DiscussMormonism.com

Just wondering how you would like to see the church develop in the next 10-20 years.

Do you think there will be any major cultural/doctrinal shifts as it moves mainstream, or do you think
that it's foundation claims will always hold it back?

I'd like to see it let go of the Book of Mormon as a historical document, and study it in the context of the
time in which it emerged. (same for Book of Abraham)

I'd like to see women hold the priesthood along with men, becoming apostles, with maybe even a female
prophet (though that one would probably be 50 years away)

I'd like it to stop teaching that men and women must be married in order to achieve celestial glory.

I'd like to see it permit gay marriage.

I'd like to see a reasonbly paid ministry, so that 'bishops' can truly concentrate on their flock and on others (non-mormon)
in the general community.

I'd like it to come out of isolation and see its ministry enlarged to all peoples, Mormon or not, and whether they join or not.

I'd like to see scholars really examine the LDS cannon, and come up with some workable theology that is
liberal in approach

I'd like to see a re-examination of the various first vision accounts with some amended ideas about the nature of
God. (Did he really say all other religions were an abomination. I really don't think so)

I'd like to see the church step down from it's exclusive truth claims, and find a niche as another alternative in the
cornucopia of faiths that exist presently

I'd like to see it becoming far more ecumenical as a result.

I'd like it to tone down the word of wisdom because it seems to encourage self-righteousness on such a flimsy foundation.

I'd like it to stop requiring 10% tithing in order to go to the temple, and to start handing out the collection tin, so
people can truly give in secret.

I'd like to see it hand over all it's businesses to outside sources, so as to allow the leaders to concentrate only on
individual development.

I'd like to see some blue collar workers in the leadership, known for their spirituality rather than their academic credentials
or the size of their paycheck.

I'd like it to say that it was categorically wrong for those of skin colour to be withheld from the priesthood, without the excuses that it
was understandable for the culture of the time. (same argument doesn't hold for polygamy for instance)

I'd like it to encourage the idea that Joseph was a complex, deeply flawed man, who with others still managed to produce something
that has the capacity to do good.

There's a start.

What think you???


(Dang, I keep adding to this....)

Why are you in the church? I mean this in the nicest way possible. But what drew you to the church in the first place? What do you base your testimony on?

Why don't you just go to a Born again Christian church (not that I want you to). what is your understanding of the priesthood and its role in Christs church?

Gaz

I'll take that as a compliment Gaz!! Thanks for responding.

I'm afraid I'm not in the church any longer. I left just about (grief) 15 years ago. (doesn't time fly)
But, I still have a fond affection for it, mixed with some more critical feelings.

I often wonder what it would take to bring me back.

No, I don't believe that the LDS priesthood has any more authority than the Catholic Church for instance.
I mean that their authority is only such because the wider culture honours it. (King Canute and all that)
I tend to go with the idea that a person's ability to be good (and christ-like if you want to put
it in a christian context) is what ultimately gives a person authority and usually over their own lives, not anyone
elses, but it certainly puts them in the position of role model.

I wouldn't fit well in the LDS church anymore would I!!! The bishop would be booting me out the door!!

Again, thanks for responding. I thought there would be more responses to this. I would have liked to have
known other peoples opinions.

yup, im with you gaz.

you silly woman. you need to stop questioning the lord, get back in the kitchen, we men have work to do. You obviously have sinned in some area and that's why your unable or unwilling to allow god to let you see the light. God did the thinking and makes his choices known through the prophet! well, his thinking right now, cause it changes some times. And how dare you insult joseph Christ, erm, i mean smith! he was a perfect man! (nevermind the kids he married)

BWAHAHA, im sorry, i can't type any more like that and keep a straight face.

Miss taken, why bother with the backwards church? they base all their reasoning on following the dictations of what they are told. they can't change unless forced to by outside large scale establishments. Though i still look forward to future posts from you.

[MODERATOR NOTE: When responding to someone in the Celestial Forum, please keep your response truly "Celestial." Blatant sarcasm is fine in the Terrestrial and Telestial Forums, but please keep a lid on it here.

Thanks in advance. Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming.]

Yay!!!

Another response!!!!

Thanks for the laugh Sono Hito, I dunno....the church has changed and developed so much over the last 200 years. I doubt Joseph Smith would be able to relate to it, if he saw it now...

