New Pew research shows LDS retention rate worsening for those raised LDS

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Welcome back, Fibber! Let's see if this time around you’ll actually respect and follow the board rules.

[Limnor]

Holding a personal belief in the afterlife that drives a person to be a better family member, a better member of society, a nicer neighbour etc is fine. When you start adding a label to it “I’m a Christian” “I’m a Muslim” etc you get tribalism creeping in. You get “I’m right and you’re wrong”. You get people taking charge and telling others what to believe etc. Organised religion poisons the very thing it’s supposed to enhance. And simply pointing out those times when an organised religion does something beneficial to others doesn’t negate the point, in same way that a wife-beating husband doesn’t offset the harm by bringing flowers home occasionally. Jimmy Savile (a now-deceased UK radio and tv personality) raised millions of pounds for charity. Lots of examples of good deeds. People lauded him for it. He was also a serial child sex abuser. Abusing the most vulnerable in society. Do his good deeds offset the harm he did?

I agree with most of this. Good deeds don’t somehow outweigh abuse. If a church harms people, charity work doesn’t make that abuse go away.

But there is probably more to explore. I don’t really think of the afterlife as a reward for good behavior. For me, eternal life isn’t something you earn now and collect after you die. It’s something that you have now.

The Christian idea, at least as I understand it, is that the life of Christ becomes present in you and begins changing the kind of person you are. The point isn’t, “Be good so you get heaven.” It’s closer to, “His life is in you, so live out of that life.”

That also makes organized religion subordinate to the kind of life it helps to produce. Institutions and their leadership shouldn’t be the source of that life, they should be more like the servant to the members. And I think that’s should apply across all models of government, that authority exists to serve, not to become and end in itself. I think we may agree more than disagree about that concept.

[I Have Questions]

Holding a personal belief in the afterlife that drives a person to be a better family member, a better member of society, a nicer neighbour etc is fine. When you start adding a label to it “I’m a Christian” “I’m a Muslim” etc you get tribalism creeping in. You get “I’m right and you’re wrong”. You get people taking charge and telling others what to believe etc. Organised religion poisons the very thing it’s supposed to enhance. And simply pointing out those times when an organised religion does something beneficial to others doesn’t negate the point, in same way that a wife-beating husband doesn’t offset the harm by bringing flowers home occasionally. Jimmy Savile (a now-deceased UK radio and tv personality) raised millions of pounds for charity. Lots of examples of good deeds. People lauded him for it. He was also a serial child sex abuser. Abusing the most vulnerable in society. Do his good deeds offset the harm he did?

I agree with most of this. Good deeds don’t somehow outweigh abuse. If a church harms people, charity work doesn’t make that abuse go away.

But there is probably more to explore. I don’t really think of the afterlife as a reward for good behavior. For me, eternal life isn’t something you earn now and collect after you die. It’s something that you have now.

The Christian idea, at least as I understand it, is that the life of Christ becomes present in you and begins changing the kind of person you are. The point isn’t, “Be good so you get heaven.” It’s closer to, “His life is in you, so live out of that life.”

That also makes organized religion subordinate to the kind of life it helps to produce. Institutions and their leadership shouldn’t be the source of that life, they should be more like the servant to the members. And I think that’s should apply across all models of government, that authority exists to serve, not to become and end in itself. I think we may agree more than disagree about that concept.

I’m not really thinking as prescriptively as you seem to be. My point really is that organised religion doesn’t make people better per se. And fundamentally that’s what organised religions declare they do. But the objective evidence does not support that. On that basis, organised religion is a sham. It’s always been a sham. It will always be a sham.

As for authority existing to serve, hasn’t that become an oxymoron, particularly in religion?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

My point really is that organised religion doesn’t make people better per se. And fundamentally that’s what organised religions declare they do. But the objective evidence does not support that. On that basis, organised religion is a sham. It’s always been a sham. It will always be a sham. As for authority existing to serve, hasn’t that become an oxymoron, particularly in religion?

Mormonism certainly doesn’t make better people, but it definitely gives them massive egos for believing they are.

[Limnor]

I’m not really thinking as prescriptively as you seem to be. My point really is that organised religion doesn’t make people better per se. And fundamentally that’s what organised religions declare they do. But the objective evidence does not support that. On that basis, organised religion is a sham. It’s always been a sham. It will always be a sham.

As for authority existing to serve, hasn’t that become an oxymoron, particularly in religion?

I think I’m closer to you than you may think. I don’t believe organized religion makes people better just because they are organized or religious. Membership, attendance, ordinances, tithes, none of those automatically produce better people.

