Support NeoGAF

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Not that I know of.
But the LDS church is by and large the main reason scouting has survived. So it could be, and is, argued that they are in charge de facto.

I know a lot of higher-ups in the BSA through my affiliation participating in national scouting events across the nation. Although the LDS church is huge in scouting, there is very little say the church has in the organization. There are many other religions just as prominent in scouting as the LDS church is. The LDS church being the main reasons scouting has survived is far from the truth.

 

[ronito]

I know a lot of higher-ups in the BSA through my affiliation participating in national scouting events across the nation. Although the LDS church is huge in scouting, there is very little say the church has in the organization. There are many other religions just as prominent in scouting as the LDS church is. The LDS church being the main reasons scouting has survived is far from the truth.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), a longtime supporter of the Boy Scouts of America, teaches that homosexual activity is immoral.[91] The LDS Church is the largest single sponsor of Scouting units with over 30,000 units nationwide, which comprise about 13% of BSA's youth members.[6][92] The LDS Church has stated that it would withdraw from the Scouting program if it was ever compelled to accept homosexual Scout leaders.[6][93] This does not differ from the LDS Church policy of allowing "non practicing" self professed gay members to enjoy all the same rights and privileges as any other Church member.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies

And? Like I said, regardless of their numbers, they still don't have much influence over the direction of the scouting program as you think they do. And hardly survived because of their 13%.

 

[ronito]

And? Like I said, regardless of their numbers, they still don't have much influence over the direction of the scouting program as you think they do. And hardly survived because of their 13%.

Take it from a guy who's job it is to analyze corporate and organizational stats, 13% can be a huge percentage especially in national stats, especially when you readily admit that's your biggest concentration.

But if you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe Monson.

"I like the way the Church has coordinated and fully correlated the activities of the young men with the instruction we provide in the Aaronic Priesthood. We don't have a Scoutmaster competing against a deacons quorum adviser, or a priest quorum adviser competing against the Explorer post leader because we have blended them so that it's one boy and one troop, one Church and one program."

They are obviously two different orgs, so either the church has to change to fit or the BSA as no two orgs align perfectly. I'm willing to bet where the change was happening. Certainly there are methodists and a lot of other religions propping up the BSA. And the BSA might, MIGHT be able to survive if the LDS church left but it'd be a staggering blow.

I misspoke about saying they're in charge de facto but to ignore their influence is a little naive. We've already seen it with gays several times.

 

[Barrett2]

If you think of it like a publicly traded company, the LDS church might have the highest % "ownership" with just 13% membership.

Though, I am surprised its only 13%, thought it would be higher.

 

[elrechazado]

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies

Your best evidence is that 13% of scouts are mormon? Not incredibly convincing as a conspiracy still.

 

[Laurentius]

Take it from a guy who's job it is to analyze corporate and organizational stats, 13% can be a huge percentage especially in national stats, especially when you readily admit that's your biggest concentration.

But if you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe Monson.

"I like the way the Church has coordinated and fully correlated the activities of the young men with the instruction we provide in the Aaronic Priesthood. We don't have a Scoutmaster competing against a deacons quorum adviser, or a priest quorum adviser competing against the Explorer post leader because we have blended them so that it's one boy and one troop, one Church and one program."

They are obviously two different orgs, so either the church has to change to fit or the BSA as no two orgs align perfectly. I'm willing to bet where the change was happening. Certainly there are methodists and a lot of other religions propping up the BSA. And the BSA might, MIGHT be able to survive if the LDS church left but it'd be a staggering blow.

I misspoke about saying they're in charge de facto but to ignore their influence is a little naive. We've already seen it with gays several times.

What's the source for that quote?

As a kid growing up in the church I hated the scouting program. I hated how one of the requirements for being a "good Mormon boy" was to be involved in scouting. And the whole philosophy behind it being a calling in the church that intertwines with the priesthood leadership makes it worse, since 80% of the time it seems the leaders could care less about scouting. Or have no experience in it themselves.

Part of the reason I was literally inches from getting my Eagle Scout (had done the project and everything, just needed a few more badges) was that I was just sick of the whole program.

 

[ronito]

What's the source for that quote?

