The CES Letter

[CardiacCoug]

Right this overly literal approach to religion is a losing proposition.

We need a big tent that allows for different approaches.

The thing that just kills me is hearing somebody in his 20s or 30s say "I go to Church and I don't believe any of it."

I can't help but think that even as an agnostic probably 80% of what I hear sounds pretty good to me: be a good husband and father, be service-minded and generous, get to know a group of people better so you can help them when needed, avoid promiscuity and addictions, work hard and strive for perfection.

The Church needs to focus on Christian living and de-emphasize a literal believe in abstract theological tenets and de-emphasize hero worship of past and present figures in Mormonism and I think it would keep a lot more smart young people in the fold.

[Brian]

The Church needs to focus on Christian living and de-emphasize a literal believe in abstract theological tenets and de-emphasize hero worship of past and present figures in Mormonism and I think it would keep a lot more smart young people in the fold.

Amen. Mason and others are preaching this, but time will tell if those that matter will buy.
Bednar seems fit as a fiddle.

Someone find a fountain of youth for Dieter.

[taekwondave]

Right this overly literal approach to religion is a losing proposition.

We need a big tent that allows for different approaches.

The thing that just kills me is hearing somebody in his 20s or 30s say "I go to Church and I don't believe any of it."

I can't help but think that even as an agnostic probably 80% of what I hear sounds pretty good to me: be a good husband and father, be service-minded and generous, get to know a group of people better so you can help them when needed, avoid promiscuity and addictions, work hard and strive for perfection.

The Church needs to focus on Christian living and de-emphasize a literal believe in abstract theological tenets and de-emphasize hero worship of past and present figures in Mormonism and I think it would keep a lot more smart young people in the fold.

[jay santos]

Amen. Mason and others are preaching this, but time will tell if those that matter will buy.
Bednar seems fit as a fiddle.

Someone find a fountain of youth for Dieter.

Here's another voice preaching it. Grant Hardy. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/gra...e-apologetics/

[Eddie]

...this is a reference to what I think is the rather remote possibility of a process similar to what happened in the Southern Baptist Convention in the early 1990s, when theological fundamentalists took over the churches, seminaries, and governing bodies of the denomination and either pushed out liberals and moderates or made their lives in the church so miserable that they left on their own, thus leaving only the fundamentalists to control the whole denomination....

Wait...is he talking about the LDS church or the GOP?

...We have already lost too many who feel, incorrectly in my estimation, that the church is simply a shill for the Republican Party and Family Research Council....

I guess this means he's talking about the church. Maybe both?

[Moliere]

His second fear isn't a fear, it is a reality and has already happened.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

I don't necessarily agree. The church is certainly fundamentalist in many aspects, but I don't think the fundamentalists have taken over the church. There will always be tension between the fundamentalists and the progmos, which is a good thing in any organization. I do wish the progmos had more say...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moliere]

Right this overly literal approach to religion is a losing proposition.

We need a big tent that allows for different approaches.

The thing that just kills me is hearing somebody in his 20s or 30s say "I go to Church and I don't believe any of it."

I can't help but think that even as an agnostic probably 80% of what I hear sounds pretty good to me: be a good husband and father, be service-minded and generous, get to know a group of people better so you can help them when needed, avoid promiscuity and addictions, work hard and strive for perfection.

The Church needs to focus on Christian living and de-emphasize a literal believe in abstract theological tenets and de-emphasize hero worship of past and present figures in Mormonism and I think it would keep a lot more smart young people in the fold.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the church is what it is because of the weird/magical beliefs that come with it. It's not a social club and it gets stuff done because people really believe in its tenets. I won't say that the church is better than the humanists or the Masons, but when there is a need for a thousand people to go muck houses after a flood there's a reason FEMA calls the church and asks for help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[byu71]

I don't necessarily disagree, but the church is what it is because of the weird/magical beliefs that come with it. It's not a social club and it gets stuff done because people really believe in its tenets. I won't say that the church is better than the humanists or the Masons, but when there is a need for a thousand people to go muck houses after a flood there's a reason FEMA calls the church and asks for help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there is as strong social club element. I am equating cultural with social. I know of people (mainly men) who take a very active role in the church. They make a lot of sacrifices. At the same time I have been told by some of them that if it wasn't for the wife and family, they wouldn't be playing an active role in the church.

[Moliere]

I think there is as strong social club element. I am equating cultural with social. I know of people (mainly men) who take a very active role in the church. They make a lot of sacrifices. At the same time I have been told by some of them that if it wasn't for the wife and family, they wouldn't be playing an active role in the church.

Yes, there is a social club element to the church, but td more than a social club.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sleeping in EQ]

Right this overly literal approach to religion is a losing proposition.

We need a big tent that allows for different approaches.

The thing that just kills me is hearing somebody in his 20s or 30s say "I go to Church and I don't believe any of it."

I can't help but think that even as an agnostic probably 80% of what I hear sounds pretty good to me: be a good husband and father, be service-minded and generous, get to know a group of people better so you can help them when needed, avoid promiscuity and addictions, work hard and strive for perfection.

The Church needs to focus on Christian living and de-emphasize a literal believe in abstract theological tenets and de-emphasize hero worship of past and present figures in Mormonism and I think it would keep a lot more smart young people in the fold.

This is what the Community of Christ has been trying to do.

