Standing up together to Make a Change within Mormonism.

[_Roger Morrison]

KeithB, You said:

"Yet the church spends millions of dollars and man hours every year trying to do just that -- reduce hunger and suffering for people throughout the world. But, perhaps, as you say, the true motivation of the church isn't to eliminate these events -- their own God doesn't have this goal, as you say. However, in the absence of a convincing motivation, one is left to wonder why exactly the church would spend time and money on these efforts. Good PR, perhaps?"

Interesting point! Which confirms folks IN THE CHURCH have compassion that goes beyond theology. As do most other sects. When a baby cries few stop to ask detailed questions, they simply react as feeling, thinking human beings.

As this humanitarianism expands, the glory of conquest will recede and selfishness will be displaced with charity. As all spiritual leaders have promulgated for centuries. Then Sectarianism and its Fiefdoms will seep into the abyss of fear and ignorance from where it emerged. . .

When intelligence stands up together with charity, the change will come. "...can't be saved in ignorance..."

Warm regards, Roger M.

[_Redefined]

Hi Shadowfax,

It all seems that simple doesn't it! But, even you understand the humiliation that Mormons would fear to face if they simply had a change in the church that they submit is the one and only true church. The change, therefore, has to come from the prophet (leaders), or the members no longer have that card to play. And, it just seems that it would be easier to change 1 person that the members will listen to than the X amount of members for the 1 person to listen to.

It would take a very brave and revolutionary leader to inherit the Mormon Prophet mantle, and be willing to say, "yeah, hey we need to change." With as old and set in their indoctrination as the leadership is, I don't know that it is likely to happen. But I think with the information available now on the internet the change is already subtly occurring. Members who can't reconcile the information with their beliefs leave the church, and it will just continue to happen. The leak might be able to go on ignored for now, but they can't just ignore it forever. The dam will eventually break.

I don't think the church membership is a good target, they will just push back in loyalty to their prophet, and fear of Satan leading their hearts to stray from what God's prophet directs.

in my opinion, the change has to come from the top. However, I do admire any efforts and wouldn't discourage a membership uprising.

Edited for typos.

[_Buffalo]

Have you reported the concerns to your home teaching supervisor? If so, then that is how the system is supposed to work. It would be wildly impractical to bring the concerns of all 14 million members individually to the attention of the Brethern.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do the supervisors get to talk to the brethren?

[_Buffalo]

So, lack of divine guidance is evidence of divine guidance?

No. Your misinterpretation is evidence of reading comprehension challenges--which is yet another reason why you aren't in a position to tell Christ's chosen leaders how to run Christ's Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It wasn't a reading comprehension challenge. You explained the lack of divine guidance as evidence that God lets his prophets stumble. Ergo, lack of divine guidance is evidence of divine guidance. Perfect circular logic.

It's not your fault - the org encourages it.

[_wenglund]

Wade has a point. If babies didn't die of hunger, who would ever merit Mormon exaltation? Considering that hardly anyone would ever find the "restored gospel" and sense it to be anything more than a strange regional religion mostly incorporating peculiar western and American cultural Christianity, and with any research, a history that mostly perturbs one's conscience and sense of moral integrity, death of children must be the most integral part of God's plan.

Starvation is needed to bring a few souls back into the Celestial.

But, this isn't my point. It isn't anywhere close to my point. This is you falsely putting words into my mouth presumably because you are incapable of addressing what I actually said.

It is this kind of pervasive misunderstanding that ought to give pause in thinking you are in a position to tell Christ's chosen leaders how to run Christ's Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Do the supervisors get to talk to the brethren?

No. It isn't practical or prudent for the hundred of thousands of supervisors to talk monthly or otherwise to the brethren. Individual matters are best handled locally. That you don't understand this basic precept of effective administration, ought to give you pause in thinking you are in a position to tell Christ's chosen leaders how to run Christ's Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

Do the supervisors get to talk to the brethren?

No. It isn't practical or prudent for the hundred of thousands of supervisors to talk monthly or otherwise to the brethren. Individual matters are best handled locally. That you don't understand this basic precept of effective administration, ought to give you pause in thinking you are in a position to tell Christ's chosen leaders how to run Christ's Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you follow the stream of this conversation, you'll remember that I originally said:

I'm saying that if the head doesn't listen to the foot when it says it's hurting, it's likely to die from gangrene.

There is no mechanism for feedback in the LDS church. Effectively it is numb from the neck down. The head doesn't want to know what any other part thinks.

And you've just admitted that I was right. And that's a very bad way to run a business.

[_Buffalo]

Can you provide an example where you've engaged in a public discussion of real problems in the church (as in, problems with current church practice or doctrine, not problems in reaching conversion numbers or tithing goals).

I guess DCP couldn't come up with any examples.