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articl...-partnership-continues-as-strong-as-ever.html

 

[Barrett2]

And the whole philosophy behind it being a calling in the church that intertwines with the priesthood leadership makes it worse, since 80% of the time it seems the leaders could care less about scouting. Or have no experience in it themselves.

This is so true. As a kid I enjoyed the camping stuff with scouting, I thought the Wilderness Survival, fishing, shooting, archery merit badges and stuff were awesome. But man, some of those merit badges were so tedious. In retrospect, for being such an active, upper middle class ward, we didn't really have many Eagle Scouts, which I assume was because the scout leaders didn't really give a damn about it.

 

[ronito]

For me it was completely the opposite.

My leaders were far more into scouts and basketball than the gospel. They could live 3 weeks out in the wilderness with nothing but saran wrap and a twisty-tie. We spent all our lessons talking about the next campout or the next basketball game. I hated scouts so I was a "project".

 

[PhoenixSFT]

It's weird, I work for the Scouts here, and our LDS scout leaders are really in to Scouting, but the higher-up priesthood don't do much to support them. To get something done, I usually have to skip the president and go straight to the Youth Leader, whereas in other areas the stake president is hardcore into Scouting.

 

[ctrayne]

For me it was completely the opposite.

My leaders were far more into scouts and basketball than the gospel. They could live 3 weeks out in the wilderness with nothing but saran wrap and a twisty-tie. We spent all our lessons talking about the next campout or the next basketball game. I hated scouts so I was a "project".

This was my experience too, while I was in the church. Colorado Mormon =/= Utah Mormon, for better or worse. I loved hiking but I absolutely hated scouts.

 

[ronito]

Just in time for conference.

Conference bingo!

http://pastehtml.com/view/b8q9blki1.html

 

[Hitokage]

I don't regret not getting my Eagle for a moment.

First Class is just what the name implies.

 

[ctrayne]

I don't regret not getting my Eagle for a moment.
First Class is just what the name implies.

Same here.

 

[balddemon]

Well, I don't regret getting my Eagle for a moment, either. It's one of the few things I'm legitimately proud of doing in my short life.

Eagles are badass, man.

 

[ronito]

I don't regret not getting my Eagle for a moment.

First Class is just what the name implies.

Well my feet ARE a little tender I guess.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

I'm glad I got my Eagle. In a period of a kid's life when they're extremely self-centered and lazy, it's nice to have something to achieve.

I was a Scout leader for a couple of years. I loved working with the kids.

 

[Barrett2]

I don't regret not getting my Eagle for a moment.

First Class is just what the name implies.

You fool! How do you expect to ever get a job without being an Eagle Scout!?

 

[AlteredBeast]

Reading through these threads, I definitely see a pattern of people who are still active and people who aren't.

 

[ronito]

Reading through these threads, I definitely see a pattern of people who are still active and people who aren't.

we should assign friends to those people who are less active!

 

[Jeff-DSA]

I think the pattern he means is that the inactive/ex folk are just in here mocking and teasing 99% of the time. The sarcasm gets a little tiresome, but that's a GAF issue, not necessarily just an issue in this thread.

 

[ronito]

I think the pattern he means is that the inactive/ex folk are just in here mocking and teasing 99% of the time. The sarcasm gets a little tiresome, but that's a GAF issue, not necessarily just an issue in this thread.

Oh come on. The Conference Bingo is great! Actually I used that even when I was 100% mormon....of course, look at what happened to me. But still it's great! You gotta laugh at it sometimes man. And you gotta admit, that garment interview with the guy was fascinating.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Just reading through life experiences and the way people viewed activities, membership, quorums, scouting etc as kids.

It seems like people who always had a bad attitude towards everything are almost unequivocally inactive. That or their parents were either too strict or their fathers were inactive/nonmembers.

People who went with the flow are generally active of kids I grew up with.

I disliked a lot of activities when I was a kid. Not so much scouting, but wearing a uniform. Not so much church, but the length of sitting down for 3 hours. I knew people were almost always well-meaning, and genuinely enjoyed studying the scriptures and such as I got older. I did not like seminary and did not graduate or even go very often. I always had a pretty good attitude, though.

