We hear a lot of talk in progressive Mormon circles about how the current church leaders in Salt Lake City seem behind the times, that they grew up in a different era. Our method of selecting new Apostles almost guarantees that any new apostle will conserve the status quo, as they are selected by the Church President, and he will select somebody who thinks like he does.
I see a lot of parallels in the impact of selecting a Supreme Court Justice here in the USA, and how they will influence laws for decades, with how Apostles are selected, and how they will influence the church for decades. Take for example this paragraph from a recent CNN article
Almost always, the Supreme Court is a lagging indicator of the relative standing between the two parties. Because justices serve for many years, it is not unusual for the court’s composition to bear the imprint of presidents and Senate majorities that governed years, if not decades, earlier. Kennedy, for instance, was confirmed during the Ronald Reagan administration, before the youngest voters in the past three presidential elections were born.
And then, with just changing a few words you have this comparable statement about the Q15
Almost always, the Q15 is a lagging indicator of the opinion of the members. Because Apostles serve for life, it is not unusual for the Q15 composition to bear the imprint of presidents that served years, if not decades, earlier. Nelson, for instance, was sustained during the Spencer Kimball administration, before some of the parents of the current crop of YM/YW were born.
So, will the future bring new blood in the Q15? Will a new generation of Apostles bring a more accommodating posture for LGBT and female members?
I don’t see that happening. While sitting in my new giant Elders Quorum, I can see several very orthodox young guys that are ready to take up the mantel when Elder Bednar is gone. What has changed is that there is not as many of these future orthodox GA types in the ward. So the selection process for future GAs will be more selective.
The church won’t be able to be as selective for local leaders, and some heterodox bishops and Stake Presidents will sneak into the mix (yours truly as an example). And maybe even some MP and Area Authorities. From them, one or two 70’s will slip in. But they will be fully vetted before they are selected as an Apostle.
Now, maybe the progressives will try to slip a “sleeper agent” into the mix. This would be a man that is not orthodox, but plays the part of a TBM for years and maybe decades, just waiting for the call to the Q15, where he could then do his bidding. That would make a great novel! A Manchurian Candidate!
Or maybe there will be a “coming to Jesus” moment for one of the current Q15, when they have a gay grandchild, and it comes to them that God wants this gay grandchild to have full [1] membership in the church. But, that will only be one of 15, and he (no “she” yet) will just have to be quiet until he is first in line.
So what do you think? Is it a good thing that the Q15 are a “lagging indicator” with current trends? Do you see any chance that the next generation of General Authorities will be any less conservative? Will real change happen within our lifetime?
[1] “Full” implies all blessing and ordnances.
I’m glad you can see so many good and orthodox young men in your elders quorum. That’s wonderful! Having men and women in the Church who are trustworthy and reliable, faithful and strong, is a protection against those who would subvert or infiltrate. We need stalwart shepherds to protect us from wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Ji’s predicatable comment might serve as exhibit ‘A’ of the dilemma as I see it. Ji assumes that someone who is not ‘orthodox’ is not “trustworthy and reliable, faithful and strong’ and ‘would subvert or infiltrate.’ This is, of course, utter hogwash. Still, though it reveals the main concern: church culture leads him and many like him to judge not by the heart, but the appearance. Ironic, of course, because that idea would be the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Sadly, that is the large part of contemporary non-american church culture.
*North-American culture
Those in yw/ym who are more progressive (aka not trustworthy and reliable, faithful and strong, if you go with ji’s definition) tend to feel the church’s conservative approach to life and God as untenable (or boring, at least when it comes to Sunday services) and leave the church. Those that stay past 25 tend to want a more conservative approach to life to begin with and are thus more in line with what the brethern seek in leadership. I don’t see this make-up changing leadership dynamics. I do see outside pressures and the slow, creeping drought in missionary work as having an effect though.
On the other hand, P.Nelson is working hard at changing things up and trying to breath life into the body of the church and he’s 93. I didn’t expect that at all.
One massive difference between the US Supreme Court and the Q15: the presence of women.
ji: had I not been familiar with your commenting history here, I would have thought your comment to be satire. Surely you don’t think those kinds of thoughts about your fellow, less orthodox ward members as you greet them and welcome them to the ward.
I think the founding fathers set up the government so that real substantive change would be a slow and difficult process. Personally, I think that’s a good thing in government and the church. Not because I’m against change, but because when real dramatic change is too easy, it eventually leads to out of control swings that result from constantly changing desires, goals, and opinions between generations and sometimes within the same generation of people.
“This would be a man that is not orthodox, but plays the part of a TBM for years and maybe decades, just waiting for the call to the Q15, where he could then do his bidding.”
Three interpretations:
1. God is not leading the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in which case this scenario is entirely possible.
2. God *is* leading the Church, but just as Jesus chose Judas to betray him, God may allow this sort of thing for non-obvious purposes.
3. God is leading the Church and sneaking in such a hidden agenda cannot happen.
Should it happen that LDS suddenly are Anglicans, well, I don’t attend Anglican churches and I don’t need to attend this one should it start to drag its anchor.
It’s been widely posted that Elder Gong’s son is openly gay. I have no independent knowledge of that assertion so I can’t confirm or deny its veracity, but, if true, perhaps that could be a catalyst for change?
My thinking can be used in reverse; when trying to decide IF a particular church is “God led”, look for its direction — does it follow the whims of its congregations or does it follow God, who presumably does not change willy-nilly and thus neither should his church (but that’s a presumption).
Wow! The voting is 7-29 on my first comment.