If only they told us it was all 'myth' in the first place, it might have helped huh. But still there's value in myth. I don't see the LDS faith disappearing, (other religions are probably as equally built on myth) and it is interesting to speculate on how it might change.....(to me anyway!!)

Mary

Miss Taken wrote:Just wondering how you would like to see the church develop in the next 10-20 years.

Do you think there will be any major cultural/doctrinal shifts as it moves mainstream, or do you think
that it's foundation claims will always hold it back?

Well, that's not a very objective view. I can already tell where you'll be going with this.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see it let go of the Book of Mormon as a historical document, and study it in the context of the time in which it emerged. (same for Book of Abraham)

But that would destroy the whole religion.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see women hold the priesthood along with men, becoming apostles, with maybe even a female prophet (though that one would probably be 50 years away)

I'd prefer to just let God control his church rather than let contemporary dogma's about the inequality of separate roles. While we're whining about what God does, though, I'd like to give birth to a child. I figure it'll happen in about fifty years. Stupid government better not try to get in the way of me trying to get my equal rights.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to stop teaching that men and women must be married in order to achieve celestial glory.

But then thousands of men and women will not achieve celestial glory.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see it permit gay marriage.

I'd like to see a believer put God's will in front of their own. At the same time, I'd like to see one of those believers read Hebrews 11 and still say that the church is unfair.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see a reasonbly paid ministry, so that 'bishops' can truly concentrate on their flock and on others (non-mormon) in the general community.

I'd rather the church remained a force for good inside and outside of the church.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to come out of isolation and see its ministry enlarged to all peoples, Mormon or not, and whether they join or not.

That would totally undermine the authority of God.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see scholars really examine the LDS cannon, and come up with some workable theology that is liberal in approach

I'd rather see God's church run according to his will rather than the will of some members.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see a re-examination of the various first vision accounts with some amended ideas about the nature of God. (Did he really say all other religions were an abomination. I really don't think so)

Did it really happen? If it really happened then the doctrines he shared are the ones we have. God can't start a church to correct abominations and then let it preach abominations.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see the church step down from it's exclusive truth claims, and find a niche as another alternative in the
cornucopia of faiths that exist presently

Actually this took place during Joseph Smith's lifetime.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see it becoming far more ecumenical as a result.

That would undermine the authority of God.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to tone down the word of wisdom because it seems to encourage self-righteousness on such a flimsy foundation.

No, people enforcing their own fences upon others encourages self-righteousness. It's a good thing we work hard to help people avoid that habit.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to stop requiring 10% tithing in order to go to the temple, and to start handing out the collection tin, so people can truly give in secret.

So this way your bishop won't know, but whoever sits next to you in church will? If you really don't want to pay tithing that much you're probably not going to enjoy the temple anyway.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see it hand over all it's businesses to outside sources, so as to allow the leaders to concentrate only on individual development.

That's what the presiding bishopric is for.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see some blue collar workers in the leadership, known for their spirituality rather than their academic credentials or the size of their paycheck.

Me too. Maybe God will call one later on.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to say that it was categorically wrong for those of skin colour to be withheld from the priesthood, without the excuses that it was understandable for the culture of the time. (same argument doesn't hold for polygamy for instance)

I've never heard that argument, but while we're at it, why don't we go yell at the Old Testament for denying the priesthood to everyone except Aaron's kids? Talk about nepitism. I'm outraged.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to encourage the idea that Joseph was a complex, deeply flawed man, who with others still managed to produce something that has the capacity to do good.

I think we already do a pretty good job of encouraging that.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see it let go of the Book of Mormon as a historical document, and study it in the context of the time in which it emerged. (same for Book of Abraham)

But that would destroy the whole religion.

Why? The historicity of the Book of Mormon is not doctrinal.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see women hold the priesthood along with men, becoming apostles, with maybe even a female prophet (though that one would probably be 50 years away)

I'd prefer to just let God control his church rather than let contemporary dogma's about the inequality of separate roles.

Then how do you explain the 1978 revelation?

While we're whining about what God does, though, I'd like to give birth to a child. I figure it'll happen in about fifty years. Stupid government better not try to get in the way of me trying to get my equal rights.

