What the LDS Church could do about "uncorrolated" Mormons

In response to what the LDS Church might do to retain more members, particularly what have been termed "uncorrolated Mormons," I responded:

Eventually, if the LDS Church wishes to maintain a committed membership, it is simply going to have to change its positions and teachings on a multitude of issues. Stop condemning masturbation, period. Stop the overbroad condemnation of pornography, and recognize that it actually has beneficial uses. Admit that denial of the priesthood to blacks was an error of men, and not a doctrine from God. Admit that coerced polygyny was an error of men, and not a doctrine of God. Admit that the BoM may not be what it purports to be, even if it does contain the word of God and true teachings. Actively encourage members to fully consider church history, and concede the points that must be conceded. Abondon the condemnation of homosexuality, and allow God-sanctioned civil unions between committed gay couples. Accept that the law of tithing does NOT demand that people in difficult financial circumstances donate 10% of their income in order to be worthy to participate in temple ordinances. Give women true leadership positions in the church and seriously consider giving them priesthood ordinations. Stop branding people as apostates just because they voice their honest opinions which happen to contradict church leaders. End the cult of personality surrounding the 15 apostles. Get political on the things that really matter- hunger, poverty, slavery, war, disease, corporate greed and corruption, etc. Stop pressuring young, naive people to marry prematurely.


If I were the president of the LDS Church, I think those are just some of the things I would do. The church would likely lose some conservative members, but I believe its membership would explode overall because it would be able to reach the hearts of many more honest people out there who are wanting a church whose values are not so repulsive to secular humanism.

My Motivation As A Critic Of The LDS Church

The question was put:

"A critic is anyone who expresses a value judgement.

Informally, criticism is a common aspect of all human expression and need not necessarily imply skilled or accurate expressions of judgement. Critical judgements, good or bad, may be positive (in praise of an object of attention), negative (in dispraise), or balanced (weighing a combination of factors both for and against). Since all criticism must be regarded as having a purpose, a critic may also be definable by his or her specific motivation. At its simplest, and for whatever reason, a critic may have either constructive or destructive intent. My link

Granted, this forum has more "honest critics" than what I have seen in other forums and being rare are very welcomed. Yet, I continue to see "cheap shots" toward our sacred faith with "questions" disguised as "gotchas" or the elusive trail to the "nail in the coffin" for the Lord's Church.

As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

I only ask because I know of no one in the LDS Church who plays the role as a "critic" for other's beliefs and I completely don't understand the need to be one. I am open to understand."

To which I responded:

As a critic, I have no intention of destroying the LDS Church. I remain a member. I criticize the church because of the immeasurable pain many of its teachings have caused in my life (unnecessarily, it turns out, because those teachings were, in my view after study, pondering, and prayer, wrong). My hope is that I can be an instrument in helping to bring about corrections of erroneous teachings/doctrine so that future generations will not have to suffer what I have suffered. I realize that this change is not likely to happen during my lifetime, but I keep hope that it will happen one day, and when it does, a very heavy yoke of bondage will have been lifted off of people who want to keep their faith.

On God's Reason For Giving Us Commandments

The comment was made, that God give us commandments "because he requires obedience." That person also stated:

"Not everyone that says unto Jesus that he is their Lord will be saved. Jesus clearly says that you must keep the commandments. Matthew 7:21."


To which I responded:

That Jesus requires that we follow the commandments does not by itself reveal the reason behind giving them. One of my favorite LDS doctrines, that men are that they might have joy, reveals in my opinion, the reason God created us and gives us instructions- it is for our own happiness. Many conservative LDS use this doctrine as justification or support for LDS commandments/standards themselves (taking the position, for example, that no matter how difficult or ridiculous it may seem to follow a purported commandment, we should follow it anyway because we can be sure that following it will make us happier). I take a different approach- that we can use the doctrine as a tool for helping us to determine whether a purported commandment is genuine. If, given the evidence and logic/reason available, it appears that a purported commandment would have a greater tendency to make people miserable rather than happy, we can take it as a strong indication, or at least a clue, that the purported commandment probably is not genuine.

If I ever subscribed to the idea that God gives us commandments for their own sake, it was long before my adult memory. The very idea is repulsive to me, and if it is the case, then it seems we have a very capricious and egotistical god.

Reconciling The Old Testament God With Reality: Can God Learn?

The comment was made:

"I stole this from another thread, but I didn't want to muck up that thread with a different direction I wanted to take this.



This is breathtaking to me, although my first introduction to the possibility of a "learning God" was probably over 5 years ago in some forgotten thing I have read and it has stuck with me although until recently the knowledge has scared me (which is generally my first reaction to any revelation I get from God). But recently, I have learned some more things by experience and by precept that nuance this idea and well . . . ok, it still scares me.

I have come to realize that we must challenge God in order to progress. Or, at least, we must challenge "God". I don't know why this is a surprise to me since it is pivotal in the Adam and Eve portrayal.