Perhaps it was parenting style for me, though. My parents were incredibly laissez-faire and never directly told us what we were supposed to do. All they did was to set a good example and I am the youngest of a very large family. If I acted out, I didn't go to church, activities, mutual, etc.

I might not know if everything the church teaches is true or not, and at this point of my life, that is less important than feeling good about where I am at spiritually and family-wise.

There is a big divide amongst friends I had growing up who remained active and those who went inactive. A big part of what the church offers, in my opinion, is a good example of how to grow up and live life responsibly.

The inactives live with their girlfriends, smoke pot all day and work in lower-paying jobs. This is despite growing up in suburbia, with middle class households. They are constantly rebelling against something in their lives. Despite being adults, they seem to harbor some sort of juvenile resentment towards the church for trying to mold them into decent human beings.

The actives are married in the temple, appear genuinely happy with life, have gotten their degrees and work hard on surrounding themselves with successful people and relationships. Obviously they are not perfect, but they seem like they have their priorities in line and are productive members of society.

I believe in the principles of the church, the way it helps kids avoid the pratfalls of youth, while preparing them for the responsibilities of adulthood. My whole family is still mostly active, which is pretty amazing considering how odd and large my family is.

I know people can be awesome and moral and productive without even ever hearing of the church, much less be Christian or religious at all. But it is much easier to do so when you surround yourself and your kids with good, moral, productive people.

/Digression


Every time I read your guys' posts, though, I think of my buddies who strayed off the path more than just that they stopped believing in the church, it is like all the principles of decency and morality that they were taught were completely nullified because the church is no longer true or real to them. Living in Utah while going to college, every kid that wanted to rebel against his parents went full retard as they got multiple tattoos up and down arms and legs and necks, gauges in their ears and piercings all over. Good luck being at all a decent and productive member of society outside of the unseen service industry. Then they further their disgust for the church because of their own shortsightedness.

 

[ctrayne]

That or their parents were either too strict or their fathers were inactive/nonmembers.

Both, for me.

There is a big divide amongst friends I had growing up who remained active and those who went inactive. A big part of what the church offers, in my opinion, is a good example of how to grow up and live life responsibly.

The inactives live with their girlfriends, smoke pot all day and work in lower-paying jobs. This is despite growing up in suburbia, with middle class households. They are constantly rebelling against something in their lives. Despite being adults, they seem to harbor some sort of juvenile resentment towards the church for trying to mold them into decent human beings.

The actives are married in the temple, appear genuinely happy with life, have gotten their degrees and work hard on surrounding themselves with successful people and relationships. Obviously they are not perfect, but they seem like they have their priorities in line and are productive members of society.

I agree that the church can help people get and keep a good moral grounding and teach them some good life skills. But your line in the sand between the two groups is too aggressive. I know lots of LDS people who got married too young, had too many kids too soon, therefore have no money to finish school, work crappy jobs, and so on. I also know inactive people who have good lives and are nice people and are happy. You can find anecdotes for either side of the argument.

Every time I read your guys' posts, though, I think of my buddies who strayed off the path more than just that they stopped believing in the church, it is like all the principles of decency and morality that they were taught were completely nullified because the church is no longer true or real to them. Living in Utah while going to college, every kid that wanted to rebel against his parents went full retard as they got multiple tattoos up and down arms and legs and necks, gauges in their ears and piercings all over. Good luck being at all a decent and productive member of society outside of the unseen service industry. Then they further their disgust for the church because of their own shortsightedness.

It's true, there are idiotic people who go too far to the other side. I did not grow up in Utah but I live here now, so I did not see as much of this growing up. But those people you mention are just stupid, and their rebellion likely has little to do with principles or faith. They don't represent the decent people who aren't happy in the church, have questions about the church that go unanswered, etc. Some people genuinely have a crisis of faith. Don't mix up the two groups.

 

[ronito]

Every time I read your guys' posts, though, I think of my buddies who strayed off the path more than just that they stopped believing in the church, it is like all the principles of decency and morality that they were taught were completely nullified because the church is no longer true or real to them. Living in Utah while going to college, every kid that wanted to rebel against his parents went full retard as they got multiple tattoos up and down arms and legs and necks, gauges in their ears and piercings all over. Good luck being at all a decent and productive member of society outside of the unseen service industry. Then they further their disgust for the church because of their own shortsightedness.