You can give birth to child now, Mak. It'll cost you a bit to do it, but it's medically possible. And what does that have to do with church doctrine? Or are you saying that motherhood is doctrinal?

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to stop teaching that men and women must be married in order to achieve celestial glory.

But then thousands of men and women will not achieve celestial glory.

We don't know for sure that anyone will achieve celestial glory. It's one of those fuzzy doctrines that sounds good, but the source is suspect.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see it permit gay marriage.

I'd like to see a believer put God's will in front of their own. At the same time, I'd like to see one of those believers read Hebrews 11 and still say that the church is unfair.

Hebrews was written by... (wait for it... it's coming...) a man. All scripture was. Written by, voted on by, compiled by, accepted by... men. And all without ever knowing if God really said it... or not.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see a reasonbly paid ministry, so that 'bishops' can truly concentrate on their flock and on others (non-mormon) in the general community.

I'd rather the church remained a force for good inside and outside of the church.

There you are again using those words again.. force... good. What exactly are you trying to say? That pastors or priests who aren't LDS are not doing good in the community? Or that bishops are?

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to come out of isolation and see its ministry enlarged to all peoples, Mormon or not, and whether they join or not.

That would totally undermine the authority of God.

How?

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see scholars really examine the LDS cannon, and come up with some workable theology that is liberal in approach

I'd rather see God's church run according to his will rather than the will of some members.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, Mak, but the church is run by men now. I've yet to see Christ standing at the podium of the conference center.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see a re-examination of the various first vision accounts with some amended ideas about the nature of God. (Did he really say all other religions were an abomination. I really don't think so)

Did it really happen? If it really happened then the doctrines he shared are the ones we have. God can't start a church to correct abominations and then let it preach abominations.

Check out Jacob 2, Mak... and then read Sec 132.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see the church step down from it's exclusive truth claims, and find a niche as another alternative in the cornucopia of faiths that exist presently

Actually this took place during Joseph Smith's lifetime.

"whore of Babylon", Mak. That was still being taught in the last 20 years. And we have never abandoned the "one true church" claim. When we do, some of us will rejoice. But we're not partying yet.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see it becoming far more ecumenical as a result.

That would undermine the authority of God.

How? Why?

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to tone down the word of wisdom because it seems to encourage self-righteousness on such a flimsy foundation.

No, people enforcing their own fences upon others encourages self-righteousness. It's a good thing we work hard to help people avoid that habit.

How is anyone forcing their own fence on LDS church members?

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to stop requiring 10% tithing in order to go to the temple, and to start handing out the collection tin, so people can truly give in secret.

So this way your bishop won't know, but whoever sits next to you in church will? If you really don't want to pay tithing that much you're probably not going to enjoy the temple anyway.

I'd like to stop the mandatory tithing, because it's not doctrinal.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see it hand over all it's businesses to outside sources, so as to allow the leaders to concentrate only on individual development.

That's what the presiding bishopric is for.

I'm sure we can find another function for them.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see some blue collar workers in the leadership, known for their spirituality rather than their academic credentials or the size of their paycheck.

Me too. Maybe God will call one later on.

Highly unlikely. Leaders are called based on who knows who. And the network is impenatrable by blue collar "carpenter" types.

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to say that it was categorically wrong for those of skin colour to be withheld from the priesthood, without the excuses that it was understandable for the culture of the time. (same argument doesn't hold for polygamy for instance)

I've never heard that argument, but while we're at it, why don't we go yell at the Old Testament for denying the priesthood to everyone except Aaron's kids? Talk about nepitism. I'm outraged.

Why don't we deny the priesthood to everyone except Aaron's direct line now? It was that way then, wasn't it? Why is it not that way now?

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like it to encourage the idea that Joseph was a complex, deeply flawed man, who with others still managed to produce something that has the capacity to do good.

I think we already do a pretty good job of encouraging that.

[/quote]

ROTFL. We're encouraging members to see Joseph as "deeply flawed"? What the...? Since when?

harmony wrote:Why? The historicity of the Book of Mormon is not doctrinal.

We belive the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

harmony wrote:Then how do you explain the 1978 revelation?

God controlling his church.

harmony wrote:You can give birth to child now, Mak. It'll cost you a bit to do it, but it's medically possible. And what does that have to do with church doctrine? Or are you saying that motherhood is doctrinal?

No I can't.