[byu71]

Yes, there is a social club element to the church, but td more than a social club.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree As I thought about it, most social clubs I know about the participants really don't bust their butt for the benefit of the other members. They just show up at functions.

[DrumNFeather]

Here's another voice preaching it. Grant Hardy. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/gra...e-apologetics/

That was great. Thank you.

[jay santos]

That was great. Thank you.

taekwondave, I'd be interested to hear your take on that article.

[Brian]

That was great. Thank you.

Sure it's great, and some people are doing this, the 1% or so, if you will. The politically savvy are ok, but some of the unsavvy are getting disciplined.
Many folks here have processed this stuff and span the spectrum of church status.

But I don't get the sense that things are going to dramatically change... Minor things are addressed in GC, but it doesn't seem too close to what the 1%ers are kicking around. Dan Peterson and his merry band of assholes had their fun for a while, and were tossed as the pendulum swang. No telling how long some of the current folks pushing the discourse will remain relevant.
The primary kids still sing 'follow the prophet', and the 'one and only truth' still seems to be the major theme. The wards I've lived in (4 states in 3 different timezones) over the past couple of decades are pretty comfortable with the McConkie version of Mormonism that I was taught. With 'young' guys like Oaks and Holland in line, and 'really young' guys like Bednar right behind, I just don't see anything _really_ changing. The essays acknowledge some problems, but don't really concede any ground.

Maybe when the 30 year olds of today are running the show. Or maybe the teenagers of today.
I've heard comments from Jon Hamer re: the CoC change of emphasis, and it was very painful to the church. Cynical I know, but I think there are too many MBAs in the red seats to silently let that happen.

[taekwondave]

taekwondave, I'd be interested to hear your take on that article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA

tl;dr I like his approach and I hope he is successful at helping the church shift in that direction and overall I thought it was a very well written article, but I still think he's grasping just a little bit. The simple fact that he's advocating apologetics of any kind seems to suggest that to me.

It was beautifully written. I agree that if Mormonism is going to endure, it will have to shift. The dominant narrative will have to change. And I hope it does. Because as I kind of said in another thread, although I do not believe that God actually exists, if those who do create an organization that I consider uplifting, moral, wise, and socially responsible, I would yearn to be a part of it. One of the biggest things I put on my list in the thread titled "Question for unbelievers" is to have the church shift towards a purely (or almost purely) figurative approach to the scriptures. While I myself have already done that, and while many others, both active/inactive/believers/unbelievers have as well, I still feel the pervasive nature and the negative repercussions of those literal readings, Nephi's admonition to "liken them unto us" notwithstanding.

I think Mormons DO liken the scriptures unto themselves, but not in the way I would hope. Typically it appears to be done in this way, "Brothers and sisters, in these verses, both the Nephites and Lamanites had turned wicket 'like a dog to its vomit' what can we learn from these verses?" And then standard replies seem to be "Well this was written for us, in the last days. So I think it's really important that we, as a people, hold close to our prophets, not listen to Satan, and stay on the straight and narrow." Rather than say, "Well, I think the Book of Mormon people in this case might represent our resistance to change. And how we may from time to time get sucked back into complacency, forget the goals we've set for ourselves, and we slip back into the same habits. I know for me, sometimes all it takes is just one bad night's sleep and I can forget all my goals like that. This is a good reminder that constant vigilance against my natural tendencies is essential to being happy/successful."

Now, both of those approaches to "likening" might be getting brought up in our wards today, but I hope that eventually we will lean much more heavily on the latter approach, as I see the former being very problematic. For example, and I've actually brought this very subject up here a couple years ago I think, take the story of Adam and Eve. I love that story as an allegory and I think a gospel doctrine class could spend several weeks in a row analyzing and critiquing it and digging mountains and mountains of insight from it...if it is viewed as pure allegory. But the moment it becomes literal, historical...I think it does the opposite of what it was intended to do. Or if it wasn't actually INTENDED to do something specific, of what it is actually capable of doing for, rather than against, the human psyche. I do not think it is healthy or valuable to believe we are fallen beings in desperate need of salvation. I think it wreaks havoc on our psyches, havoc on our faith, and encourages a kind of religious codependence that I find nauseating.

I think the allegory actually teaches us that we are NOT fallen, that the belief that we are fallen, that we are guilty, that we are naked, that we should be ashamed, was the Devil's doctrine in the story. That only when Adam and Eve bought into that doctrine were they given a cheep, pointless covering and sent out into the cold hard world of their own making. That, to me, is uplifting and powerful and can work more positive wonders on the human pscyhe and I wish it was the ONLY interpretation, or at least close to it, that was touched on in church. If the church shifts to reflect that kind of approach to the scriptures it will go a very, very long way towards getting me back in the pews. No, I won't be there because I actually believe God exists and that this is his true church, but I'll be there thinking that God as a symbol can be extremely helpful, and that the scriptures can be marvelous tools for unlocking the power of that symbol in our lives.

Now, all that said, while I love this particular apologetic's take on things, it still sounds to me like he's working backwards. He sounds like he wants the church to be true and he is looking for ways to make it so, even if that means changing it completely. I don't find that approach intellectually honest. I think true intellectual honesty is fearless, is simply interested in what really is true, and doesn't try to tweak the data in one direction or another. I think what he says about Bushman being a better apologist than Nibley is certainly true, but apologetics it seems is by definition, intellectually dishonest. Trying to get a square peg to fit in a round hole rather than just admitting that they're different shapes.