One thing I have thought is that we have to remember that Satan wanted God's name and wanted to be worshipped as God. Therefore I think some of the most invidious deceptions we have to watch out for are not the ones that have "Satan" stamped clearly all over them, but the ones that have "God" stamped on them.

I think a very easily comprehensible example of this from our point of view in history is the racism and its consequences that were perpetrated in the world and of which the Church also partook of. Racism was fashioned from the beginning as a godly order. Of course, those who fight such a thing also realize that they are hearing God tell them to resist such things.

I always imagine President Kimball petitioning the Lord for the removal of the Priesthood Ban, and I always hear the story tell that President Kimball, not God, initiated the exchange/revelation/new reality. (I could be wrong on that.) The following is a completely fake conversation of course, but here's how I sometimes see it in my head.

Pres. Kimball: "We don't want to do this any more, and it's not right. Everyone should have the Priesthood."
God: "You're saying that you think that all men should be able to enjoy the priesthood and the consequences of that? And you don't want me to deny the Priesthood any more to people with black skin?"
Pres. Kimball: "That's what I'm saying. You know I'm right."
God: " 'Bout time."

Okay, my point isn't about racism and its consequences, whether world or church. That is just the most plain example that might resonate with the most people about how we once thought something was godly and now we realize it just isn't.

Anyway, I don't care what angle you take on this, but I would love to hear people's thoughts about struggling with God a la Jacob wrestling with the angel and Abraham arguing about Sodom, and I think I liked someone else's point in another thread that Abraham may have actually failed God's test when he tried to sacrifice Isaac.

Do we need to challenge God in order to reach our full potential as part of the assembly of the Firstborn? I may have more thoughts, but your turn first."

To which I responded:

I share a portion of the sentiments expressed above, in the sense that I do not believe God is omniscient in the absolute sense. Nor do I believe he needs to be in order to command my respect and reverence. For that matter, I think God probably has very few, if any absolute characteristics (i.e., absolute perfection, omnipotence, etc.). Somewhere along the line of the progression of human theology, it seems someone came up with the idea that God has to be absolutely omniscient, or else there would be no good reason to follow him and trust his judgment. I disagree. It is enough for me that God is much wiser than I am on all or almost all subjects. The more difficult question is determining whether a purported revelation/commandment/doctrine truly stems from God or is instead the creation of mankind. One thing that continues to amaze me is the obsession some people seem to have with needing to twist reality to be compatible with Biblical inerrancy. If the "true god" is one that ordered Moses to wipe out innocent women and children, then that is not the sort of being I would want to place my faith in. Rejecting Biblical inerrancy, of course, carries with it problems of its own, foremost of which is that it forces us to think and study more deeply and not have truth spoon-fed to us. But as between the quasi-comforts associated with thinking the Bible is inerrant (and for that matter, any LDS scripture), and the liberty of discerning truth without the chains of millenia-old prejudices and human errors, I'll take liberty over the comfort of a less-engaged brain. In my own view, based upon my life experience, one of the greatest lessons which religious zealots have usually not learned is this: revelation from god is necessarily hindered when it is subjected to the imperfections of the human mind; ignorance, fear, self-interest, and prejudices all combine to distort, filter, exaggerate, prevent, or water down the true message God would have us receive. For LDS, this should in theory be easy to accept- scriptures in the D&C instruct us that truth comes line upon line, precept upon precept, here a littler, and there a little, and that truth is less likely to be given when we are not prepared to receive/understand it (either because we have not been exposed to an idea or we have not devoted sufficient time to research and contemplate the subject matter). For this reason, I consider all purported revelations subject to scrutiny, regardless of their human source (prophets, scriptures, local leaders, etc.). I feel no need to demonstrate Biblical inerrancy by simply altering my view of God to make it fit stories which on their face reveal a spiteful, vengeful, capricious, and child-like god.

Link Between Condemnation of Sexually-Oriented Media and Unhappiness

This site has some thought-provoking insights. As I have said many times, I do not believe that sexual passion should be limitless, and there is great value in reasonably curbing our sexual expression to avoid causing harm. That said, it seems there are likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of LDS couples who needlessly suffer dischord in their relationships because of the overly-broad condemnation of both masturbation and sexually-oriented media.

http://www.iamanexmormon.com/cycle-of-guilt/

On Satan's Plans At The Council In Heaven

A poll asked the question:

"What is/was Satan's plan he brought to the council?
He would save us all by forced obedience (17 votes [42.50%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 42.50%
He would save us all by having no consequence for sin (7 votes [17.50%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 17.50%
He lied about saving us all, he wouldn't save anyone. (9 votes [22.50%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 22.50%
Other, please explain (7 votes [17.50%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 17.50%
How was Satan going to destroy our agency?
Through forced obedience (20 votes [50.00%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 50.00%
Through not having any consequences of choices and thus no experience of good or evil (7 votes [17.50%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 17.50%
Through general sins- tempting us to sin until we were bound tight in his chains (4 votes [10.00%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 10.00%
Other, please explain. (9 votes [22.50%] - View)"