Maybe I should re-think it, in light of the pushback.
I’m sad you can see so many orthodox young men in your elders quorum. That’s dreadful! With those kind of men in the Church, and similarly-minded women, it will be a long time before we are finally able to topple the present belief system and re-shape the church in the manner imagined by the original posting.
Perhaps this will be better received?
Not a cougar – I have heard the same of Elder Gong, but remember Elder Christopherson already has a very famous gay brother. That is fairly close.
ji suggests “re-shape the church in the manner imagined by the original posting.”
Why wait? Start a church of your own in exactly the flavor you imagine! It has been done many times; sometimes with great success if mere numbers of followers are the measure of success. With thousands to choose from, perhaps one already exists more to your liking. After all, that’s how I came to choose the one I am in (I wasn’t born into it).
Michael 2, you are reading ji out of context. He is being facetious with that comment. Also, he is misrepresenting the ideas in the OP–thereby shortening the rope he has strung for himself.
Brian “Michael 2, you are reading ji out of context. He is being facetious with that comment.”
Probably; but my comment speaks to all who wish to reform any church. Reforming a church is difficult simply because of inertia which in turn arises from people that like it just the way it is, which in each case was all of the original members.
The Book of Mormon has spawned many Mormon religions, most of them rather small; examples being the Strangites of Wisconsin or Art Bulla’s tiny group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bulla.
Too many people (IMO) see church as a government; just as expectation are that “government” should feed the hungry and clothe the naked, this same expectation exists of churches. But in both cases these names are an abstraction; feeding someone or clothing someone requires a provider of material and services; and this provider is neither government nor church, but other people. Jesus Christ advocated that each man or woman that wants to be called by his name take it upon themselves to do charity and not expect it of government or church, or require it of other people. What matters in my salvation is what I do, not what anyone else does or does not.
I ought to add to my previous comment; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also embraces “order”, that is to say, organization and efficiency. Private charity is great for your next door neighbor but sometimes a much larger response is needed and at those times the church behaves like a government, organization charity and delivering such as to victims of an earthquake. But even there, it must be a personal choice to participate in the organized effort.
@bodensmate: I agree that there is some value in “conservatism” (or “inertia”, if you prefer) in a church’s doctrines and practices. The problem that I see in some of this inertia is the common theme (among progressives) of discussing and debating how much of our doctrine and practice is based on “revealed truth” and how much is “the traditions of our fathers.” We can see this, for example, in the priesthood and temple ban. We have a hard time pointing to a revelation that institutes the ban, but Pres. McKay and Pres. Kimball and their associates clearly felt that a clear revelation was needed to lift the ban. How much of the ban was based on revealed truth, and how much grew out of the racism common to 19th century America? How much of its persistence was rooted in those traditions? I don’t know, but if we are going to value conservatism or inertia, then I think there will always be things that we wrestle with whether or not something is revealed truth or simple inertia.
Surely the question is not whether conservatives or progressives should win, but what God wants? Is God a racist or were the leaders just not asking whether the priesthood ban was what God wanted?
So does God want us to discriminate against women and gays or not? The leadership are conservatives. Does this mean that we will stay with their prejudices until they become untennable. They might then ask what God wants. This is what happened with racism.
The problem with this conservative approach, is that in much of the first world being a homophobe or sexist, is fast becoming as acceptable as being racist. This also applies to young members.
If you are conservative, is this the future you accept. At present we have about 30% activity with 5 million active. The activitity rate among millenials is more like 20% which would mean less than 4 million active members of the church.
We used to talk about filling the whole earth with the gospel. That has been derailed by conservatism, I believe. Should Prophets be conservatives or finding out what God wants?
“So what do you think? Is it a good thing that the Q15 are a “lagging indicator” with current trends? Do you see any chance that the next generation of General Authorities will be any less conservative? Will real change happen within our lifetime?”
It is sad that it took the church 14 yrs after the passage of the Civil Rights Act to do away with the Priesthood Ban (apparently a policy declared doctrine by subsequent leaders).
I’ve said this before,
Overall I’m not optimistic that things will change significantly, or ever, in my lifetime. Those remaining in the church will feel buoyed up knowing/believing they are the stalwart—the few that clung to the iron rod until the end.
Geoff-Aus writes: “Surely the question is not whether conservatives or progressives should win, but what God wants?”
[and don’t call me Shirley!]
God cannot want anything. The moment an omnipotent God wants something, he has it, poof; just like that. Unless there is something he considers good and desirable that can only be had the hard way. He’s got what he wants; but do you have what you want? He cannot just give you eternal happiness. Eternal existence I suppose he can give you, but eternal happiness requires you to walk through sorrow so that you know the difference. Your happiness is something you create for yourself, guided by some principles so that you are not left entirely to luck and accident about how to find happiness (or, more likely, create happiness; it isn’t “out there” waiting to be found).
Eternal life and happiness isn’t something that is cookie-cutter the same for everyone. D&C 88 talks about it at some length. It reveals that God wishes everyone to be happy; but what would make one person happy may well make another person unhappy. Consequently in this life we (each person) seeks happiness and creates our own futures in the next life; for some it will be to live with God, but many would really not be happy with that. But God wants them to be happy, too, and allows them to create their own futures, their own heavens, to enjoy eternal life as much as they are willing to RIGHT NOW.
That is to say, people angry all the time in this life will probably be the same in the next life, because we don’t change; the scripture says we take our spirits with us to the next life; why would it be any other way?