Seems to me you just have shitty friends. I'm betting you're in Utah, most likely Utah county. Problem with that place is everyone is either VERY mormon and want you to know that they're VERY mormon or they're very NOT mormon and want you to know they're very NOT mormon.

I know plenty of mormons that are equally active and reprehensible. That doesn't make me think "Oh you're a mormon? You must be outwardly nice but rotten to the core." I used to believe like you did, "Tattoos? Live in girlfriend? You must be rotten to the core!"

After I left the church I realized that morality in hopes for reward is no morality at all and morality and religion are wholely independent of each other. Some of the best people I know have nothing to do with any religion, some even have tattoos. You can be completely moral without the church. I'm faithful to my wife, love my kids, deal honestly with people and all that. And I also *gasp* enjoy a mocha/glass of wine every once in a while.

I find it ironic. Mormons are always complaining that they're persecuted and judged, even go out and make commercials saying "And I'm a mormon." to be like "I'm just like you, see?!" At the same time they're like "Man, exmormons are just shortsighted, immoral and indecent." That's a scumbag steve move.

 

[Hitokage]

Ah, the great mormon pastime of finding ways to belittle people who left the church.

Actually, I never really rebelled growing up outside a general apathy toward schoolwork and not wanting to get up early. I even passed on what seemed to be a fairly neat extracurricular activity once because I'd miss mutual. It might be easy to characterize and dismiss me as being bitter, angry, rebellious, or snide from what I've written about the church, but that's just because there isn't much better to be said about it. The church doesn't encompass my life anymore, good times or bad, so there's infinitely more to my day that the few minutes I put into reading and responding to something like this. That's pretty much been the case since I stopped attending, unlike what some like to think.

Though now that I think about it, I remember getting most of the requirements for either Star or Life(meaning I got Star)... but I really don't remember which. I just thought I had a good line there with "First Class", and I know for certain I got that one. I also remember getting the church's additional Medal of Honor or whatever it was called. It's not that scouting was a total waste of time, it's just that the ranks and formal achievements don't mean anything to me anymore.

Mutual was a waste of time, though.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Seems to me you just have shitty friends. I'm betting you're in Utah, most likely Utah county. Problem with that place is everyone is either VERY mormon and want you to know that they're VERY mormon or they're very NOT mormon and want you to know they're very NOT mormon.

I know plenty of mormons that are equally active and reprehensible. That doesn't make me think "Oh you're a mormon? You must be outwardly nice but rotten to the core." I used to believe like you did, "Tattoos? Live in girlfriend? You must be rotten to the core!"

After I left the church I realized that morality in hopes for reward is no morality at all and morality and religion are wholely independent of each other. Some of the best people I know have nothing to do with any religion, some even have tattoos. You can be completely moral without the church. I'm faithful to my wife, love my kids, deal honestly with people and all that. And I also *gasp* enjoy a mocha/glass of wine every once in a while.

I find it ironic. Mormons are always complaining that they're persecuted and judged, even go out and make commercials saying "And I'm a mormon." to be like "I'm just like you, see?!" At the same time they're like "Man, exmormons are just shortsighted, immoral and indecent." That's a scumbag steve move.

I agree with much is what you say. I however do not live in Utah or in any Mormon stronghold, just that I am familiar with much is Utah and the prevailing sentiment.

The most moral people I know that are my age are not even Mormon, but we aren't talking about nonmormons in this thread, are we?

 

[JetBlackPanda]

Just in time for conference.

Conference bingo!

http://pastehtml.com/view/b8q9blki1.html

Amazing!

 

[Yoritomo]

Yay conference. Time for barbecue all weekend.

 

[drifter444]

I am swamped with homework

I'll be missing out.

 

[ronito]

2nd temple in Provo. Strange, my parents volunteer when the Timp temple is closed and they always say Provo is far less utilized. I read that Provo sold the church a bunch of land around the old tabernacle. I'm betting it'll probably be there.

 

[ronito]

So looks like I called it. The provo tabernacle will be converted to be the second provo temple.

Honestly, I'm sorta sad about that. The Provo tabernacle used to be a major pin in provo life and open to everyone. I remember having several concerts and non-church events in there. While I'm sure mormons are excited, it wont even be open to all mormons. I was hoping for a rebuilt tabernacle. Oh well.

