How relevant

[Raylan Givens]

Mormorrisay's post about Oak's ideas about the importance of religion in society got me thinking about a conversation I had with my DW.

She and I discussed just how little the Church really influences anything. We really could not think of anything that the Church has directly led the change on. I also speculated this is why President Monson or past leaders dont make grand statements like the Pope on social/moral issues (I do know the Church makes press releases, but it is different). If president Monson were to make a grand statement, would anybody really listen or care outside the Church? Where do you see the Church's influence, how far does it extend? Do you feel like the Church is smaller and smaller, or weaker and weaker as you step back from adherence/attendance?

[oliver_denom]

Mormorrisay's post about Oak's ideas about the importance of religion in society got me thinking about a conversation I had with my DW.

She and I discussed just how little the Church really influences anything. We really could not think of anything that the Church has directly led the change on. I also speculated this is why President Monson or past leaders dont make grand statements like the Pope on social/moral issues (I do know the Church makes press releases, but it is different). If president Monson were to make a grand statement, would anybody really listen or care outside the Church? Where do you see the Church's influence, how far does it extend? Do you feel like the Church is smaller and smaller, or weaker and weaker as you step back from adherence/attendance?

There are two areas where the church making a statement could make a huge difference to millions of people.

1) Make a firm stand on the humane treatment of immigrants and their families. The church has a lot of influence in the south west where this kind of statement could make a big difference.

2) Make a firm stand on accepting LGBTQ family members.

They would probably be open to number one because it's in their interest considering that Latin America is an area of growth, but they're too weak-kneed to do it. The second one they won't do because they still harbor very backwards views of sexuality. They released a watered down statement a couple of years back about not turning kids out into the streets, but then follow that up with the November policy and conference addresses telling people to not fully accept gay family members or their partners.

They could make a difference here, but they lack courage, morals, and basic human decency to act. Instead, they'll wait fifty years until the controversy has passed, and then massage the history to make it look like they were on the right side.

[Korihor]

Anecdotally, the church has very little influence. People know about the church for some of its abnormal rules and traditions, but have no clue about its position (or lack thereof) on various matters.

People have no clue of the church's 3 fold mission statement. They don't know how any of works or why, just that some people with lots of religious zeal have some bizarre habits and they're generally nice folks.

[deacon blues]

Mormorrisay's post about Oak's ideas about the importance of religion in society got me thinking about a conversation I had with my DW.

She and I discussed just how little the Church really influences anything. We really could not think of anything that the Church has directly led the change on. I also speculated this is why President Monson or past leaders dont make grand statements like the Pope on social/moral issues (I do know the Church makes press releases, but it is different). If president Monson were to make a grand statement, would anybody really listen or care outside the Church? Where do you see the Church's influence, how far does it extend? Do you feel like the Church is smaller and smaller, or weaker and weaker as you step back from adherence/attendance?

There are two areas where the church making a statement could make a huge difference to millions of people.

1) Make a firm stand on the humane treatment of immigrants and their families. The church has a lot of influence in the south west where this kind of statement could make a big difference.

2) Make a firm stand on accepting LGBTQ family members.

They would probably be open to number one because it's in their interest considering that Latin America is an area of growth, but they're too weak-kneed to do it. The second one they won't do because they still harbor very backwards views of sexuality. They released a watered down statement a couple of years back about not turning kids out into the streets, but then follow that up with the November policy and conference addresses telling people to not fully accept gay family members or their partners.

They could make a difference here, but they lack courage, morals, and basic human decency to act. Instead, they'll wait fifty years until the controversy has passed, and then massage the history to make it look like they were on the right side.

Great point. I would add that they could help those struggling with "faith in the church issues" if they were to continue to more honestly assess and present their own history. It would impact fewer people, but in the long run it is the high road, and would presumably be more productive.

[Corsair]

If president Monson were to make a grand statement, would anybody really listen or care outside the Church? Where do you see the Church's influence, how far does it extend? Do you feel like the Church is smaller and smaller, or weaker and weaker as you step back from adherence/attendance?

Do you think there currently exists a religious organization or leader that does remain relevant? Pope Francis has been pretty transformative due to his fairly progressive statements. I think such a religious leader would need to venture into the political arena somewhat. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Theresa are common examples that I think would be acknowledged by fans and critics alike. Billy Graham and some of the better known Christian evangelists might fit in that category. Being a public and conspicuous moral voice is going to attract virulent enemies as well as excited followers, but that is the model we have always had in religious history.

I can certainly think of some bad examples like Fred Phelps or Warren Jeffs. Are there any good examples today of religious leaders that remain relevant? It's almost embarrassing that there is such a contrast with LDS leaders. These are prophets for the whole world but nobody outside Mormonism could name them or care about them even if they knew the name of Thomas Monson.

[Raylan Givens]

I think you are right about creating enemies by what you say too. It doesn't matter what is said, no one will be pleased.

I just see the Church becoming less and less relevant to me as I step away. It is natural I think, I am now starting to see what everyone else does of the Church- which is, not much.

[Brent]

The church isn't relevant because it relies on it's member to be relevant...which gives the COB "plausible deniability" and the ability to squish around and not take a stand... or to adjust with the wind.