NOM

There were a few meeting minutes from Utah area meetings leaked today, https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?t ... 27.2C_2017. In the June 10, 2016 meeting minutes document in paragraph 2 of the announcements the church website JustServe.org is mentioned. I looked through the website and it my initial response is that it is pretty great, it organizes lots of service opportunities in one easy to navigate website, searchable by zip code. And the service opportunities look like legit, not church-self-serving, service. I assume they don't include service opportunities for things the church stands against, but it's a pretty good effort.

In the paragraph there is a comment that struck me though, it says

50% of people in the United States are familiar with the Church. JustServe provides an opportunity to show the world what we believe in.

Can the church stop worrying about what the world thinks of it? Couldn't they say "JustServe provides an opportunity to practice what we believe in"? Just be good and stop worrying about if you are leading people in or out of the church.

The focus on missionary work makes you worse people, not better. Worse neighbors, worse friends, worse family, worse individuals. Just stop.

Linked wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:41 pm There were a few meeting minutes from Utah area meetings leaked today, https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?t ... 27.2C_2017. In the June 10, 2016 meeting minutes document in paragraph 2 of the announcements the church website JustServe.org is mentioned. I looked through the website and it my initial response is that it is pretty great, it organizes lots of service opportunities in one easy to navigate website, searchable by zip code. And the service opportunities look like legit, not church-self-serving, service. I assume they don't include service opportunities for things the church stands against, but it's a pretty good effort.

In the paragraph there is a comment that struck me though, it says

50% of people in the United States are familiar with the Church. JustServe provides an opportunity to show the world what we believe in.

Can the church stop worrying about what the world thinks of it? Couldn't they say "JustServe provides an opportunity to practice what we believe in"? Just be good and stop worrying about if you are leading people in or out of the church.

The focus on missionary work makes you worse people, not better. Worse neighbors, worse friends, worse family, worse individuals. Just stop.

Well at least they are transparent. Ha ha FFS.

My stake is busting their butt trying to get the community to use this. But the community uses FB community pages which are free, easy, dont require another app, and don't get you on a church mailing list (?) that you can never get off of.

I quickly read through the notes. Two comments:

The church is so focused on missionary work and growth through converts that they fail to see why it isn't working.

1. On one hand they have to convert the missionaries for future church stability.

2. On the other hand they have to convert outsiders and get them to stay.

The more they convert the missionary, the weirder the missionary gets. The weirder the missionary gets, the less likely outsiders will convert.

The missionaries today are programmed robots that don't know how to think or act or speak to anyone without sounding like they've been raised in a cult for 18 years.

If members notice and think this, than what do non-members notice and think?

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:16 pm If members notice and think this, than what do non-members notice and think?

It's almost the same problem at every temple open house where LDS orthodox expectations do not match reality. At a temple open house the church assumes that simply seeing a beautiful building with a couple pictures of Jesus will make people want to join. But it's quite clear that questions are not really encouraged and a lot of people are put off by ostentation display of wealth. How many people are spiritually renewed learning that temples will have $17,000 area rugs? How many visitor Googled "LDS temples" and saw something from Mike Norton afterwards?

I love these leaks because it shows thier thought processes. There really isn't much of any damning information, just shows them trying and failing to stay relevant .

They keep looking to hierarchy to make a decision and the top is looking down in vain for answers

Leaked Minutes wrote:A disciplinary council is mandatory for a member who is in apostasy.
How do we help a stake president who is reluctant to step up and handle the situation?
...
The member might ask for their name to be removed. Elder Christensen to get policy statement on this to Area Seventy.

The Church's definition of apostasy:

CHI wrote:A]postasy refers to members who:

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
Are in a same-gender marriage.
Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

People like me probably aren't usually considered to be in apostasy, because participating here or in the minor level I do on social media doesn't really arise to the level of public opposition. The clear notable indications of apostasy are, joining another church or group, particularly involving polygamy, or getting married to someone of the same sex. Kind of odd, but we've noted that the Discrimination Policy doesn't really make sense.

But according to the leaked minutes, some stake presidents don't really want to follow through and do their duty to ex apostates. Some of them have to be coerced into it. This lends support to something I've long said, Most church leaders really don't want to hold disciplinary councils, at least if they don't think that will hold any power over the individual. It's too much bother, especially for an SP, who has to convene a full council. And most of them really would like to minister and not attack. I think a lot of them are really aware of how little such actions really benefit. They like to hold out hope of a return, a repentance. And if it is a high profile individual, Runnells, Palmer, Kelly, Dehlin, etc., most of them don't want to bother with the attention that comes their way. It's really not necessarily a local issue, as church headquarters claims, because sometimes the SP has to be coerced or pressured into it.

They're not really sure what to do if someone asks for their name to be removed. They have to get Christensen to give them a policy statement. They're on pretty shaky ground if they do anything other than accept it and terminate the proceedings. That's not that hard to figure out.

Leaked Minutes wrote:A stake president with a brother who has transgender desires wants to dress as a woman in church, sit by his wife and go to Relief Society. Counsel to the brother should be given not to disrupt the church or its members. They come to church dressed and acting like who God made them.

So much wishful thinking and attempted denials of reality there. The basic assumption or indeed demand, given at the end, is just wrong. The Church wants to dictate who god made them, but they are simply wrong. Let's take the simpler case of intersex individuals. We can assume that if god made them, he made them intersex. Depending upon the exact condition they make not be either one sex or the other. Many of them, though, to fit into society have presented as one of the two primary genders. In many cases, they have been assigned a particular gender after birth, commonly by misguided doctors playing at god. However, as they have matured they have discovered that the doctors made an error. In the case of transgender individuals it typically didn't involve a doctor's changes, but the issue still exists that the way they look or the way they have been raised doesn't match who they are, who god made them.

The "brother" isn't a brother, she's a woman.

She doesn't have "transgender desires". She is transgender. Many transgender individuals desire to not have to deal with all the issues but that doesn't match with who god made them.

Women commonly like to dress like women. Though another typical complaint by church leaders is that women want to dress like men. Some of them even want to wear pants to church.

It's quite unclear how wearing a dress to church disrupts the church or its members. It's not the woman who is causing the disruption, it's the church, its' leaders, and the other members who instigate the disruption. If church leaders had a degree of understanding and maturity, they would move the reduce the disruption, all on their own.

Leaked Minutes wrote:Missionary's comment that "Our generation doesn't know how to repent."

I'm not really sure than anyone really does. I'm not sure that the older generations know it any better. The church tries to specify some steps and procedures, some requirements, but it's not clear that they actually work.

It's hard to tell just what the missionary meant, or the church leader by sharing it. Perhaps what it's really about is that the younger generation doesn't have patience for church leaders demanding they repent and how.