As for the other temples they are:
Paris, France; Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo; Durban, South Africa; Barranquilla, Colombia and Star Valley, Wyoming

Sorta weird that only Provo and Star Valley are the new American temples.

 

[radios shipping overview]

I'm sad that they're not going to rebuild the tabernacle. I played in several concerts there and saw my siblings in others. The fact that there's going to be a temple right across the street from the city and county government buildings, at the heart of the city, is troubling (even if it's business as usual).

 

[tubster68]

So Jesus is from Missouri huh.. Ok.. ~slowly walks away~

 

[ronito]

So Jesus is from Missouri huh.. Ok.. ~slowly walks away~

Hey, it's Eden that's in Missouri.

Technically not much better, but still get it right.

 

[06nbarnhill]

So Jesus is from Missouri huh.. Ok.. ~slowly walks away~

I know......Moving to Missouri at the end of days is a real hangup for me when it comes to the church. (that and the fact that I really like dick)

 

[ronito]

Apparently, all you need is not love.

 

[Enojado]

This article summarizes a talk about the second coming that got some Mormons all up in a frenzy (I've only quoted part of it): http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52664839-78/packer-lds-god-church.html.csp

Interestingly, my mission president (I am a non-practicing Mormon who served a mission in Chile) said we would be around to witness the second coming. There are many members in the Mormon church that recieved Patriarchal blessings indicating they would be around for the second coming. Now, the Mormons get the statement that it isn't coming any time soon. Go figure . . .

Later in the morning, Packer, in his 100th address as an LDS general authority, said fears of a looming apocalypse are understandable, given society’s declining morals and ever-present temptations to sin.

The 87-year-old apostle vividly recalls his own fears for the future.

When he was 17, the Japanese launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Within a short time, the U.S. declared war on that Asian nation and joined the battles in Europe. He and many other religious young people thought perhaps this might be the end of the world prophesied in scripture.

"All at once our future was uncertain. We did not know what was ahead," said Packer, who delivered his sermon while sitting in his seat. "Would we live to get married and have a family?"

These days, young Mormons may have similar anxiety about the future, Packer said, quoting them as saying, "The end of the world is going to come before I get to where I should be."

To that, Packer declared, "Not so!"

He assured the youths that if they follow Mormon teachings and live its principles, they will be "watched over and protected."

These days, Mormons are more visible in the world and media than ever, LDS apostle L. Tom Perry said in the afternoon session, but there is still much misinformation about the church and its teachings.

Perry, who oversees the church’s Public Affairs department, urged members to take advantage of this "Mormon moment."

They should, he said, "be bold in [their] declarations of Jesus Christ," be a "righteous example" to the faith and its principles, and speak up about the church when asked.

The end is not near, senior LDS apostle Boyd K. Packer said Saturday.

Today’s youths can look forward to "getting married, having a family, seeing your children and grandchildren, maybe even great-grandchildren," Packer told more than 20,000 Mormons gathered in the giant LDS Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City.

 

[ronito]

This article summarizes a talk about the second coming that got some Mormons all up in a frenzy (I've only quoted part of it): http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52664839-78/packer-lds-god-church.html.csp

Interestingly, my mission president (I am a non-practicing Mormon who served a mission in Chile) said we would be around to witness the second coming. There are many members in the Mormon church that recieved Patriarchal blessings indicating they would be around for the second coming. Now, the Mormons get the statement that it isn't coming any time soon. Go figure . . .

Actually this is pretty big. I know some that are really confused as to Packer's talk. Frankly, Mormons tend to have a bit of "second coming lust" and they see everything as a possible sign. I personally had plenty of facebook posts from friends about "OMG, hurricanes! Earthquakes! Fires! Oil spills! Truly these are the end times!" Then to have Packer come out and say what he did they're really confused. I mean up until Benson and even the beginning of Hinckley it was still pretty much well communicated that the end of the world was always relatively close. I remember when after 9/11 Hinckley first stated that he didn't think the end of the world was near. I have several friends that have patriarchal blessings that they'll be alive during the second coming and they're really confused.

