Soccer Mom's thread grabbed my attention.

[il Padrino Ute]

No sarcasm intended: Is there ever a reason someone should stop coming to church, aside from the felonious reasons?

Perhaps JL is saying that there is no reason for others that one particular individual should stop coming to church.

[Non Sequitur]

What a fascinating thread. When I left the Church behind, I spent a lot of time trying to replace the sense of community I had found within the Church. Joined the Elks and the Eagles. Joined the Men's association at the local course. Started hanging out at bars. And on and on.

We grow up in the Church and focus on the religion. But it's not the religion that keeps us coming back. It's the community. The Church has done a wonderful job of institutionalizing that sense of community, which is why so many people go through the motions of the religion. It's the price of keeping a seat at the table.

My particular problem with the Church was that I could never get past the dogmatic assertion that the Church was "the only true Church". That God had earmarked it as His Church. That other Churches were well intentioned, though ultimately misguided.

As I read this thread, I wonder if there will ever be a shift in this dogmatism within the Church. If we will become more like the various non-denominational Churches that are all the rage now -- communities of worshipers supporting each other but making no special claims to exclusivity of truth and authority. Is such a shift within the Church even remotely possible?

[Indy Coug]

What a fascinating thread. When I left the Church behind, I spent a lot of time trying to replace the sense of community I had found within the Church. Joined the Elks and the Eagles. Joined the Men's association at the local course. Started hanging out at bars. And on and on.

We grow up in the Church and focus on the religion. But it's not the religion that keeps us coming back. It's the community. The Church has done a wonderful job of institutionalizing that sense of community, which is why so many people go through the motions of the religion. It's the price of keeping a seat at the table.

My particular problem with the Church was that I could never get past the dogmatic assertion that the Church was "the only true Church". That God had earmarked it as His Church. That other Churches were well intentioned, though ultimately misguided.

As I read this thread, I wonder if there will ever be a shift in this dogmatism within the Church. If we will become more like the various non-denominational Churches that are all the rage now -- communities of worshipers supporting each other but making no special claims to exclusivity of truth and authority. Is such a shift within the Church even remotely possible?

Well, if you could get past the very question that led to the genesis of the restored church ("which church is true?") and the answer Joseph Smith received, maybe you might be onto something.

Of course, if you think Joseph Smith fabricated the entire event....

The sense of community that comes from being in the church is not much of a draw for me (my wife feels differently).

[JohnnyLingo]

No sarcasm intended: Is there ever a reason someone should stop coming to church, aside from the felonious reasons?

No?

Forever. They can't take a half hour a week out of their busy schedule. They are full of themselves besides. What makes them think the guy even wants to see them.

You'd be surprised as how busy missionaries can be. There were times when I literally could not fit another appointment into the day. When you're at that point, you have to stop visiting people who aren't moving.

And if this guy doesn't want them visiting, then everyone wins!

They should look within. The guy isn't progressing because of something they are doing wrong. I would have loved to have been there and pulled that one on them.

Ouch. I hope you're just trying to make a point here. It's hard to tell with you, sometimes.

By the way, they are young men sacrificing and I respect them for that. Hopefully they are also learning.

Hopefully.

[byu71]

What a fascinating thread. When I left the Church behind, I spent a lot of time trying to replace the sense of community I had found within the Church. Joined the Elks and the Eagles. Joined the Men's association at the local course. Started hanging out at bars. And on and on.

We grow up in the Church and focus on the religion. But it's not the religion that keeps us coming back. It's the community. The Church has done a wonderful job of institutionalizing that sense of community, which is why so many people go through the motions of the religion. It's the price of keeping a seat at the table.

My particular problem with the Church was that I could never get past the dogmatic assertion that the Church was "the only true Church". That God had earmarked it as His Church. That other Churches were well intentioned, though ultimately misguided.

As I read this thread, I wonder if there will ever be a shift in this dogmatism within the Church. If we will become more like the various non-denominational Churches that are all the rage now -- communities of worshipers supporting each other but making no special claims to exclusivity of truth and authority. Is such a shift within the Church even remotely possible?

I doubt you will ever see that happen. Those who rise to the top are either "true" believers or love the authority. Either way, it doesn't promote change. Also, without the one true church belief, many of the rules that are followed would have to be loosened up. For instance, the honor code and it's enforcement at BYU could only be done with the mantra of one truth behind it.

[scottie]

Well, if you could get past the very question that led to the genesis of the restored church ("which church is true?"), maybe you might be onto something.

I'm sure Non Sequitur never considered that.

[JohnnyLingo]

For instance, the honor code and it's enforcement at BYU could only be done with the mantra of one truth behind it.

Odd, somehow other universities manage to have honor codes without such a mantra behind them.

[byu71]

No?




Ouch. I hope you're just trying to make a point here. It's hard to tell with you, sometimes.



Hopefully.

Actually I am so dam busy that I only have time to post when I am making a point.

However, I will concede I don't always do a good job of it so I am not offended or feel attacked by you not knowing.