“Is God a racist or were the leaders just not asking whether the priesthood ban was what God wanted?”
Fallacy of the False Alternatives. Many choices exist. As has already been discussed here, leaders asked regularly what God wanted and seem not to have gotten answers until the time was right. What made the time right? Your guess is almost as good as mine, but it seems to be a combination of factors that came together in the 1970’s that did not previously exist. In my own life, I had many occasions to hear the words of God to my mind about many things, but not about finding a spouse. Until the time was right and suddenly there she was. God knows the time and reasons; only those humans that need to know and ask will know. Alma 12:9
9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. 10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. 11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.
No answer I give speaks for God. If you want to know whether God is racist, you ask HIM. If you want answers about the governing of this church, you ask HIM. He’s the boss. If the prophets of God are heeding their God, they will obey and God’s will, not yours, or mine, or even that of the prophets, will be done; but God’s will is to be done.
If it turns out God is not leading this church, well then do with it what you will because it doesn’t matter. In that case you would be better spending your time trying to find God’s church rather than pick one at random and try to make it in your image.
“does God want us to discriminate against women and gays or not?”
There is no “us” and we are to discriminate very carefully; choosing good and avoiding evil. Among other things, good is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. If you have those virtues then your eternal happiness is practically guaranteed and we would not be having this conversation because in your contriteness you would not be counseling the prophets of God, you might, however, plead with God directly if you felt it important that a policy that hasn’t changed in thousands of years suddenly should change, and maybe it will.
“The leadership are conservatives.”
That is their present duty. Joseph Smith was somewhat radical, not by temperament but as compared to his peers, the world he lives in.
How many times has the Ten Commandments been revised over the past three thousand years or so? Zero, I think. When Jesus came he “fulfilled” some of those laws; but murder and a list of other sins is still a sin. What has been layered on top of that is some “DO” to augment the “DONT” list.
“Does this mean that we will stay with their prejudices until they become untennable.”
There is no WE. You can stay, or not, as you please.
“They might then ask what God wants.”
They might. But what God wants, eternal happiness for everyone, seems not to be a possibility, not even for God. It is because of human agency that God himself is limited in this one regard. It is human agency that creates problems, but also their solutions.
“The problem with this conservative approach, is that in much of the first world being a homophobe or sexist, is fast becoming as acceptable as being racist.”
There is no “fast becoming” with God. What was right and wrong a billion years ago is still right and wrong. SOME policy and procedure may well be situational ethics and thus subject to change as the world changes.
“If you are conservative, is this the future you accept.”
It is. I have chosen my church. Have you?
“At present we have about 30% activity with 5 million active.”
Let it go down to the six it started with rather than change what God has (presumably) appointed.
“We used to talk about filling the whole earth with the gospel.”
That has been accomplished. Perhaps you thought it meant everyone would be a Mormon. What is to be accomplished is the gospel preached to all nations; not that very many would accept this gospel.
“Should Prophets be conservatives or finding out what God wants?”
They already know what God wants and are conserving as best they can. In the unlikely event that God suddenly wants something new and different, they will implement it, perhaps with a bit of grumbling.
My children will not tolerate homophobia and I hope, if I’ve raised them right, they won’t tolerate sexism. They can see that “Love the sinner; hate the sinner” is a smack in the face to “the sinner”. They have gay friends who just want to love and be loved. They have women friends who want to be both career women and mothers.
I don’t know whether or not the church will change, but I do know that if it doesn’t there is a zero percent chance of my children all staying members of the church.
My God, Michael 2, you do appear to love to talk to yourself. Also, it seems like you might want your own blog. Something to consider? Finally, speaking of ‘wanting,’ you totally contradict yourself in your beginning and ending salvo on how things work in relation to God wanting things. Between those points, there’s also not much there, mostly abstract fluff that doesn’t practically work.
Thanks, Brian. This would be a good time for you to contribute your thoughts on these things; particularly whether you thing God leads this church and if so in what degree (dictates every iota, suggests or inspires general direction, not at all; God? Wazzat?)
Brian writes “you totally contradict yourself in your beginning and ending salvo on how things work in relation to God wanting things.”
Indeed I do. What are your thoughts? Can God *want* a thing? William Briggs has been translating and publishing some writings of Thomas Aquinas if I remember right and that is where I picked up the sense that God cannot “want” a thing for more than a few nanoseconds anyway before he has it. As a result, everything that happens must be happening because God wants it that way.
But Mormons suppose that God wants many things and simply wanting it is not sufficient to bring it into existence. How is that possible?
The God of Aquinas creates some logical dilemmas; such as why did he create evil? Mormons have understanding (to varying degree) that some things are co-eternal; good and evil, and God didn’t create “evil” per se, nor even that thing inside you that makes you different from me. In such manner everything you do is your choice and was not put there by God or his enemy. THAT is the thing he can want, the thing that requires persuasion and your own choice to embrace it.
Came here to say what @Bodensmate did. Quick change is fine for hairstyles and hemlines. But when it comes to the interpretation of a nation’s laws (as is the job of the SCOTUS) or divining the Lord’s will for his church (as is the job of the Q15), I suspect that slow change and adaptation is the better path in the long run. It likely results in fewer TOTAL missteps.