I'm saying that if a just God demands that all things be equal, then why are we not physically equal? Why do we play different roles physically if seperate roles are inherently discriminatory?

harmony wrote:We don't know for sure that anyone will achieve celestial glory. It's one of those fuzzy doctrines that sounds good, but the source is suspect.

Thanks.

harmony wrote:Hebrews was written by... (wait for it... it's coming...) a man. All scripture was. Written by, voted on by, compiled by, accepted by... men. And all without ever knowing if God really said it... or not.

Way to not engage the evidence in one single capacity.

harmony wrote:There you are again using those words again.. force... good. What exactly are you trying to say? That pastors or priests who aren't LDS are not doing good in the community? Or that bishops are?

Did I say that being a force for good is exclusive to our church? Please do not put words in my mouth.

harmony wrote:How?

By saying that everyone can have it. God has not operated that way in all of history.

harmony wrote:I hate to be the one to tell you this, Mak, but the church is run by men now. I've yet to see Christ standing at the podium of the conference center.

That's a dumb argument. Thanks you for again putting up a ludicrous straw man.

harmony wrote:Check out Jacob 2, Mak... and then read Sec 132.

Try Jacob 2:30. I'm amazed at the number of people who quote Jacob 2 without having the first inkling of a clue as to what it is about. That argument is a joke.

harmony wrote:"whore of Babylon", Mak. That was still being taught in the last 20 years. And we have never abandoned the "one true church" claim. When we do, some of us will rejoice. But we're not partying yet.

I'm going to reproduce Miss Taken's post upon which my post is based. I would like you to please point to where she speaks about the claim to be the one true church:

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see the church step down from it's exclusive truth claims, and find a niche as another alternative in the cornucopia of faiths that exist presently

harmony wrote:How? Why?

Because it opens up the door to all religions having the authority of God, which is unbiblical and untrue.

harmony wrote:How is anyone forcing their own fence on LDS church members?

By interpreting laws for them. You do know what I'm talking about when I say fence, right?

harmony wrote:I'd like to stop the mandatory tithing, because it's not doctrinal.

It'll stop when the law of consecration comes into effect, and then you'll quit pretending to be a Latter-day Saint and just leave the church.

harmony wrote:I'm sure we can find another function for them.

Thank you for again refusing to engage the evidence.

harmony wrote:Highly unlikely. Leaders are called based on who knows who. And the network is impenatrable by blue collar "carpenter" types.

Are you privy to their councils, or is this an assumption based on your perspective of victimhood and self-righteous indignation?

harmony wrote:Why don't we deny the priesthood to everyone except Aaron's direct line now? It was that way then, wasn't it? Why is it not that way now?

Because this is the fullness of times.

harmony wrote:ROTFL. We're encouraging members to see Joseph as "deeply flawed"? What the...? Since when?

Since we all realized he was a human being (and he stated it several times). Where you under another impression?

maklelan wrote:

harmony wrote:Why? The historicity of the Book of Mormon is not doctrinal.

We belive the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God too, yet we freely acknowledge its lack of historicity and no one sweats that at all.

harmony wrote:Then how do you explain the 1978 revelation?

God controlling his church.

And how to you explain the situation prior to 1978? You can't have it both ways, Mak. Either show the revelation that started the ban (you can't), or acknowledge that God wasn't in charge prior to 1978, men were.

harmony wrote:Hebrews was written by... (wait for it... it's coming...) a man. All scripture was. Written by, voted on by, compiled by, accepted by... men. And all without ever knowing if God really said it... or not.

Way to not engage the evidence in one single capacity.

What evidence? The evidence that men wrote the scriptures? The evidence that men argue today over what is scripture and what isn't, what is God-breathed and what isn't, the evidence that God has never set anyone straight?

harmony wrote:There you are again using those words again.. force... good. What exactly are you trying to say? That pastors or priests who aren't LDS are not doing good in the community? Or that bishops are?

Did I say that being a force for good is exclusive to our church? Please do not put words in my mouth.

Then what was your objection to Miss's idea?

harmony wrote:How?

By saying that everyone can have it. God has not operated that way in all of history.

