, well-adjusted, gregarious, agnostic humanitarian' might be an attractive poll option. Did anybody who voted 'inactive' have this definition in mind?

We got the name and kept it. Better to be with the winners.

[BYUMizzou]

As a parent I'd prefer that my children be inactive rather than having their names removed for a couple of reasons. Primarily because having your name removed nullifies any ordinance work for them and puts them in a position as if they had never been baptized. Because we can make progress towards exaltation both here and in the spirit world, but it becomes more difficult in the spirit world, I would prefer that they not be in a position where they rejected outright the gospel.

[jay santos]

Because we can make progress towards exaltation both here and in the spirit world, but it becomes more difficult in the spirit world,

Source?

[Goatnapper'96]

As a parent I'd prefer that my children be inactive rather than having their names removed for a couple of reasons. Primarily because having your name removed nullifies any ordinance work for them and puts them in a position as if they had never been baptized. Because we can make progress towards exaltation both here and in the spirit world, but it becomes more difficult in the spirit world, I would prefer that they not be in a position where they rejected outright the gospel.

I am not sure we really understand the nullification of ordinances and whatnot. I am a believer, so I see the need for an organized Church to promulgate the doctrine and perform ordinances, but the older I get the more I just chuckle whenever the conversation leads to bureacratic interpretations of what constitutes ordinances or when one has been removed from the organized Church and thus had their mortal ordinances removed. The beauty of our belief system is that Christ is the perfect judge. He alone is qualified to do such so I am pretty convinced those who need rebaptizing will get it and those who don't won't. However, since the Church is an organization it must have its limits of when one has chosen to remove, or be removed, from the records. I am just not convinced that Christ's interpretation is always going to be congruent with the record keeping. When they set apart my BIL to be the secretary in the Young Mens Presidency they talked about record keeping so that people can be judged and lucky I was not there that sunday. I know he and I would have had to make eye contact during the prayer and likely one of our kids would have caught us. Sometimes people forgets that God has the whole omniscience thing going for Him which is in words of Carl Spackler "is nischshshssh!"

[Goatnapper'96]

Source?

I am with Jay. I cannot agree with this. I think my spirituality will be through the roof if I could but live in a world devoid of physical secondary mammory glands!

[jay santos]

I am with Jay. I cannot agree with this. I think my spirituality will be through the roof if I could but live in a world devoid of physical secondary mammory glands!

A lot of us here were taught the gospel in the 70's and 80's. Life was simple back then. If you had a question on anything doctrinally, you could look it up and McConkie or Joseph Fielding Smith or someone else would have answer for you. Everything was black and white.

Now, conference talks by apostles are becoming more and more generic. They're gutting official church publications like "Gospel Principles". GBH says on theosis "we're not sure and we don't talk about it much". Emphasis is on the basics.

20 years ago, if someone in Gospel Doctrine gives the Randy Bott style racist view of the priesthood ban and you argue against it, you'd be ripped apart as a liberal wussy. Now Randy Bott is being publicly censured.

Apostles are not giving doctrinal talks. They're giving talks on how we shouldn't assume anything is doctrine.

This black and white view that BYUMIZZOU shows here is a relic of the past. The truth is we don't know much about these matters. Keep your eyes on the brethren. They don't support this kind of speculation.

[Northwestcoug]

As a parent I'd prefer that my children be inactive rather than having their names removed for a couple of reasons. Primarily because having your name removed nullifies any ordinance work for them and puts them in a position as if they had never been baptized. Because we can make progress towards exaltation both here and in the spirit world, but it becomes more difficult in the spirit world, I would prefer that they not be in a position where they rejected outright the gospel.

I understand this sentiment, simply because that is what is taught by the church. But for the life of me I cannot fathom how writing a letter to SLC and getting your name removed from the records nullifies a supposed saving and eternal ordinance. Or how a petty action in this world would have such dire consequences in the next.

[Indy Coug]

I understand this sentiment, simply because that is what is taught by the church. But for the life of me I cannot fathom how writing a letter to SLC and getting your name removed from the records nullifies a supposed saving and eternal ordinance. Or how a petty action in this world would have such dire consequences in the next.

Why do you think it is a petty action? Saving ordinances are not one sided agreements.

[SoonerCoug]

Why do you think it is a petty action? Saving ordinances are not one sided agreements.

What do saving ordinances save a person from? Help me out on this one.

[Northwestcoug]

Why do you think it is a petty action? Saving ordinances are not one sided agreements.

Why would an eternal ordinance be completely subject to human whims and frailties? If a decision to quit the church is based on a rash judgement, shouldn't the God part of the covenant cover human mistakes, and represent more than 50% of the covenant? His side supposedly is based on eons of understanding, I'm running on complicated emotions down here.

Sorry, I can't square a loving God with the church's beauracracy of dealing with the disaffected.

[creekster]

Why would an eternal ordinance be completely subject to human whims and frailties? If a decision to quit the church is based on a rash judgement, shouldn't the God part of the covenant cover human mistakes, and represent more than 50% of the covenant? His side supposedly is based on eons of understanding, I'm running on complicated emotions down here.

Sorry, I can't square a loving God with the church's beauracracy of dealing with the disaffected.

If this is your concern I would think that dealing with the uninformed would be much more of a barrier than the consciously unattached.

[wally]

What do saving ordinances save a person from? Help me out on this one.

Um, I don't know maybe ... SATAN!

Can't believe you are even asking this question. My 5 YO knows the answer to this one.

[Northwestcoug]

If this is your concern I would think that dealing with the uninformed would be much more of a barrier than the consciously unattached.

That's a major issue as well..