And of course the exmos don't know what to do. Packer says the world isn't ending soon? OMG! 2012 might be true after all!

 

[ronito]

Welp, I guess it's that time of year again.

Five presidential candidates appeared at the opening day of the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., on Friday, but the speech getting the most attention was one by a pastor from Dallas who introduced Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Every year in Washington, social conservatives from across the country gather for the summit, an event sponsored by the Family Research Council. In presidential years, the summit is a must-stop for GOP candidates.

Dr. Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church in Dallas was there to introduce his fellow Texan, but he was also there — as a pre-speech press release stated — to draw sharp contrast between Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"Those of us who are evangelical Christians are going to have a choice to make," he began.

The pastor said it's a choice between a candidate who is skilled in rhetoric or leadership — one who is a conservative out of convenience or one out of deep conviction.

"Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person, or do we want a candidate who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?" he said.

He didn't mention Romney by name, but it was clear he was talking about Romney and Romney's religion, Mormonism.

Perry then took the stage.

"I want to thank you for a rousing introduction," Perry said. "He knocked it out of the park, as we like to say."

Perry delivered a variation on his standard stump speech, but it was Jeffress who was making news. Talking to a group of reporters in the hallway, Jeffress was asked to clarify what he was saying about Romney. He said Romney isn't a Christian. On multiple occasions in that exchange, he called Mormonism a cult. Then, on CNN, he repeated himself.

"That's not some fanatical comment. That's been the historic position of evangelical Christianity. The southern Baptist convention, which is the largest protestant denomination in the world, has officially labeled Mormonism as a cult," he said.

The Perry campaign responded, saying Perry does not believe Mormonism is a cult.

Romney was not at the Values Voter Summit on Friday; he speaks Saturday. This audience has long been suspicious of Romney on social issues. He once supported abortion rights, but is now opposed to them. Many evangelicals simply don't believe him.

Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a prominent Romney supporter who was at the event Friday, said Romney has a story to tell about personal values and about his family and his time in public life.

"He lives the values that he talks about and exemplifies," he said, "and I think that is going to be clear to people who are at this meeting this week."

While all of this was playing out, another candidate was preparing to speak — Atlanta businessman Herman Cain. In recent weeks, Perry's poll numbers have fallen and Cain's have risen significantly. He talked about his new prominence in the field.

"You know, when you run for president and you move into the top tier, I'm just saying, you get this bull's-eye on your back," he said.

Cain is bracing himself for tougher scrutiny and attacks to come, both from his rival candidates and from the media — the kind of challenge Romney and Perry are already used to.

I love that, "Do you want a good person? Or a born again christian?"

 

[Laurentius]

Apparently, all you need is not love.

Here's a good post on that very talk:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/10/181st-semiannual-bowl-of-pap.html

Part way through he gets going on quite a few different tangents, but I think the most interesting parts are there at the start.

 

[ronito]

Here's a good post on that very talk:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/10/181st-semiannual-bowl-of-pap.html

Part way through he gets going on quite a few different tangents, but I think the most interesting parts are there at the start.

This is really sorta scatterbrained but really the dude has some very good points.

This section sums up why I found that talk so wrong

Watch President Monson's delivery of that second sentence, and see how derisively he says the word “love.”

It was delivered in a way meant to get a chuckle from the congregation, and chuckle they did. "All you need is love." How silly. How quaint. Ha ha ha.

But hold on; isn’t the line from that Beatles song simply a rephrasing of the great commandment of Christ? By golly, I think it is.

Matthew tells of a lawyer who tried to trip Jesus up by asking him to pick one commandment as more important than all the others. The idea was to trap Jesus into an admission that all the commandments were not of equal import.

Jesus responded by saying that actually, there are two great commandments, and all of Christianity now recognizes Jesus’ reply as embodying the very core of the gospel itself: We are to love God, and we are to love one another. Upon these two commandments, Jesus declared, hang ALL the law, and ALL the words of the prophets.

Sounds to me like Jesus was saying something very close to ALL you need is love.

 

[Barrett2]

Man, it continually baffles me when I realize how ignorant so many people are about basic LDS info. This morning I was listening to the Slate Political podcast. They are typically very smart, well informed, reasonable people. Today in their discussion about Mitt Romney and whether its ok to question his beliefs, one of them said something to the effect of Mormons facing all these fake accusations, like that they wear 'special underwear.' Then the three of them had a 30 second debate about whether Mormons did or did not wear such clothing.