And yes, while I think of “authority existing to serve” as an ideal, I share your pessimism about the reality in practice.

[I Have Questions]

The Christian idea, at least as I understand it, is that the life of Christ becomes present in you and begins changing the kind of person you are. The point isn’t, “Be good so you get heaven.” It’s closer to, “His life is in you, so live out of that life.”

That sounds nice in principle doesn’t it. But you won’t find that in practice. People might say they are a Christian, but only as a subordinate to whatever sect they attach to. You’ll hear “Mormons are Christians” but you won’t hear “Christians are Mormons”. Because the organisation takes the superiority over the general belief label. And unfortunately within Mormonism in particular, the point is precisely “Be good so you get to heaven”. Mormons call it (now) “The Covenant Path”. It’s about being Mormon, rather than Christian. And I think that’s true of every organised religion. They want brand loyalty more than they want people practicing Christianity.

[Limnor]

People might say they are a Christian, but only as a subordinate to whatever sect they attach to. You’ll hear “Mormons are Christians” but you won’t hear “Christians are Mormons”. Because the organisation takes the superiority over the general belief label. And unfortunately within Mormonism in particular, the point is precisely “Be good so you get to heaven”. Mormons call it (now) “The Covenant Path”. It’s about being Mormon, rather than Christian. And I think that’s true of every organised religion. They want brand loyalty more than they want people practicing Christianity.

I’ve mostly abandoned organized religion for the same reasons you’re describing. What I haven’t abandoned is the idea that Christ can actually be present in a person. That “Christ in you” is more than a religious affiliation. That’s really the part I still believe.

[I Have Questions]

People might say they are a Christian, but only as a subordinate to whatever sect they attach to. You’ll hear “Mormons are Christians” but you won’t hear “Christians are Mormons”. Because the organisation takes the superiority over the general belief label. And unfortunately within Mormonism in particular, the point is precisely “Be good so you get to heaven”. Mormons call it (now) “The Covenant Path”. It’s about being Mormon, rather than Christian. And I think that’s true of every organised religion. They want brand loyalty more than they want people practicing Christianity.

I’ve mostly abandoned organized religion for the same reasons you’re describing. What I haven’t abandoned is the idea that Christ can actually be present in a person. That “Christ in you” is more than a religious affiliation. That’s really the part I still believe.

Can you expand on that a little? I’m interested in understanding what you think that means, in practice, and also how you see Christ historically.

[huckelberry]

Welcome back, Fibber! Let's see if this time around you’ll actually respect and follow the board tules.

Fibber???
Not really a gentlemanly welcome.

[Kishkumen]

Are religious societies “better” than secular societies? That doesn’t seem to be the case. Scandinavia is reportedly one of the best places in the world to raise a family, it’s also reportedly an area with very secular societies.

Scandanavia is also one of those places where relative ethnic uniformity creates the feeling of tribe=country. I don't care personally whether secular or religious societies do a better job. I am happy with the existence of both.

But resources are available. Benjamin Park has published some good stuff and has a great podcast. He's just one. Steven Peck (I think he's still at BYU) is another. There are quite a few folks out there that I think appeal to those that are more intellectually minded. I'm not sure that the church sees it as its mission to provide a LOT of resources for those that consider themselves to be intellectuals.

Yes, there are intellectual members for sure. Some of them are academics. The Church keeps a close eye on these folks. Everyone remembers how Elder Packer felt about them. He felt they were a threat. President Oaks once warned members about "other voices," telling people to avoid them. Not only does the LDS Church not provide much in the way of resources to its meeting-attending membership in the way of intellectual sustenance, it has also stigmatized the very idea of being "intellectual." It is needless and unfortunate, but there it is.

The curriculum is mainly focused on Conference Talks and the scriptures. In an international church I'm not surprised that the lessons might seem...to you...to be "dull". In a certain sense, I would agree with you though. Fostering open discussion? I think you're probably right on that one. Although I would say, that the church sees itself as a vehicle to lead its members to Christ. They may see open discussion which might produce doubt/questions to be counterproductive to that endeavor.

Hope all is well with you Kishkumen! I'm dropping in for just a bit and will probably be on my way again when I see things...as you say...get "dull".

Absolutely no AI was used in the construction of this post. You have my word on that.

Regards,
MG

Well, thank you for dropping in, MG! It is always nice to see you. I appreciate your candor regarding the lack of resources for intellectuals in the LDS Church. I understand that the LDS Church sees itself as a vehicle to lead its members to Christ. I tend to think that they would not have to sacrifice that mission by remembering the poor folks who like to think more than the average person.