[_LDS truthseeker]

The problem with these plans of debates and changing of church policies like having civil marriages before temple sealings are as follows:

1) The church has little to gain and everything to lose. Perhaps changing these things would keep 1% of the people that are on the fence to stay in the church BUT maybe cause 1000 times as many people to question the church and maybe leave it. It's far better if only a handful of learned members like, Daniel Peterson, know about things like the stone in the hat, Kinderhook Plates, Masonic influence in the temple, etc. To debate the issues would let the other 99.5% of the membership, that are clueless as to the real church history, in on it's disturbing past.

2) The leaders don't have good enough answers for many of the critic's issues. For example, did you ever hear a really good answer to why did Joseph marry 11 women that already had husbands or why were blacks banned from the priesthood until 1978, etc. GBH ducked difficult questions on TV so why would the 12 want to answer even more problematic questions publicly?

3) I don't think all the 12 really know in detail about the historical problems of the church. Oh, some probably know just the tip of the iceberg but not the details. They may know that historians have issues with the church and that may concern them but probably not enough for them to research the stuff the way DCP has. And certainly not knowledgeable enough to debate knowledgeable critics on the church historical problems.

4) This also assumes that the church isn't really run by God. If the prophets really gave direct revelation to the church, then they would not change things that you proposed without getting confirmation from on high. BUT if they willy nilly started making these kinds of changes, just to appease the members, then it becomes obvious that it is merely men making the decisions and not God instructing them.

A good example is when the church sent out a survey to 3,400 church members in 1988 to see why temple attendance was declining compared to baptisms. The result was that two years later they changed the ceremony to make it more palatable to members. Sounds like men making the decisions by listening to the members and not from getting revelation from God.
http://www.mormonthink.com/templeweb.htm#whychanged

[_ShadowFax]

The problem with these plans of debates and changing of church policies like having civil marriages before temple sealings are as follows:

1) The church has little to gain and everything to lose. Perhaps changing these things would keep 1% of the people that are on the fence to stay in the church BUT maybe cause 1000 times as many people to question the church and maybe leave it. It's far better if only a handful of learned members like, Daniel Peterson, know about things like the stone in the hat, Kinderhook Plates, Masonic influence in the temple, etc. To debate the issues would let the other 99.5% of the membership, that are clueless as to the real church history, in on it's disturbing past.

2) The leaders don't have good enough answers for many of the critic's issues. For example, did you ever hear a really good answer to why did Joseph marry 11 women that already had husbands or why were blacks banned from the priesthood until 1978, etc. GBH ducked difficult questions on TV so why would the 12 want to answer even more problematic questions publicly?

3) I don't think all the 12 really know in detail about the historical problems of the church. Oh, some probably know just the tip of the iceberg but not the details. They may know that historians have issues with the church and that may concern them but probably not enough for them to research the stuff the way DCP has. And certainly not knowledgeable enough to debate knowledgeable critics on the church historical problems.

4) This also assumes that the church isn't really run by God. If the prophets really gave direct revelation to the church, then they would not change things that you proposed without getting confirmation from on high. BUT if they willy nilly started making these kinds of changes, just to appease the members, then it becomes obvious that it is merely men making the decisions and not God instructing them.

A good example is when the church sent out a survey to 3,400 church members in 1988 to see why temple attendance was declining compared to baptisms. The result was that two years later they changed the ceremony to make it more palatable to members. Sounds like men making the decisions by listening to the members and not from getting revelation from God.
http://www.mormonthink.com/templeweb.htm#whychanged

I agree with all your points.

I think it's a good idea to force the hand of these apostles of God because of the very points you bring up. It's all operated in secrecy for far too long.
Their response, either way, can be used to further exposure and either result becomes a win - win for those critics, and/or cultural Mormons, who have a difficult time with their families or environment while in the current LDS system set-up.

If enough advertising and publicity surrounds an appeal to a apostle/critic confrontation (not just at a Mormon chapel fireside presented by an apologist, or an exmormon conference) then it could reveal and expose the problem on a more public venue, whether or not the apostles accept or deny a confrontational debate only assists the exposure either way. It could take it out of the internet forums with apologists who have no genuine authority, and move it into an arena that brings things forward in exposure on a much larger scale with the men who actually have the authority (allegedly) to act on behalf of God.
If they decline by saying that God doesn't want them to engage, then they are exposing that they believe that God isn't interested in exposing truth - which runs contrary to Joseph Smith alleged purpose to restore a truth church of Jesus - and they could be pressed to have to come forward with reasons for this. In any case it would supply a great format for more exposure and is a win-win, moving it all into more public education.

I think this all needs to be exposed on a far more up-front format than the internet.

It reminds me of that precarious age when a child is taught that Santa Clause is largely made up in spite of the fact that there are some 'real' connections to a St. Nicholas character. There is no easy way to tell the child the truth. Exposing the child to the truth doesn't mean that he/she will stop celebrating Santa as a child or even as an adult. This knowledge doesn't have to stop adults or educated children from hanging stockings and putting up Santa pictures, (which can be a great social and cultural festivity) but it will defintely change the underlying way they approach other adults regarding the celebration of Santa. (I don't usually like making Santa Claus analogies but in this incident it was the most appropriate and relevant one I could come up with.)
the education would likely change the Mormon environment into a more open one.