@MrShorty, I think your point is that the church’s inertia sometimes makes it slow to change policies that are actually just rooted in the “traditions of our fathers” and aren’t “revealed truth.” Is that accurate? I suspect it is indeed accurate w.r.t. the church’s policy on race. In hindsight, that policy doesn’t appear to be based on revelation and the church seemed very slow to notice it as such. But we can’t cherry-pick. Race is a convenient example because the needle of public opinion has continued to move as far as it has in the forty years since the church’s Declaration. But hindsight is 20/20. There are a number of other social beliefs and public opinions on which I’m actually quite grateful the church has remained slow to change. How to tell, without the benefit of hindsight, which public opinions are accurately highlighting the mere “traditions of our fathers” vs. those that are “tossing us to and fro and carrying us about by wind of doctrine?” I suspect this is best achieved by a Q15 with lots of patience and experience but which is also brave enough to ultimately act on truth even when it breaks the inertia.
Michael 2,
“Fallacy of the False Alternatives. Many choices exist. As has already been discussed here, leaders asked regularly what God wanted and seem not to have gotten answers until the time was right.” Michael 2, what if they didn’t get answers because they weren’t asking with full intent and purpose. What if their ability to receive God’s will was clouded by the fact they were men who grew up where denying things to black people was just how society worked and so it just kind of made sense and they didn’t see the wrong in what they were doing?? Maybe they weren’t racists themselves, but what if racism was so engrained in our culture that they couldn’t see the priesthood ban for what it really was?
“…good is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. If you have those virtues then your eternal happiness is practically guaranteed…” On this, we agree. However, the church leaders seem not to understand this because a homosexual individual is just as likely to have a broken heart and a contrite spirit as a heterosexual individual, yet the church continues to deny so-called saving ordinances (as if the institution of the church gets to decide who is saved and who is not) to homosexual individuals.
Troy: “what if they didn’t get answers because they weren’t asking with full intent and purpose. What if their ability to receive God’s will was clouded by the fact they were men who grew up where denying things to black people was just how society worked and so it just kind of made sense and they didn’t see the wrong in what they were doing?”
Bingo.
Because the truth is, it was not that way in the beginning.
“Toward the end of his life, Church founder Joseph Smith openly opposed slavery. There has never been a Churchwide policy of segregated congregations.
During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.”
So why did it take so long to change the policy?
Not all of the 15 held the same opinion on this matter. The policy was changed only when all 15 agreed.
The fact is, relying on personal inspiration for decision-making can result in different answers for different people. Who was right?
Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? Where is the revelation written which imposed the Priesthood ban?
Generally, I think that slower progress is helpful to avoid hemorrhaging members. The slowness that would come with age & wisdom would be sufficient. The slowness that comes with conservative politics, preserving the privileges of the patriarchy, and lack of diversity (politically, racially, geographically, and gender diversity) is much too slow. What God wants is moot when those seeking to understand His will all come from such similar backgrounds and worldviews. Every once in a while we get a refreshing new perspective like E. Uchtdorf or E. Gong. That’s not the norm, and the standard deviation remains tight.
Troy Cline writes “what if they didn’t get answers because they weren’t asking with full intent and purpose.”
Short version: If you are not contravening an existing policy, then do it. Initiative is good (most of the time). Doctrine and Covenants 58:27
Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.
If you ARE contravening an existing policy, your next steps depend on who is the author of that policy. You would properly seek a variance from that author and that’s still my opinion all the way to the top. If God himself, then he can grant your variance immediately if it does not impose on others and does not abrogate duties he has delegated to his church.
An example of that is whether to lie to foreign governments; as for instance, you are employed as a spy for the CIA. You are almost certainly going to have to misrepresent yourself frequently; it is an expediency. This is where you would ask God directly for counsel and justification. I doubt I could do it, but someone has to (Moses had spies).
In my experience, answers come when the time is right. The time being right includes when the people are ready. If the people are not ready then the time is not right. The principle is “milk before meat”. 1 Corinthians 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
“What if their ability to receive God’s will was clouded by the fact they were men who grew up where denying things to black people was just how society worked and so it just kind of made sense and they didn’t see the wrong in what they were doing?”
A ship captain should wait out a fog if he has no radar and proceed with extreme caution even with radar.
“Maybe they weren’t racists themselves, but what if racism was so engrained in our culture that they couldn’t see the priesthood ban for what it really was?”
What is it “really” and does it make a difference? I mean, suppose for a moment it was entirely human prejudice, what would you have done as an apostle? What would be the outcome? We have a similar situational ethic with the Manifesto ending polygamy. If the choice is to have a perfect church with nobody in it (except you and me), versus a growing church that isn’t quite what God eventually has in store, well the answer seems obvious to me. You go with what works; it is a situational ethic, but you’d better be right. Ask God first.
Luke 16:9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
Doctrine and Covenants 82:22
And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.
“However, the church leaders seem not to understand this because a homosexual individual is just as likely to have a broken heart and a contrite spirit as a heterosexual individual”
Then all the blessings that flow directly from a broken heart and a contrite spirit will be bestowed on such persons. D&C 130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
“yet the church continues to deny so-called saving ordinances (as if the institution of the church gets to decide who is saved and who is not) to homosexual individuals.”
Partly agree. Only God decides who is “saved”; the church decides who is baptized, endowed and so on under its auspices.
About 2,000 years ago everyone was saved by the atonement of Jesus Christ. Whether you remain saved, or are found saved on the last day is up to God.
A fickle bishop can DELAY those ordinances, maybe even in this lifetime, even for people that a different bishop would find worthy. It happens. I see people with temple recommends that in my opinion are not worthy of them; I set myself a very high bar (and don’t reach it). No human can deny blessings that God bestows but the same thinking is that no human is entitled to alter what God appointed.