To which I responded:

I chose the first two choices, based upon what I consider to be conventional LDS teaching on the subject. That said, I should add the following caveats:

1. I am not convinced that Satan exists, but I accept the possibility that he does. Though I am no expert on history, it seems to me that Satan is likely a man-made invention. Evil does not require a Satan to exist, and I believe that temptation will always exist independent of any Satan-like being. But it seems that the primary issue regarding Satan is not whether he exists, but rather, what effect his existence could rationally have on us. If he is able to force anything upon us (either by controlling us, our thoughts, or by wielding any physical power over nature or objects), then it seems that we have diminished responsibility for our choices. If, on the other hand, Satan is nothing but a cheerleader for evil, clapping and shouting silently beyond the veil every time we sin, then it seems he is irrelevant. For my part, I believe we will all inevitably have to make choices about how we live, and we will sometimes make good choices and sometimes make bad ones. I don't believe Satan, if he exists, has anything to do with it. We should not concern ourselves with what Satan does or doesn't want, but rather, we should concern ourselves with what is and is not moral based upon our conscience, logic, study, and reason.

2. The concept of salvation through forced obedience is fascinating, and in my view, begs the question: "What is forced obedience?" It seems there are two ways to force obedience- one is to physically control a person's actions. The other is to create a system of rewards and punishments which are so immediate, obvious, consistent, and penetrating that the mind is compelled to have only one rational choice in any given situation. One of the reasons that I reject the notion, of a vengeful God waiting in the wings to deal out punishments when we sin, is that it too closely resembles this second model of forced obedience. Another reason is that it conflicts the the notion of a wise, patient, and loving God who has enough self-worth not to feel personally offended when we ignorant mortals sin. As I have remarked before in a different way, agency depends in large part upon the uncertainty of the consequences of our choices.

3. Though Satan may have thought that forcing obedience would have saved us, he would have been wrong. My concept of "salvation" is not about merely saving someone from eternal damnation and punishment, but rather, the enlightenment of our souls through increased love and wisdom. Wisdom can only come about through grappling with uncertainty and learning to exercise faith when the reward is uncertain. Thus, forced obedience would have killed off our spiritual development by insulating us from the uncertainty of randomness.

On The Effect Of Pre-Marital Sex On The Likely Success Of The Relationship

An article stated:

"Couples who reserve sex for marriage enjoy greater stability and communication in their relationships, say researchers at Brigham Young University.

A new study from the Mormon college found that those couples who waited until marriage rated their relationship stability 22 percent higher than those who started having sex in the early part of their relationship. The relationship satisfaction was 20 percent higher for those who waited, the sexual quality of the relationship was 5 percent better, and communication was 12 percent better.

The study, published in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Family Psychology, involved 2,035 married individuals who participated in a popular online marital assessment called “RELATE.” From the assessment’s database, researchers selected a sample designed to match the demographics of the married American population. The extensive questionnaire included the question “When did you become sexual in this relationship?”

Couples that became sexually involved later in their relationship – but prior to marriage – reported benefits that were about half as strong as those who waited for marriage.

“Most research on the topic is focused on individuals’ experiences and not the timing within a relationship,” said lead study author Dean Busby, a professor at Brigham Young University’s School of Family Life.

The study was co-authored by BYU professors Jason Carroll and Brian Willoughby.

“There’s more to a relationship than sex, but we did find that those who waited longer were happier with the sexual aspect of their relationship,” Busby added. “I think it’s because they’ve learned to talk and have the skills to work with issues that come up.”

Sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin, who was not involved in the study, responded to its findings, saying that “couples who hit the honeymoon too early – that is, prioritize sex promptly at the outset of a relationship – often find their relationships underdeveloped when it comes to the qualities that make relationships stable and spouses reliable and trustworthy.” Regnerus is the author of Premarital Sex in America, a book forthcoming from Oxford University Press.

Because religious belief often plays a role for couples who choose to wait, Busby and his co-authors controlled for the influence of religious involvement in their analysis.

“Regardless of religiosity, waiting helps the relationship form better communication processes, and these help improve long-term stability and relationship satisfaction,” Busby said."

To which I responded:

I am not and never have been for sexual promiscuity. There seems to be a great deal of truth to the concept that the friendship aspect of a romantic relationship is more likely to grow deeper if the early stage of the relationship is not eclipsed by intercourse. I, of course, am no expert, and it also seems that there are a great number of couples who were sexual early on and still had a fulfilling lifelong relationship.

That being said, I believe that waiting until marriage to have sex is not without potential downsides, among them being the discovery by one or both partners, of sexual problems, only after they have entered into a committment which can induce a great deal of sadness and disappointment. On balance, it is probably best to wait for marriage for intercourse, but sexual issues should be discussed and explored in detail before the couple ties the knot. An erotophobic attitude which seems to thrive in puritannical religious circles can severely dampen a person's ability to have a healthy and fulfilling sexual relationship even within marriage.