[Indy Coug]

I'm sure Non Sequitur never considered that.

OK, then I'll be less tactful. Personally I think it's patently stupid to suggest the church undercut its whole raison d'etre just to help a few more people have a sense of community.

[byu71]

Odd, somehow other universities manage to have honor codes without such a mantra behind them.

Really, could you give me such a University. Remember, this one encourages ratting out fellow students and you are guilty until proven innocent.

I look forward to your answer as I don't know for sure whether you are right or wrong.

Muslim Universities in Arab Kingdoms do not count.

[Tex]

Good post. It reminds me of a guy who used to be in our ward. His wife was a member, he was not, but he was fantastic. He came to church every week (skipped SS and Priesthood, but that isn't uncommon), came to all the ward activities, served on the ward activities committee, and even paid tithing on his income, which is, in my mind, incredible. I will say that all the members of the ward were great. They accepted him completely as he was, and there were no problems.

The missionaries, on the other hand, were sometimes more difficult. He loved having the missionaries over, and most of them behaved well, but there were a couple of problems. One time, an Elder asked him "Is drinking beer more important to you than being with your family forever?" He was seriously ticked off with that one. I was the WML at the time, and got after the Elder for what he did. The Elder came back and said something along the lines of "This guy isn't progressing, he either needs to commit to move forward or we'll have to drop him." I basically told them to go ahead and drop him then. He was gaining value from coming to church; the rest of us were gaining value from him coming to church. I don't see how anyone benefits from basically telling him "you are 100% with us, or we want no part of you."

If I may ... coming to church and being taught by missionaries are two different things. Church meetings are an open door for anyone to come, regardless of where they are along the spectrum of faith.

Missionaries, on the other hand, best spend their time with those who are actively seeking the truth. Someone who is not in that category is best left for the ward to assist and fellowship, a task to which they are better suited than missionaries anyway.

Your Elder voiced this in a fairly inartful way, but given that he's barely an adult, I'm willing to give him a bit of a pass.

OK, then I'll be less tactful. Personally I think it's patently stupid to suggest the church undercut its whole raison d'etre just to help a few more people have a sense of community.

Heh.

[RobinFinderson]

Well Portland, this is the typical arc of a thread here on CUF. Your lovely initial post eventually becomes something else. Sometimes it can be pretty entertaining. I hope you stick around and participate lots.

[Clark Addison]

If I may ... coming to church and being taught by missionaries are two different things. Church meetings are an open door for anyone to come, regardless of where they are along the spectrum of faith.

Missionaries, on the other hand, best spend their time with those who are actively seeking the truth. Someone who is not in that category is best left for the ward to assist and fellowship, a task to which they are better suited than missionaries anyway.

Your Elder voiced this in a fairly inartful way, but given that he's barely an adult, I'm willing to give him a bit of a pass.

I don't disagree with you. When I was a missionary, we stopped seeing plenty of people. What sometimes happens with the missionaries, though, is they see the entire situation from the point of view. If the person is not going to get baptized in the next two months when they are around, then what does it matter what happens? Whether they just drop the investigator, or the investigator stops coming completely is no different to them. I know they don't really feel this way, but because of their short-term relationships, they sometimes (not often) act this way. Burning bridges is not as big a deal to missionaries as it is to others.

[Non Sequitur]

OK, then I'll be less tactful. Personally I think it's patently stupid to suggest the church undercut its whole raison d'etre just to help a few more people have a sense of community.

I never suggested the Church should do anything. I merely speculated on how the attitudes of Church members might possibly shift as the Church evolves. Why are you so defensive? Do you deny that the Church will continue to evolve?

[LA Ute]

This is a terrific thread. I agree with Nikuman about the big tent. Many of the issues I see in the earlier posts strike me as members behaving as if they are pretty unclear on the concept of being disciples of Christ. We all struggle with the implementation, but, we can at least do a decent job of understanding and buying the concept. To me, getting that right is what the Church is all about.

What I try (try!) to do is be part of the solution, not part of the problem. I remember once years ago when an elderly sister who was struggling with the onset of dementia was bearing her testimony, and she was going on and on. It started to get uncomfortable. I happened to be conducting the meeting but I was very young and inexperienced and did not know what to do. I found myself getting irritated and frustrated. Suddenly, our bishop stood up and put his arm around the woman, pulled her close, and whispered in her ear. She started to look embarrassed - mortified, really, as she realized what she had been doing. But he just squeezed her tighter and said, "Sister X, you can talk all day as far as I am concerned. I love hearing you. But we're going to let you finish now. Be sure to bear your testimony again next month." Then he gave her a peck on the cheek right there at the pulpit. She closed and went back to her seat. I don't think there was a dry eye in the place, and I am sure all those who felt irritated (like me) felt both chastened and instructed.

That's a bit of a meander, I know, but I learned more in that 30-second episode about how we should treat others whom we see as not measuring up than I had learned in the previous 30-plus years of my life. I wish we could bottle that approach and distribute it around the Church for use when needed.

I hope this makes sense, just a memory that sprang to mind.