I have just now noticed an interesting pattern in the upvoting and downvoting of comments. Downvoted comments support the church, upvoted comments do not. It will be interesting to see how long it takes Wheat and Tares to purify itself entirely of dissenting opinions, which here, is me.
There are other possibilities, Michael 2. To quote yourself, “Fallacy of the False Alternatives. Many choices exist.”
@Pagan: Certainly the slowness of change is part of what I am talking about. Another aspect is simply the discernment part — how do we know what policies are rooted in tradition and which ones are rooted in revelation? As you say, it is much easier in hindsight. The real challenge is looking forward — looking at current policies and teachings and trying to root out which are tradition and which are revelation.
Another aspect of this is that does this inertia mean that the Church is never at the forefront of correcting societies ills? Progressives are known to wish that the Church would be out front helping to fix society’s problems rather than appearing to be behind the curve. Is there value in accepting that the Church will likely be behind the curve when society makes steps forward so as to limit expectations? Or do we think there is no more improvement to be made?
In contrast to today, it is interesting that God chose a 14 yr old in 1820 to establish His church.
I’m in awe of Michael 2 and all of his Godly knowledge. I cannot believe you are still with and haven’t been transfigured in the blink of an eye. You could have used far less words and a kinder approach to get your point across.
“Is dissent a good thing or a bad thing? How much of it should be tolerated? How does the presence or absence of dissenting opinions in group decisionmaking affect the quality of the resulting decisions? ”
This quote is from a recent post on Wheat & Tares. I’m not quite sure how I feel about the voting process on comments. I almost think that should be done away with. It seems kind of like a way to keep certain people from commenting (unless they just don’t care about being down voted).
Total side track here… But do people actually pay attention to the thumbs up & down? They always seem more as me showing agreement/disagreement with the comment posted. So lots of down votes means, “I don’t think that way”.
Bodensmate said “I’m not quite sure how I feel about the voting process on comments”
I have had mixed feelings about the dislikes on comments as well, but generally I am okay with them. I am a little surprised sometimes at the result. For example, Ji’s first comment here: although I disagree with it, I thought the reaction was disproportionate. On a related topic, I also have spoken against the annual Tare award for “Worst Commenter”. But that award continues.
I try (but sometimes forget) to adapt the Reddiquette voting guidance in my likes and dislikes: “If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.” ( https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette/ ) It doesn’t totally apply here, and people are under no obligation to follow it at all. I try to downvote only comments that disrupt conversation, perhaps because they are rude, off topic, or condescending. Sometimes I forget and downvote for other reasons.
@Michael2, I didn’t downvote you because of your opinion. I downvotes you because you wrote a novel in the comments section
*downvoted
Lois writes “it is interesting that God chose a 14 yr old in 1820 to establish His church.”
That was my age (14) when I learned about and joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My kinfolk are mostly Lutheran but my father is/was Lutheran flavored atheist.
ReTx writes “But do people actually pay attention to the thumbs up & down?”
Now that I see it I find it interesting. Each person imbues their vote with meaning. In other words, what motivates you to vote at all, and in what direction, speaks about the voter more than the thing voted upon.
I once wrote an essay on what would happen in a henhouse if a chicken chose not to peck other chickens. I theorized that the chicken that does not peck would initially be judged at the bottom of the pecking order, but if her demeanor was not submissive, it would confuse and threaten the hierarchy and she would be either ejected or ignored (if ejecting wasn’t possible).
I have asked here WHO decides what is to be done and by whom; knowing in advance that there is no “who”. It evolves! It is a pecking order. and the voting allows quickly discovering alpha and omega. The omega in this case is Ji with 49 downvotes. Brian is the Alpha with 47 upvotes and imagines himself the gatekeeper. You are the “Beta”, the counselor, often the real, but hidden, power in a hierarchy; uses intelligence to achieve goals but lacks power to move the herd. You only need move the alpha and he will move the herd!
Patrolling around the edges is one or more sheepdogs (metaphor from “American Sniper”). They guard the flock; not only from wolves outside, but from wolves wearing sheep’s clothing and hiding in the herd.
MrShorty writes “does this inertia mean that the Church is never at the forefront of correcting societies ills?”
The church has three missions; none of which include correcting societies ills (or even defining them). I believe that if people perfect themselves society will become perfected naturally without imposition of force.
I believe a substantial portion of the gospel of Jesus Christ is similarly oriented to perfecting each person himself or herself; I am to remove the beam from my eye before I can justify trying to remove the mote from yours.
JR in AR writes “I cannot believe you are still with and haven’t been transfigured in the blink of an eye.”
This is the place to be, the fringe. Orson Scott Card wrote a marvelous little story called “Folk of the Fringe”. Not the safe interior where nothing disturbs tranquility; but also not the dark and dreary world. The fringe! God wants us to be hot or cold, not lukewarm; here we can be hot one day and cold the next; try them both, choose; be, do, have.
This is a total tangent,re: Michael2’s comment, “the church has 3 missions…” (so my comment might be down-voted) but actually, the church has 4 missions, or purposes (announced in December 2009, I believe.) In case Michael 2 is wondering which mission he missed, they are (1)perfect the saints, (2)proclaim the gospel, (3)redeem the dead, and (4)care for the poor and needy. An email from the ward elders quorum (do all EQ groups now send these out to women? Just curious) sent just last week describing how they’ve organized 3 committees, according to the 3-fold mission of the church, gave me pause. Unsurprisingly, the purpose they seem unaware of is the the “new” one, caring for the poor and needy.
