NOM

Wishful thinking or a real possibility? I guess I keep seeing retrenchment (Oaks) so I'm doubtful.

http://www.sltrib.com/pb/opinion/commen ... -evolution

Mormonism has evolved in my lifetime.

We weren't Christian, now we are
Blacks were cursed, now they're not
Interracial marriage was overtly discouraged now it's lessened or gone.
Young earth has become we don't know
No death before the fall is evolving now, related to garden of Eden was on Earth and now came to earth during the fall, also an evolving belief
Plan of salvation is now the plan of happiness
We no longer become God's but become like him and live with him--the idea of individual planets we would be gods over
Who are the Lamanites is changing
The pogp seems to be in deprecation mode. It is almost never referenced in lesson material or talks. To a lesser degree also the inspired Bible translation seems to be slipping out of favor. I suspect the popularity of Ehrman contributes to this and shows the Bible's problems aren't what Joseph said they were.
Book of Mormon changes for racial acceptance and Christian emphasis.

Oaks and the latest additions to the apostles seem to a regressive movement starting up as the above changes didn't yeildl the growth and expected acceptance.

I think it's obvious the church has taken a beating over the last 8-10 years and it has required every bit of that beating in order to get leaderships' attention.

Their repentance has been slow in coming, not terribly heartfelt, and they are still failing to come completely clean. The dodgy essays are proof of that.

They are only making the effort because they are being forced to by a whipping that they have difficulty understanding. They have eyes but they do not see. Ears but they cannot hear.

They can look at and find fault with the Catholic church for example, even though it has made efforts to improve but they cannot see that they are two peas in the same pod. It's the classic pot calling the kettle black. The beam in their eye keeps them from seeing their own faults.

The LDS faith will continue to fail until someone with true courage has enough spine to stand up in conference and admit that Joseph wasn't a prophet, the BoM and the rest are pseudo-scripure and the best thing we can do at this point is return to Biblical scripture to get as close to Christian living as possible.

That may take some time and the damage to families will continue during the interim.

To any of the COB who might be listening in here....Wouldn't it be better to just get this over with and start the healing right away?

Women weren't equal. They still aren't.

Battered women were sent home to their husbands and told to do a better job obeying. They still are. There might be a brief side trip to a shelter, but I have heard of bishops tracking down women in hiding to take them home.

Give It Time wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:15 pm Women weren't equal. They still aren't.

Battered women were sent home to their husbands and told to do a better job obeying. They still are. There might be a brief side trip to a shelter, but I have heard of bishops tracking down women in hiding to take them home.

WOW!

This is a BIG one for sick culture. Sad...very sad, even tragic.

Anon70 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:17 pm Wishful thinking or a real possibility? I guess I keep seeing retrenchment (Oaks) so I'm doubtful.

http://www.sltrib.com/pb/opinion/commen ... -evolution

I like what John Ogden is saying in this article. But I am skeptical of the timeline. Let's suppose that some good and useful changes are actually coming. How long should the undercover apostates stick around waiting for the culture to improve for them? I am certain that Richard Bushman and Tyrell Givens would urge patience with the institutional church. That promised advantage of continued faithfulness ignores the opportunity cost that I am losing every weekend.

The article mentions Martin Luther's famed 95 theses at the University of Wittenberg, Germany. The Catholic church began their formal response four years later at the unintentionally hilariously named "Diet of Worms" in 1521 (Seriously, this is one German event that does not translate well into English). The edicts from this papal council certainly did not stop the violent religious strife in the Münster Rebellion in 1535.

What I am trying to get at is that changes to the LDS church are probably a long way off and will be gradual. These early hints are probably not going to improve my weekly church-going experience. I have a religious armistice with my dear wife and I do attend. But the weekly silliness on display is not going to create a new and growing generation of Mormons, or even Christians.

I'm of the opinion that the old guard has to slowly die off BEFORE changes will happen. With BKP gone, I was thinking there may be a breath of fresh-air coming; however, I have been sorely disappointing with men like David Bednar. Elder Uchdorf seems more open minded--or so it appears from some of his talks, but he is older than Bednar physically,...but senior. That part I like.

What about Eyring? His seniority is up there?

Oh crap...I just looked. Elder Oaks is #3....you have Mondon, Nelson, Oaks.