I don't know, it struck me with a realization that for a lot of otherwise very well educated, informed people, Mormonism is still a huge mystery.

 

[Laurentius]

This is really sorta scatterbrained but really the dude has some very good points.

This section sums up why I found that talk so wrong

Yep, that was pretty much the section I was looking at as well. (Not exactly sure where the guy was going with all of the hippie and mind control stuff afterwards...)

I actually hadn't seen the talk until I read that article. I thought -- "Surely he must be exaggerating". When I saw how condescendingly Monson said the word "love", I could hardly believe it. Makes me sick to my stomach almost.

Been getting more and more disaffected from the church in the last few months. =( And this last conference certainly did not help that fact.

 

[ronito]

By Common Consent put up an article that I found interesting today about CES and the correlation committee.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/10/the-gospel-isnt-an-iq-test/

“You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott

Recently, I was involved in an online discussion regarding the usefulness of the Church Educational System, which was really about the usefulness of how we teach things in the church, which is, as you may know, a topic I think about. Part of the conversation involved speculation regarding how many people would leave the church if the bowdlerized version of church history that we currently receive stopped. To some degree, this is a moot point; the internet has rendered attempts to sanitize history for widespread internal consumption counter-productive. Certainly, there are umpteen thousand exit narratives online where ex-members express their sense of betrayal and frustration when they learn x, y, and z about the church (note: umpteen thousand is an exaggeration; there cannot really be more than a gajillion out there (note: I’m not trying to get you to go looking either; I’ve pretty much summed up every single one with this sentence here)).

Some people would argue that we won’t lose that many people if we start teaching history using the Richard Bushman model (or some such). What they are actually saying is we won’t lose many of the right people if we change our teaching model. Remember, we have all heard stories of people losing the church when the priesthood ban ended (but that was okay, because they were racists) or when polygamy ended (but that was okay because they were polygamists). I’ve even heard stories of people leaving the church over misspellings or over the introduction of the three hour block (those silly, silly apostates). That people will leave the church over just about any reason is a truism; the question we should be asking ourselves is “what sort of people are we trying to retain?”

I ask because, for all that I dislike the Church Education System model of teaching, I understand its purpose and I think it is a noble purpose. It strives to provide an inoffensive, generally palatable spiritual product for the masses. We are actually interested in retaining everyone in the church, even the people who think that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy or that Jesus drank grape juice because the Word of Wisdom is eternal in scope. So thinking that improving the rigor of our historical narrative or our exegesis isn’t really about our struggle for truth; it’s about our desire to reshape the church in our own image (at least partly).

While I may not have been floored when I discovered that Joseph translated out of a hat, it is possible that someone else could be. It is not, and should not, be our role to manufacture a crisis of faith on someone else’s behalf. I’d object to it at a youth conference; I see no reason to let it slide in Gospel Doctrine. Your role in Church Education is to invite the spirit. That’s about it.

Now you can have a discussion regarding whether the fried froth we are given in Church Education actually does this (I believe that it can and does), but you can’t deny that they are trying. The people in the CES (bless their little hearts) aren’t actively trying to destroy testimonies years down the road by repeating faith-promoting rumors that will be misremembered in someone’s exit story on youtube. They are trying to keep your children from having sex prior to marriage (and possibly to go on a mission). They have enough, with that on their plate, that we should cut them some slack if the frequent mangling of scripture and doctrine that happens in seminary and institutes worldwide is encountered in real life. Again, it isn’t as if you don’t do it all the time, yourself.

Which brings me back to my original point: the quality of the history or exegesis presented to and repeated by members of the church isn’t our problem; what we do with it is. It shouldn’t require a great work of art or moving homily to get you to repent; reflection on your daily choices should be sufficient. And the tendency to see our daily choices as the product of our superiority, rather than of our consumer or social preferences only adds to our pride. Which is what this is all really about, isn’t it?

So I get what they're getting at. "The CES education system isn't there to teach you about history and all that. It's there to get you to feel the spirit."