Maybe because the only words we get to hear are the ones coming from those who benefit the most by putting words into God's mouth. We don't know how God has operated, since God's front man is always male and always human. We get a filtered communication, unless we have our own personal relationship with God. Then we don't need men to be our prophet; we can be our own prophet.

harmony wrote:I hate to be the one to tell you this, Mak, but the church is run by men now. I've yet to see Christ standing at the podium of the conference center.

That's a dumb argument. Thanks you for again putting up a ludicrous straw man.

No straw man. And the only thing dumb about it is your belief in the infallibility of the LDS prophet. Pres Hinckley is a MAN. So is Pres Monson, Pres Faust, and all the rest of our leaders. MEN. Not God. We pay lip service to "Jesus is the head of the church and leads the church", but whose signature is on the check used to buy the shopping mall? Jesus'? Who do we see at the podium every conference? Jesus? No. Not even close. We're led by men, trying their best to do what's right, but we're no more led by God than any other church is.

harmony wrote:Check out Jacob 2, Mak... and then read Sec 132.

Try Jacob 2:30. I'm amazed at the number of people who quote Jacob 2 without having the first inkling of a clue as to what it is about. That argument is a joke.

Try Jacob 2:28. What's a joke is your uncritical acceptance of not only a failed doctrine, but the idea that God can be manipulated and forced. THAT is a joke.

harmony wrote:"whore of Babylon", Mak. That was still being taught in the last 20 years. And we have never abandoned the "one true church" claim. When we do, some of us will rejoice. But we're not partying yet.

I'm going to reproduce Miss Taken's post upon which my post is based. I would like you to please point to where she speaks about the claim to be the one true church:

Miss Taken wrote:I'd like to see the church step down from it's exclusive truth claims, and find a niche as another alternative in the cornucopia of faiths that exist presently

harmony wrote:How? Why?

Because it opens up the door to all religions having the authority of God, which is unbiblical and untrue.

And yet you swallow claims that OUR faith has the authority of God. Now THAT's what I call hubris. Everyone else's claim is just so much hot air, but OUR claim is truuuuuue.

harmony wrote:How is anyone forcing their own fence on LDS church members?

By interpreting laws for them. You do know what I'm talking about when I say fence, right?

Explain what you mean then. We're not mindreaders here.

harmony wrote:I'd like to stop the mandatory tithing, because it's not doctrinal.

It'll stop when the law of consecration comes into effect, and then you'll quit pretending to be a Latter-day Saint and just leave the church.

Give yourself 30 years, my young friend. Then we'll talk.

harmony wrote:I'm sure we can find another function for them.

Thank you for again refusing to engage the evidence.

I have yet to see you produce any.

harmony wrote:Highly unlikely. Leaders are called based on who knows who. And the network is impenatrable by blue collar "carpenter" types.

Are you privy to their councils, or is this an assumption based on your perspective of victimhood and self-righteous indignation?

I leave the self-righteousness to the apologists. I've yet to see anyone equal theirs.

I base my assumption on the evidence: exactly how many blue collar carpenter types are seated in the Council of the 12 currently? Oh yeah, that's right: none. And how many are related to each other? Several. And how many are part of Mormon Royalty? Several.

harmony wrote:Why don't we deny the priesthood to everyone except Aaron's direct line now? It was that way then, wasn't it? Why is it not that way now?

Because this is the fullness of times.

And this makes things different how? (and please quote chapter and verse in your answer, using the Old Testament.)

harmony wrote:ROTFL. We're encouraging members to see Joseph as "deeply flawed"? What the...? Since when?

Since we all realized he was a human being (and he stated it several times). Where you under another impression?

[/quote]

I've watched the Joseph worship grow stronger for years. It started the day he died and grows more every year, to the point where he's mentioned more often than Christ in our meetings. His (retouched) picture is most prominently displayed. His movies play hourly in SLC. His deification would be complete, except for one small thing: no one's yet figured out how to exalt him without all his wives.

If the gospel was restored in its FULLNESS, why does it need to change?

It can not. That is a lie and one of those things that the church is NOT what it claims to be. Period.

It was not restored in its fullness if one single thing is altered for any reason. That would mean it was restored in its PARTIALITY. I'm sick of dear old mum saying, "The church was in its infancy in Joseph Smith's time"

WRONG!!! It was restored in its FULLNESS not its INFANCY. Nothing can change, or be added to it. So there is one proof for Wade.

Fullness is a lie! It has been altered since.