Never mind. We are in for a rough go.

The church has taken the path of increasing black and white thinking since it's inception. Ultimately they will have to come face-to-face with Hinkley's Razor: truth or fraud. When we talk about the church coming clean we're really talking about admitting to fraud. The church we know demands too much literalism to make a smooth transition out of fundamentalism. If it did come clean about all of the things that make it unique why would there be any reason to stick around and keep paying 10 percent of your income?

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:08 pm Ultimately they will have to come face-to-face with Hinkley's Razor: truth or fraud.

Love that!

Yeah, change in the next 100 years is certain. But I am not willing to wait around until my 50's-70's to see a change in a church when I could go out and acquire that change in my life for myself.

We do know that change is inevitable in all systems, but perhaps with the help of some clever engineers at the Robbie Bosco Applied Science Division at BYU, a time loop can be installed at Church Headquarters.

Like President Trump said, "There is good and bad to be assigned to both sides in this Godzilla vs Tokyo situation".

The only change I see is a more conservative/staunch church. Those with new ideas and a more pragmatic approach to doctrine or a monotarian church are leaving or will leave.

When leadership does decide to move in a different direction. Those who are left won't want it, and will push back- that tug-of-war will go on for a long time. Ultimately, things might sound more nuanced in the future, but the general body won't be.

I agree that we have seen retrenchment the last several years, but the reason for it is the Brethren sense they are losing the battle. Elder Oaks' Conference attack on gay rights was a desperate move by a desperate man who senses that members are less willing to believe something just because he says it.

The Church will evolve. It always does. Sure, we are probably going to go through a period of retrenchment in the short run, the next decade or two, but a homophobic religion that treats women like second class members cannot thrive in the 21st century. The Church today is a 19th century relic that is less and less appealing to its own members, never mind the rest of the world. It has no defense for its homophobia or treatment of women other than the authority claims of its leaders, which are less and less convincing as the years roll on, and wholly unpersuasive to the rest of the world.

The Church will tighten its grip until enough members slip through its fingers, then it will do what it has to do to survive. It always does.

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:50 pm But I am not willing to wait around until my 50's-70's to see a change in a church when I could go out and acquire that change in my life for myself.

Hey, how do you think us guys feel who are already in our mid 60s? We've spent the last 50 years trying to help establish the church and "do the right thing".

Well, no more time and no more money for the apostate semi-cult. And no more patience. The con is up. What little time is left is going to be used as decided by me and God. No phony intermediaries needed.

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:45 pm

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:50 pm But I am not willing to wait around until my 50's-70's to see a change in a church when I could go out and acquire that change in my life for myself.

Hey, how do you think us guys feel who are already in our mid 60s? We've spent the last 50 years trying to help establish the church and "do the right thing".

Well, no more time and no more money for the apostate semi-cult. And no more patience. The con is up. What little time is left is going to be used as decided by me and God. No phony intermediaries needed.

This really is it. No more time. No more patience. I've shown my faith. I've shown my trust. It's their turn to deliver.

In this article, Jon Ogden certainly has the history and the data correct. People's interest and commitment to religion seem to be changing significantly according to the all the data we've got. The Church's reported numbers have notably dropped. Surveys show a significant increase in those who are unaffiliated with any religion.

Ogden kind of skates over the time involved, though. He writes, "Just like that, religion evolved." Looking back on history it might seem like that, but at the time, "just like that" would have made no sense whatsoever. The full impact of the Reformation took a long time. In some significant ways, it's still continuing today.

I think we are at a time of significant change and things may happen relatively quickly, at least more quickly than it took for the Reformation. But, still we're talking years. The internet has been around for some years now and the Church still hasn't undergone dramatic change. The Church's growth numbers have been dropping for a while.