Michael 2 –
Well that’s an interesting way to look at it. Animal behavioralism happens to be a hobby of mine and where you are describing ‘pecking order’ is a simplistic understanding that doesn’t exist in the real world. My personal herd’s ‘pecking order’ is shaped like a triangle and that is pretty typical. Animals have individual relationships with every other animal in the herd. It isn’t a group thing.
“I have asked here WHO decides what is to be done and by whom; knowing in advance that there is no “who”. It evolves! It is a pecking order. and the voting allows quickly discovering alpha and omega. The omega in this case is Ji with 49 downvotes. Brian is the Alpha with 47 upvotes and imagines himself the gatekeeper. You are the “Beta”, the counselor, often the real, but hidden, power in a hierarchy; uses intelligence to achieve goals but lacks power to move the herd. You only need move the alpha and he will move the herd! ”
The problem is that there are only a handful of people who post comments regularly enough to actually be kept track of. I’ve been hanging around here for years and have no idea who Brian is (err… Sorry Brian if you have also been hanging around here for years.) Now I do recognize ji as s/he has a regular habit of saying offensive things about people who see the world the way that I do (petty of me, possible).
I’d argue the ‘gatekeeping’ has nothing to do with the poster and everything to do with the content of the post. You could say that Brian’s comments are gatekeeping comments. People agreed with / liked them. They made it clear ji had crossed a line in attacking (admittedly in a passive-agressive way) people like me and my teenagers. But again, Brian didn’t gatekeep against ji. His comments did. Personally, I find that difference a hugely powerful thing.
As for me being a ‘Beta’, I hadn’t really noticed that I have a different approach. I’m not really sure I do. I see my having a different manner of expressing myself (if I even do) as saying more about my personality than my power within the group. If nothing else, I rather imagine it’s the same as with the gatekeeping. It’s not about me. It’s about the ideas.
Michael 2 –
You might think of picking up a copy of The Elephant in the Brain by Simler/Hanson. It’s a deeply uncomfortable book as it gets deep into the processes of our brains and how/why we lie to ourselves about our actions/motives. I’m working my way (painfully) through it, and based on your areas of interest in the comments, thought you might like it as well.
It took the Church leadership until 1978 to start changing its black discrimination policies. And it still hasn’t finished the job.
Half the Church membership doesn’t believe in evolution despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
The Church now discriminates against the LGBTQ+ community with little or no theological underpinnings.
Slow, gradual change isn’t working. The ongoing changes are mostly superficial.
This is perhaps a bit off topic, but Michael 2 you state the following:
“I believe that if people perfect themselves…”
Perhaps you are not intending that as it sounds, but it is a phrase that I have heard frequently in the church. And it rubs me the wrong way because it dismisses Christ. Again, I’m not accusing you specifically of dismissing Christ, but when I hear that phrase I can see why certain Christians are hesitant to count us among their number. A complete reading of Paul (especially Romans and Galatians) should put to rest any notion that perfecting ourselves is something that can be achieved. Michael2’s comment reflects the works-based salvation (to the peril of grace, the only true saving power) that Mormonism is so fond of preaching. It seems to me that there might be a connection between self-perfection/works-based salvation and the challenge that the church has in dealing with sensitive issues/being open to change and new ways of thinking about the world.
(I neglected to comment on the OP in my prior comment, so by my own reasoning it should be downvoted for being off topic.)
I would like to see the church become more progressive, but that would require radical change in how leadership is chosen and treated.
There have been suggestions of a graceful retirement and emeritus status for apostles, but I don’t think that would be enough to change the leadership to a more progressive flavor. The church expects it’s leaders to fit a certain mold, so the new ones always look like the old ones.
Now if there are no more surprises in store for the church, than it will do just fine maintaining the status quo. But if the church needs to make a major adjustment (like it did when it moved from Nauvoo to Utah, ended polygamy, instituted correlation, or ended the temple/priesthood ban), then the leadership structure as it is now will probably be slow recognize and implement it. (Yes Michael 2, I’m assuming that God allows them enough leeway to mess up and do some damage, of which I think there is ample evidence).
The one year age change for missionaries was about as small a change as one could make to the missionary program, yet it was perceived as a dramatic change because nothing else in the church seems to change. The hometeaching program got tweaked and renamed and Elder Holland joked about not being able to keep up. He’s probably right: most members still don’t realize there is a fourth mission of the church.
(Actually, I’ve been wondering if the fourth mission was silently retired… I haven’t heard anything official about it since maybe 2010.)
ReTx writes: “It’s not about me. It’s about the ideas.”
That is what makes you (and me) different. Doubtless you have noticed that actually discussing an idea can be swamped by other forces.
I agree with your comments about animal behavior; that is, they might not be aware of “herd” as an abstraction. They relate to the animals nearest them. However, the network of power, influence and communications ends up forming a herd (or heirarchy).
It is the case of the solitary individual that doesn’t relate to the animals nearest him (me, in other words) and his/my place with, or without, those animals. It is a strength and a weakness. I have explored at length why it is that people pile on, gang up, attack such persons just as ants attack a grasshopper that inadvertently lands on their ant hill.
We see it with politicians. We have George Orwell to thank for giving it flesh, so to speak.
“That is what makes you (and me) different.”
I can’t agree with that. Partially because the moment one sees oneself as superior, one is usually wrong. Partially because while I agree ‘other forces’ are involved, those ‘other forces’ are biologically inherent to every single person. Pretending one is above/beyond those forces is self-denial. Which (interestingly enough) goes back to the book I recommended above.