I've certainly heard this Church Education System as a "Pep talk" organization instead of "education" argument before. I understand. But, unsurprisingly to the TBMs here I'm sure, I just don't buy it.

Just a few days ago I was talking to a few of my active mormon friends about how bad-ass Joseph Smith was because he killed two guys that came in with the mob and they didn't even know that. While that was pretty common knowledge when I was a kid.

I get that if people heard about how Joseph Smith owned a liquor store or the banking issues or his polygamy, or the translating from a hat thing could cause a lot of people spiritual heart burn. But where do you draw the line between "pep talk" and "willful deception through omission"?

My father in law is one of those old school mormons who's family came over on the handcarts and he complains that the church today isn't anything like the church when he grew up, that people didn't know the doctrine and the history. I can see his point (though I'd argue his mormon church would be very different than his father's mormon church and so on).

I'm interested to see what active mormons think of this. I've asked my friends but I get wishy/washy answers and some of them don't wanna talk about it at all.

 

[Hitokage]

I've certainly heard this Church Education System as a "Pep talk" organization instead of "education" argument before. I understand. But, unsurprisingly to the TBMs here I'm sure, I just don't buy it.

Somebody's been spending time on a certain forum.

 

[bluemax]

Just reading through life experiences and the way people viewed activities, membership, quorums, scouting etc as kids.

It seems like people who always had a bad attitude towards everything are almost unequivocally inactive. That or their parents were either too strict or their fathers were inactive/nonmembers.

People who went with the flow are generally active of kids I grew up with.

I disliked a lot of activities when I was a kid. Not so much scouting, but wearing a uniform. Not so much church, but the length of sitting down for 3 hours. I knew people were almost always well-meaning, and genuinely enjoyed studying the scriptures and such as I got older. I did not like seminary and did not graduate or even go very often. I always had a pretty good attitude, though.

Perhaps it was parenting style for me, though. My parents were incredibly laissez-faire and never directly told us what we were supposed to do. All they did was to set a good example and I am the youngest of a very large family. If I acted out, I didn't go to church, activities, mutual, etc.

I might not know if everything the church teaches is true or not, and at this point of my life, that is less important than feeling good about where I am at spiritually and family-wise.

There is a big divide amongst friends I had growing up who remained active and those who went inactive. A big part of what the church offers, in my opinion, is a good example of how to grow up and live life responsibly.

The inactives live with their girlfriends, smoke pot all day and work in lower-paying jobs. This is despite growing up in suburbia, with middle class households. They are constantly rebelling against something in their lives. Despite being adults, they seem to harbor some sort of juvenile resentment towards the church for trying to mold them into decent human beings.

The actives are married in the temple, appear genuinely happy with life, have gotten their degrees and work hard on surrounding themselves with successful people and relationships. Obviously they are not perfect, but they seem like they have their priorities in line and are productive members of society.

I believe in the principles of the church, the way it helps kids avoid the pratfalls of youth, while preparing them for the responsibilities of adulthood. My whole family is still mostly active, which is pretty amazing considering how odd and large my family is.

I know people can be awesome and moral and productive without even ever hearing of the church, much less be Christian or religious at all. But it is much easier to do so when you surround yourself and your kids with good, moral, productive people.

/Digression


Every time I read your guys' posts, though, I think of my buddies who strayed off the path more than just that they stopped believing in the church, it is like all the principles of decency and morality that they were taught were completely nullified because the church is no longer true or real to them. Living in Utah while going to college, every kid that wanted to rebel against his parents went full retard as they got multiple tattoos up and down arms and legs and necks, gauges in their ears and piercings all over. Good luck being at all a decent and productive member of society outside of the unseen service industry. Then they further their disgust for the church because of their own shortsightedness.

I realize I'm months late in this, but this does not describe me and my exit from the church or how I've lived my life before or after.

This seems like some crazy Utah Mormon over generalization more than anything.

 

[Hitokage]

This seems like some crazy Utah Mormon over generalization more than anything.

Belittling people who leave and characterizing their reasons as trivial or some form of weakness is actually sadly typical.

 

[bluemax]

Belittling people who leave and characterizing their reasons as trivial or some form of weakness is actually sadly typical.

Oh of course, I saw plenty of it when I was in the church.