One thing Ogden avoids predicting is the nature of that revolution. My guess is that the Church is going to get more retrenched, more conservative, more strict and separatist before it becomes more open and welcoming. The Church has already been doing that for a while. It always kind of tracks behind society. But, it has also become more strict in a number of ways over the past few decades. Given the current leadership, it would be a big surprise to see it do much differently. Eventually I think it will open up a bit, be more egalitarian, more welcoming. Maybe within 10 years if things happen quickly, otherwise more like 20 years. Possibly longer.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:41 am One thing Ogden avoids predicting is the nature of that revolution. My guess is that the Church is going to get more retrenched, more conservative, more strict and separatist before it becomes more open and welcoming. The Church has already been doing that for a while. It always kind of tracks behind society. But, it has also become more strict in a number of ways over the past few decades. Given the current leadership, it would be a big surprise to see it do much differently. Eventually I think it will open up a bit, be more egalitarian, more welcoming. Maybe within 10 years if things happen quickly, otherwise more like 20 years. Possibly longer.

It could be a situation where only Nixon could go to China, but I'm banking that nothing significant happens until after Bednar is gone (20 to 25 years), and a bit after that because he will probably appoint a successor that carries his ideology into the 2050's. Stevenson or Renlund might be able to briefly succeed him, but they don't really stand out as change agents.

Honestly, it really depends on who gets picked next, and it's probably Oaks and Nelson who have the most say over that. For better or for worse, the fundamentalists have a firm lock on power for a very long time.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:02 am It could be a situation where only Nixon could go to China, but I'm banking that nothing significant happens until after Bednar is gone (20 to 25 years), and a bit after that because he will probably appoint a successor that carries his ideology into the 2050's. Stevenson or Renlund might be able to briefly succeed him, but they don't really stand out as change agents.

It would take a very special kind of testimony to stick around knowing that the LDS church was not going to improve towards your point of view for at least 30 - 35 years. Tyrell Givens has stated that he sees this kind of commitment as a real consecration of the life of an LDS member who knows the church needs to change and is willing to endure that kind of emotional persecution in the interim. You would need a powerful testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon that transcends the thin pablum normally provided in Sunday School. Plus there is the opportunity cost of what you would miss in those decades of LDS life, not to mention a fortune in tithing paid to the church, and not your 401K.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:02 am It could be a situation where only Nixon could go to China, but I'm banking that nothing significant happens until after Bednar is gone (20 to 25 years), and a bit after that because he will probably appoint a successor that carries his ideology into the 2050's. Stevenson or Renlund might be able to briefly succeed him, but they don't really stand out as change agents.

Honestly, it really depends on who gets picked next, and it's probably Oaks and Nelson who have the most say over that. For better or for worse, the fundamentalists have a firm lock on power for a very long time.

That's one way of analyzing it, but I think it doesn't include some important factors. Even Bednar is susceptible to changing, under the right conditions. It's hard to predict the time frame, but there is more to it than just who the Church leaders are and how they behave today.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:02 am

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:02 am It could be a situation where only Nixon could go to China, but I'm banking that nothing significant happens until after Bednar is gone (20 to 25 years), and a bit after that because he will probably appoint a successor that carries his ideology into the 2050's. Stevenson or Renlund might be able to briefly succeed him, but they don't really stand out as change agents.

It would take a very special kind of testimony to stick around knowing that the LDS church was not going to improve towards your point of view for at least 30 - 35 years. Tyrell Givens has stated that he sees this kind of commitment as a real consecration of the life of an LDS member who knows the church needs to change and is willing to endure that kind of emotional persecution in the interim. You would need a powerful testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon that transcends the thin pablum normally provided in Sunday School. Plus there is the opportunity cost of what you would miss in those decades of LDS life, not to mention a fortune in tithing paid to the church, and not your 401K.

Amen

Jeffret wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:41 am

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:02 am It could be a situation where only Nixon could go to China, but I'm banking that nothing significant happens until after Bednar is gone (20 to 25 years), and a bit after that because he will probably appoint a successor that carries his ideology into the 2050's. Stevenson or Renlund might be able to briefly succeed him, but they don't really stand out as change agents.

Honestly, it really depends on who gets picked next, and it's probably Oaks and Nelson who have the most say over that. For better or for worse, the fundamentalists have a firm lock on power for a very long time.

That's one way of analyzing it, but I think it doesn't include some important factors. Even Bednar is susceptible to changing, under the right conditions. It's hard to predict the time frame, but there is more to it than just who the Church leaders are and how they behave today.

That's true. We don't know how Bednar would react under pressure with the church on the line. Ask Woodruff 20 years before the manifesto and he'd likely claim the abandonment of polygamy a high heresy.