If you want to throw out proof of something using animal behavior to me, you are going to have to cite your sources. It is such a new, unfolding scientific field that unless you also have been studying animal behaviorism for years, I’m just not going to give your arguments any credence. People tend to think they understand herd behavior (or their own family dog’s behavior), but they almost never do. What you wrote above demonstrates that. As does your writing on chickens previously. And while George Orwell was a genius, he was writing a metaphor, one based on the understanding of his time. Understanding has changed. Our metaphors have to as well if we want them to reflect reality. (No criticism of GO though. He really was a genius.)
From my perspective (and I have been around for quite a long time) there is a great malaise in the LDS Church right now; and from my view it’s quite deep and far reaching. Many, many people just “going through the motions” with great fatigue. I think it’s like watching a once great “animal” slowly, in a rather agonizing way, die; from the inside out. The vigor, excitement (and dare I say, FUN) has all been squeezed out. It’s like people are yoked to an endless treadmill. I honestly don’t see this changing to the positive. You can only “re-brand” yourself so many times.
Malaise: A general sense of being unwell, often accompanied by fatigue, diffuse pain or lack of interest in any activities.
Lefthandloafer – “Malaise” is a good word for what I have sensed for several years now. Something has gone out of the church. I’m 40 years old and the church that my children are growing up in feels very different than the church I grew up in. The hymns are the same. The structure is the same. But something is just….I don’t know, not the same. Well, I could go on and on but you’ve worded it very well.
ReTx writes: “the moment one sees oneself as superior, one is usually wrong.”
I said nothing about superiority. Merely different. I suspect everyone here, to varying degree, considers his or her point of view to be right and correct, with varying openness to possibly being wrong about something.
“Pretending one is above/beyond those forces is self-denial.”
Apology for arguing but if I am pretending to a thing then I know the thing exists. Perhaps you meant “believing” one is above these things, but wished to be pejorative.
I recommend the movie “The Accountant” to explore just how different is the life of a person on whom these forces act in different ways. I wonder if everyone’s tolerance for your particular difference is as generously applied to my difference (already got answer to that).
Troy Cline observes “he church that my children are growing up in feels very different than the church I grew up in.”
Agreed. I wonder if some of it is the millenium is here, where’s Jesus? All my youth I was looking forward to Armageddon (with some fear) and the Millenium (with hope). Enemies, the Russians, were sharply defined. Now its terrorists (or Democrats or Republicans).
Troy Cline writes (apologies, topics all over the place but a good question) “when I hear that phrase I can see why certain Christians are hesitant to count us among their number.”
It is in reference to “be ye therefore perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect”
Matthew 5:48
This is a commandment. There is no commandment given that cannot be obeyed. It can be difficult or impossible to obey all of them all the time as revealed by Adam’s experience and I’ll admit this particular commandment is not easy to understand, let alone obey.
ReTx recommends “The Elephant in the Brain”
Thank you for the recommendation; I will look for it. I am reminded of my experience at the age of 7 looking at Ishihara color blindness test panels in the Life Science Library book on Evolution. I see different numbers as compared to my brother. He cannot see what I see, and he sees what I cannot.
This is true of a great many things. That is why I hesitate to call anyone “wrong” but it is clear that I see some things differently; but who is blind and who has it right is not readily decided in committee.
“but who is blind and who has it right is not readily decided in committee.”
I 100% agree. It’s why the scientific method is so important. And understanding how the human brain actually functions.
To Michael. What are the two greatest commandments under which all others fall?
To love God and to loves others — treat others as we would want to be treated. Sometimes it is hard to see how man is exhibiting love for one another.
As for the Garden of Eden—the two competing commandments given where one couldn’t be fulfilled without breaking the other one— is instructive. I think it illustrates things are not always meant to be black /white. We have to use our intellect, our hearts and souls, our experiences to make decisions.
And we will learn more as we open our minds/ hearts to the experience of others and exercise love to them.
Finally, Jesus was not just the spiritual son of Heavenly Father, he was the literal son of Heavenly Father. We are.not. If we could be perfect, Jesus’ sacrifice wouldn’t be needed.
Lois writes three wonderful things:
“To love God and to loves others — treat others as we would want to be treated.”
Agreed, but beware asking to be treated as I want to be treated. Probably not the same wants and for me it has not been easy trying to figure out what other people want. And I mean really different (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus different).
“Sometimes it is hard to see how man is exhibiting love for one another.”
It is done in different ways. For me it is “duty”. I do my duty for my family because I love them. Day in, day out, year after year. My wife doesn’t like it a bit. I ask, ” Would you prefer I NOT do my duty?” Well, no, she’s delighted I do my duty but it is almost inconsequential to her system of values and wants.
“As for the Garden of Eden…”
Exactly; I take it to mean that we will sometimes face difficult choices and that’s OKAY. Adam kept his vow to his wife over that of his obedience to one of God’s commandments. To me that is honor and duty and was the most correct choice.
“Finally, Jesus was not just the spiritual son of Heavenly Father, he was the literal son of Heavenly Father. We are.not. If we could be perfect, Jesus’ sacrifice wouldn’t be needed.”
I accept that Jesus was the only mortal that could ever become perfected entirely on his own and thus earn the right to take along anyone else.
Through that grace we become perfect given that no imperfect thing can enter the presence of God. For short times in our mortality we can be perfect and over a lifetime we learn to be perfect for longer periods of time. That is my gospel, take it for what its worth.
Troy Cline writes “something is just….not the same.”
I suggest that it’s a diminished light of Christ. When my wife and I moved into our current ward, we felt it immediately, a lack of this light; not exactly a darkness but not vibrant either. It is a tangible thing which I suspect everyone, or most everyone, can sense, but sense its absence more readily than its nearly universal presence over the past of our lifetimes. It’s like a fish and water; the fish doesn’t know “water” until he leaves it. Ah so, that was water! Ah so, that was the Light of Christ! Or in Star Wars terminology, “the force”.
Not just in zion. When I attended a singles ward in Virginia I wondered where was the Light? I felt it from nobody and was thinking something wrong with me. Well, that part is true but not relevant. One day the stake president came and I felt his spirit just fine from a distance; a bright and powerful spirit. How was it possible that nearly 200 people were there and not one radiated this glow? Well, one did; a recently baptized young black woman with one leg shorter than the other so she walked with a pronounced gimp. We became friends and had a good canoe adventure on the Shenandoah river. Most everyone else ignored her.
You might want to look at the 5 verses before Matt 5 48. You would then see that the commandment is to Love perfectly, as God does. Not obey perfectly, or perform your duties perfectly. When you put it in context, and understand that God want your perfect love to your fellow men/women. No discrimination against anyone.
So many of us are striving to acomplish the wrong task.
Geoff-Aus writes “the commandment is to Love perfectly, as God does.”
Whereupon a person inserts what he thinks that is and means and does. I have spent much of my lifetime trying to figure it out as likely so have you. It has some dark elements that suggest easy answers are probably wrong. Matt 24 and Revelation pertain as does the flood of Noah. It does seem a bit more like “tough love” than “anything goes” love.
“No discrimination against anyone.”
Well, I don’t see it that way. God chose Abraham and his descendants; that’s clearly a discrimination against everyone not descended from Abraham. All of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve were subjected to the consequences of “original sin”; is that discrimination? Straight is the way and narrow the gate… You know the rest. Discriminates against rich people, easier for camels, etc, you know that too.
None of that licenses ME to discriminate based on irrelevancies but I’d better discriminate as to right and wrong.
“So many of us are striving to accomplish the wrong task.”
Beware the parable of talents. Do *something*!
What I find liberating about the message of Christianity is that my responsibility is to love people. We’re all equally imperfect so who am I to demand this change or that change from a person so long as they are not harming others. My Christian duty is to love, with open arms, others exactly as they are. If their own walk with Christ causes them to make certain changes – that’s great, as I’m sure my own walk is changing me. Judging others is not in the Christian job description. Heck, even Christ himself said several times that he wasn’t here to judge. So who am I to think that the job of judgment has been relegated to me?? So, yeah, I’m more of a live and let live guy than a tough love guy.
Michael, If you weren’t so buisy trying to twist what others point out to you, you might learn something. Missed opportunity for you again.
Seems the ritual purification has begun. I doubt it is possible for a blog to remain on the “fence”, sooner or later it must choose a side and suppress dissent.
Michael- what would it be like to try doing what your wife might like you to do, and what is stopping that happening?
I have to ask, don’t feel a need to answer, just enjoy. It would be sad to end life without knowing.
Handlewithcare asks “what would it be like to try doing what your wife might like you to do, and what is stopping that happening?”
It is better left unwritten.
I mean, hasn’t Mormon theology always been whatever appeals to people the most? Its target audience has just shifted from “1830’s religious seekers with a thirst for restoration” to “Europeans seeking a new life in America (and ignorant of polygamy)” to “cranky moneyed white men who hate kids, sex, equality, and everything fun and/or good.”
That’s been the target audience ever since Correlation, because they pay lots in tithing and they love it when people tell them they don’t have to change ’cause their prejudices are virtues.
This is why you people can’t have nice things. You can’t have any kind of legit discussion, even one as simple as “people are hurting, what do we do about it?” without some entitled dood who thinks he knows everything either tossing grenades (Ji) or parachuting in, building a bunker, and blasting his bizarre theories over everyone else.
And I mean, it’s not like that isn’t a problem literally everywhere else on the Internet
But in Mormon spaces they’re treated as legitimate and everyone allows them to continue speaking, because deferring to people like that (or who talk like that) is like the highest virtue in Mormonism. Higher than love, family, or personal revelation, because they’ll happily tell you why yours are all wrong.
Jewelfox writes “I mean, hasn’t Mormon theology always been whatever appeals to people the most?”
Yes, it hasn’t.
Obviously it depends on what you mean by “people”. Mormon theology appeals to Mormons. It was never intended to appeal to most people but for some it will appeal the most. Apple’s IOS appeals the most to Apple IOS users, and tends to be ridiculed by non-Apple users. Microsoft Windows is used by Microsoft Windows users and appeals to them (with a bit of grumbling), and is ridiculed by Apple users. Who is correct? [Hint: Linux!]
“Its target audience…”
Has always been those that hear their shepherd’s voice. Many shepherds exist as do many voices. Whether these shepherds have much to offer you is unclear. Most sheep end up sheared and perhaps eaten.
“This is why you people can’t have nice things.”
As I have nice things I guess I am not a you people.
“You can’t have any kind of legit discussion, even one as simple as people are hurting, what do we do about it?”
There is no “we”. You decide for you, I decide for me. Now it may be that for efficiency we (you and I) decide to work together. But your decision is yours and mine is mine and maybe we will work together but we cannot, or should not try, to compel a third person to that labor.
“Anxiously engaged in a good cause” of your own choosing.